Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 28

Dilshad Kamaludheen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Analysis of the sources:- 1 is just a database, no sigcov, 2 is only passing mention with match result, 3 is a repetition of 1, 4 again a database, 5 repetition of the 4th, 6 is match result, 7 is list of players, 8 mention only, 9 again passing mention, 10 match result again, 11 list of winners hence a database, 12 match result yet again, 13 same instance of match result passing mention, 14 says he got banned from participation, yet again only a passing mention, 15 again passing, 16 a database entry, not sure how did it came here, but it did. There is no instance of indepth in sourcing, no significant coverage, keep votes fail to address the bad sources available for him. Moreover he does not even touch WP:NBAD from a long long way. Clear cut deletion candidate.

Considering above, this article failed WP:NBAD, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I therefore object the closure of this afd. Thankyou. zoglophie 15:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD, and have already had a discussion with zoglophie here, where I advised them to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to say to your insults for me. Now please let the reviewers decide. Thankyou. zoglophie 16:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - No Consensus was the best conclusion by the closer even in the absence of extended argument, and the extended argument is further evidence of the lack of consensus. This appears to be a case where the appellant thinks that length of argument is strength of argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No error by the closer was alleged here. No consensus was both a possible result from that discussion and the best result from that discussion. I might have agreed with the nominator had I participated in that discussion, but it didn't sway consensus in the actual discussion. Try again in a few months. SportingFlyer T·C 18:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  many a times discussions go to second relist. Is relisting not an option here? Last year some of my nominations actually reached the furthest, ultimately resulting in delete. zoglophie 18:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is an option but you don't want to keep relisting things if you don't have to, and there was more than enough discussion that closing was possible. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there clearly is not consensus to delete. Only one "delete" vote outside of the nominator and that was a generic "fails GNG" vote with no further explanation. The "keep" side presented sources which some in the discussion considered to be passing. Appellant also needs reminded that DRV is not the place to relitigate an AFD. Frank Anchor 18:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was no consensus for deletion, if nothing else the fact that only one person other than the nominator supported deletion means the discussion can't reasonably be closed as Delete. If the only contributions to the debate were the nomination and Sportsfan 1234's cursory comment, the debate would have been closed as soft delete or no consensus. While there was disagreement over whether the sources provided demonstrate notability, this is a legitimate argument grounded in the notability guidelines, and it's not for the closer to close based on their own analysis of the sources. Hut 8.5 17:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This is a relitigation of the AfD itself, not a valid DRV. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse I’m on the fence between endorsing NC or voting overturn to keep, but both have the same end result. Not even close to having consensus to delete, considering it was just the nom and one other vote against a few keep votes that provided sources with varying levels of notability. The only user who felt specific sources were not good enough was the nominator who severely bludgeoned the process and wants to relitigate the AFD here. Carson Wentz (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  looks to me people are concerned more about me arguing the sources are not good enough instead of the sources actually not being good enough for the player. And spamming the Afd with dozen sources failing WP:GNG, WP:NBAD, WP:SIGCOV doesn't mean the subject is notable, which the creator did and caused apparent disruption. One other keep vote didn't even presented sources to prove his point. I'm not expecting much at the moment from here actually, I will happily accept the review and come back in future. zoglophie 06:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV is not the place for you to argue the sources are not good enough despite your multiple attempts to argue this point here. You made your case on the AFD. Consensus disagreed. Its time to move on. Carson Wentz (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Length of argument is not the same as strength of argument at DRV either. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Carrim Alli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this discussion as delete, which has been challenged on my talk page here, so I'm bringing this to DRV for further discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This could not have been closed any other way. SportingFlyer T·C 14:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the right assessment by the closer based on the input from the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• CommenttoUser:Ritchie333 - Will contentious editors get the idea that AFDs that you close will have DRV as AFD round 2? If you think that you made the right closure, can you at least let the dissatisfied editor do the work of filing the DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, as the "contentious editor" in question, I probably wouldn't have brought this to DRV. Park3r (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Despite the lone keep vote adding several sources to the article, nobody else voiced an opinion to keep the article in the 18 days between this vote and the AFD's closure. In addition, many of these sources were scrutinized during the process. Frank Anchor 18:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I added 15 sources to the AFD, all from WP:RS and argued that the subject possibly met WP:GNG. It was meant to be a top-level comment before another editor indented it and made it a response to the first delete vote. The final relisting asked for sources to be examined. One of the post-relisting votes was a very dubious delete with no rationale, which another editor addressed on the voter's talk page[1], and the other was an assessment of 6 sources (out of 15). Among the sources were two academic articles that referenced the murder that were not addressed, nor was my point about it meeting WP:GNG, rather than WP:EVENT. Do I believe the article should be kept? I don't know, but I do believe the AFD was inadvertently cut short because of a single challenged keep vote, post-relisting. Closer offered to draftify the article but that would still leave the sourcing unaddressed and open it to further AfD challenges. Park3r (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC while the deletes had the numbers, the argumentation was quite poor and misstated or misapplied e.g. WP:ROUTINE. I grant that a further relisting would not have helped, but I do expect the closing admin to be familiar enough to detect and deprecate a WP:VAGUEWAVE posing as a rationale. Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also: Murders of non-notable people are almost never notable. is a ridiculous statement. Just looking at what comes up first when I search "Murder of" includes only John Lennon in the top 10. Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd are there, as is Laci Peterson. Sure, in sheer numbers, most murders of NN people aren't themselves N... but that's a non sequitur, because we're talking about a specific instance of alleged national prominence. Jclemens (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse not a great discussion, and I'd prefer some more analysis of Park3r's sources, but the participants didn't think they were enough to overcome the arguments for deletion and I can see why. The idea behind pages like WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS is that while some subjects like grisly murders generate lots of short term media coverage, we shouldn't have an article on them unless they have lasting significance as well. The fact that sources exist, or even that the subject passes the GNG, isn't enough to overcome this. Park3r wrote that the subject was covered over multiple years in RS, but that seems to mean that there is contemporary coverage of the murder itself (in 2004), contemporary coverage of the trial (in 2007) and contemporary coverage of the overturning of the convictions (in 2009). That doesn't in itself indicate lasting significance. There is only one source cited which was published after 2009 (this one). Hut 8.5 17:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't consider that continuing coverage? I suppose we should delete September 11 attacks since Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks isn't enduring coverage of the attacks themselves? Hyperbole, of course, but really: If an event hits the press multiple times for connected but separate reasons, that's textbook ongoing coverage. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Man on trial for horrible murder" makes the news for exactly the same reasons as "man horribly murdered" does. We're an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper and we are supposed to have different standards. The 9/11 comparison is silly, 9/11 has huge cultural resonance and will continue to do so for decades (perhaps centuries), and anybody writing a history of the United States in the early 21st century will probably have to discuss it in some detail. If on the other hand the coverage of 9/11 after the event was largely limited to news stories about legal proceedings against the perpetrators, and the coverage almost entirely stopped in 2006, then it might be comparable to this situation. Hut 8.5 17:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify: people are killed in horrible ways in South Africa fairly routinely and their murders barely crack a mention in the media (I know a woman from the same town as Alli who was killed at home, had her fingers chopped off before being stabbed, and her death only made the local (suburban) paper, and I've had a relative tortured with a hammer, before being shot, and that didn't get any coverage). Looking at Boksburg explosion you can see how even 41+ people being burned to death due to criminal negligence doesn’t get a lot of ongoing coverage in South Africa. Carrim Alli’s death was gruesome, but that would not have made it newsworthy in itself (otherwise we’d have an article about every necklacing victim), rather the fact that he was murdered for dealing with corruption at the highest levels of the police that made it newsworthy (see also: Murder of Babita Deokaran). That’s also why it made it into the two journal articles, including the one about whistleblower protections published in 2022, indicating a degree of WP:LASTING effect. It’s actually very rare for the alleged murderers to be apprehended, for a case to go to trial and for the SA media to cover a case like this at all, let alone over a long period. Park3r (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The community had a chance to evaluate Park3r's sources, and evidently found them insufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – the idea that events require temporally and geographically broad coverage to be notable is well supported by WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, and while reasonable minds can disagree about where precisely to draw that line, the editors who participated in this AfD pretty clearly reached a consensus to delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus based on a lack of consensus of participants and weight of guideline/policy based arguments. An analysis of the !votes (ignoring VAGUEWAVE !votes) boils down to three issues: (a) whether Park3r sourcing meets GNG, (b) whether news reports are considered PRIMARY or SECONDARY sources, and (c) whether there was SUSTAINED coverage. There was no consensus on either (b) or (c) with Thebiguglyalien and Park3r disagreeing on how to interpret guidelines. If I were the closer I would have given Park3r a slight edge based on my own understanding of those guidelines - newspapers are not always PRIMARY sources and coverage over several years is SUSTAINED. Also (a) was not exhausted - although the analysis by Karnataka was not substantially challenged, Park3r pointed out that only 6 of the 15 sources were analysed, excluding "academic" sources. There was no consensus at this AfD. Arguments were not completed/exhausted. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alim Industries Limited (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this discussion as no consensus, which has been challenged on my talk page here, so I'm bringing this to DRV for further discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I'd be frustrated if I had !voted to delete because this was almost a delete, but alas there were sources, whether those sources passed NCORP were discussed extensively, and the drive-by delete !voters added nothing given the discussion that had already taken place. @Ritchie333:, in my opinion at least, please don't open up DRVs for your own closes, especially considering the petitioner had said they wouldn't take it any further. Even if this gets overturned it's clear you know what you're doing and I believe it's on those wanting a different result to take things here in any non-edge case. SportingFlyer T·C 14:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - No Consensus is a valid conclusion by the closer. Also, when editors argue as much as happened here, that is further evidence that there isn't a consensus. The appellant can renominate after a reasonable period of time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your using a legal term "appellant" which is really unsuitable here, as most people don't understand what it is, and yet your not taking into effect the quality of the arguments nor the policy itself in the Afd discussion. Your assuming because there is lots of discussion, there must be no consensus? Does the quality of the discussion not matter, since the same kind of arguments have made numerous times in the past and been shown to be fallacious. It like the Afd is almost standalone in own wee world and nothing that came before matters. You see the same kind of keep !votes been made all the time, and while a lot of them have been comprehensively rejected in the past as being fallacious, they seem to be given new weight. scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There was no sources on that article that passed WP:NCORP with an admin that choose wilfully to ignore that last two delete !votes, when the delete argument was already made, on a completly generic farm implement manufacturer, of type where there is millions of them. What is particularly egregious is the fact that Highking had to take this to DRV, who is a specialist in this area and a bellweather, yet that knowledge is completely ignored for two keeps !votes, one who was new to Afd editor, whose has made a whole series of mistakes over the last month and who up until about 4-6 weeks ago, hadn't read WP:NCORP and the editor creator and that is no consensus. I can't understand it. Overturn to delete scope_creep^Talk 07:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete I see a lengthy but inconclusive (neither party convinced the other one) discussion on the suitability of sources, and then several delete !voters that came after it. In this situation it can be assumed that the latecomers read the discussion and agreed that the sources are not suitable, and saw no need to restate the same arguments that were already discussed above. This thus falls back to the strong numerical majority to delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus was a viable option for the closer. The two late delete voters did nothing to add to the “delete” argument. Frank Anchor 01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They added nothing other than their numbers, true, but in doing so didn't they show that the delete argument was found to be more convincing and thus should be given more weight? I acknowledge that this viewpoint doesn't match the typical way discussions are closed on Wikipedia, but I can't think of any refutation to it and none has been provided.

  By the same argument, doesn't your comment add nothing to the "endorse" argument, since it basically restates SportingFlyer's comment above? Evidently you think it adds something, or you wouldn't have commented. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, this is completely different. In that I added a similar viewpoint to SF, but there are differences between our arguments. Unlike the delete arguments that just say “fails NCORP” or “per nom” with zero explanation as to why. Frank Anchor 02:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep The delete side failed to even assert that both NCORP and GNG were failed. Per N, if either one is passed, an article is notable, so a "fails NCORP" is not a valid deletion argument absent an assertion that GNG is failed as well. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real. Have you read the Afd? It states it in the opening !vote: I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Then I state it further on. If the two editor's had read the policies they would have known what it was about. It was a company, so only WP:NCORP applies and that has been consensus since about 2017, and that is an assumption made by everybody when they take part in a company Afd, or the sorted company Afd list, unless its an inexperienced editor who doesn't know what it is, like this for example. The editors who were there knew that NCORP applied because that is what the experience of hundreds of previous Afd's showed. Is that all experience somehow to be suspended because it wasn't stated as a textual statement in the rationale. Everybody knew that it was NCORP being discussed. Again on here, it seem come back to this, about being its own wee bubble, as though the rest of the Afd history, the 1000's that i've taken part in the last decade, and other folk who specialise in that area, somehow don't exist. Is it contingent on us to tell new editors what the policies are? No, I don't expect to go to Afd and spout boilerplate as though I'm a trainer, nor expect to address arguments that have been comprehensively debunked and are specifically due to NCORP being rewritten to address in the first place. You seem to saying that is everybody's function. It is not, by any measure. The whole thing is moot anyway, since what is posted to Afd is a mere fraction on what needs to be posted. Most of the junk is never addressed and the battle for quality is lost. Its not being fixed in here, because there is no consistency. scope_creep^Talk 19:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NCORP applies just fine, but it's just another path to notability if the GNG isn't met. Any topic that meets GNG is notable, regardless of what SNGs it does or does not fail. Don't like it? Amend N so it no longer says It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right (and NCORP is listed there as "Organizations and companies"). The fact that everyone has been applying NCORP wrong for ~6 years isn't my problem, but it might be a good argument to go and undo some of the deletions of GNG-meeting organizations. And the battle for quality is never won by deleting articles, but rather improving them. An applied eugenics approach to articles is not a helpful or productive approach, because it alienates good editors and does nothing to stem the tide of even worse articles being created every day. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a company can pass either GNG or NCORP, that means that the NCORP guideline never applies and is entirely dead letter, and that it can be deleted with no consequence, because all companies that pass NCORP automatically pass GNG. What NCORP does is explain how the general notability criteria are to be interpreted as much stricter (and in which way) for companies. Please read WP:SNG: SNGs also serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. ... SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the ... strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. (emphasis mine), and WP:ORGCRIT: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. .... NCORP is simply a reiteration of GNG applied to companies with an extra layer of strictness to avoid abuse by interested actors, in order to mitigate the risk coming from such activity, with an extra layer of redundancy. NCORP is not an alternative path to notability like other SNGs. NCORP is different from other SNGs. It has a protective role. It has not been applied wrong for ~6 years.—Alalch E. 16:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your opinion. If you want Wikipedia guidelines to reflect that opinion--which I'm not disparaging nor disputing that many people hold--you need to change N. An SNG does not--can not--change the GNG, which is contained in N, and is the overarching guideline that enables SNGs to exist as anything beyond essays in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NCORP the intention of its "stronger emphasis on quality of the sources [is] to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals". Thus, common sense would say the independence requirements should not be applied in a way which disqualifies sources that don't reflect such gaming.

The interpretation advanced by HighKing in the AfD was that when a reporter sources information on a company's activities from the company, then even if the article is independent reporting as a whole it nevertheless constitutes non-independent coverage. That's inconsistent with the WP:NCORP's stated intention. And it's not clearly provided for by the text of WP:ORGCRIT. Without that argument the objections raised by the delete voters lose a lot of their force. Oblivy (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what was actually said, that certainly isn't it. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse or overturn to keep The organization has notability as a small domestic agricultural products producer that the government and NGO's recognize as a bulwark against imported tool makers. I was of the opinion the nomination was wrongly brought (because of the patent lack of WP:BEFORE), and I expanded it and provided sources. It's not just a self-promo project or "so what, it's just a business" situation.

@HighKing objected to one of the sources for reasons I think reflect a non-obvious reading of WP:NCORP, that an article which is independently written can't be independent to the extent it relies on information from the company. When I pushed back, @Scope creep piled on. I don't think I'm thin-skinned, but got to be too much. Saying "I give up" reflected a situation where two highly invested editors were telling me I was wrong and I wasn't going to convince them otherwise. I never changed my keep vote, but as @Ritchie333 surmised I had other things I could work on.

The project benefits from these articles because it should answer questions about organizations that the public may want to know about (as opposed to orgs that just want people to know about them). Although coverage is thin there is enough sourcing to show notability, and common sense should prevail. Oblivy (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGIND requires two types of "Independence". The one you're referring to is one half - independence of the author of functional independence. You also need to show that the sourcing contains "Independent Content" or intellectual independence. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete per Pppery.—Alalch E. 16:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete (edited) At DRV we're don't rehash AfD arguments but examine the actual close. It is difficult for me to impartially evaluate the close seeing as how I was a participant. Nevertheless I'll try. As an aside, I questioned Richie's close on his Talk page in order to understand his reasoning so that I could perhaps address any deficiencies in future AfDs. I was dismayed when my argument was dismissed as "personal opinion" without being provided any further detail. The fact that Richie brought this to DRV himself is an indication that perhaps this close wasn't good.

WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS says Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. The fact that Richie dismissed by guidelines-based argument for deletion as "personal opinion" is, in my opinion, the primary reason why consensus was misinterpreted. Another editor supported this reasoning and I can only assume this was dismissed also as merely supporting a personal opinion.

WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS also says consensus is determined by looking at strength of argument. None of the Keep arguments were based on NCORP guidelines and even here, some of the Keep !voters are repeating arguments which are flawed, are misinterpreted, or do not feature in AfD/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.

This AfD really boils down to evaluating consensus. The closer determined that the weight of Keep arguments was enough for "No Consensus". While I might not agree with the reasons provided, this wasn't an egregious close especially given the lack of overall *engaged* participation. I wouldn't have brought it here, its a waste of time. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - this discussion seems to further highlight the lack of consensus. I tried searching in Bengali for more sources and probably would have voted to keep. - Indefensible (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or overturn. I'm usually inclined to endorse closures where I read the consensus as more closely aligned with one outcome but the close is also plausible or possible, and this discussion can be considered that, however I believe the extent of downweighting for the pre-relist delete !votes is excessive in this case. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]