Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 December 20

:{{DRV links|List of FIFA World Cup stadiums|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA World Cup stadiums (2nd nomination)|article=}}

I fail to see why this got closed without allowing it to run, I believe I have a legitimate case against this article. Previous AfD has multitude of floors in my opinion and that's why I want this article to go through AfD again. Govvy (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

::As closing admin in both instances, the first AfD was closed with an overwhelming consensus that the it was a notable list. Govvy was the only editor out of more than a dozen who felt it was not notable. I closed the second nomination on the basis that the first nomination was only five months ago, the consensus was absolutely clear and absolutely nothing has changed that could lead to a change in consensus. There is absolutely no need to go through such a bureaucratic process so soon again without any indication that there would be a change of opinion. Fenix down (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• endorse Probably a different admin should have speedied it (just on general principles, clear WP:INVOLVED doesn't apply). But yeah, such a renom is probably disruptive. Wait another year (or just give up)--consensus isn't going to change that much this fast. Hobit (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse Technically this should be an overturn. The close doesn't fall under any of the categories found on WP:SKCRIT, and technically neither did the first close (should have been a snow close, not a speedy keep.) That being said, this AfD seems to me to be a complete waste of time - it was snow kept less than six months ago, almost unanimously, and at a decently attended AfD. I don't see a different outcome happening here, either - my preferred outcome would actually be a WP:IAR result which keeps this new AfD speedily kept or just ignored entirely, but technically an overturn is the correct result if we follow the rules. SportingFlyer talk 04:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse this was nominated for deletion five months ago with the same rationale and overwhelmingly kept, the nomination was very premature. Hut 8.5 07:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse for the precisely same reason as SportingFlyer. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Yes, it was speedy kept 5 months previously, and it's very likely we'd get the same result here. But, admins should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Speedy closing a discussion after 8 minutes, when you closed the last one on the same topic, isn't cool. This is a long way from abuse or misuse of the mop, but the general rule stated in WP:TOOLMISUSE is, Even when use of the tools appears reasonable, if doubt exists it is better to ask another independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action. This should have been left to run. If another admin came along and speedy closed it, that would have been more defensible. And, if it ran for a week, or even just long enough to declare another legitimate WP:SNOW closure, what harm would that have done? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

::*Comment - can you please explain how I am not independent here, as that seems to be the crux of your argument. I was completely uninvolved in the discussion offering no personal opinion on closing, simply performing a basic administrative action to recognise the overwhelming consensus agreed. I have not edited the article other than to recently move it to a clear list title in keeping with the original discussion. I'm confused by your comments, if this is a question of involvement I'm just not seeing it. If this is a question of running another AfD simply for the sake of it despite the current consensus, that seems to me to be needlessly bureaucratic, which WP is not. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

::::You closed the first AfD. As I said, the standard we're aiming for is avoid even the appearance of impropriety. That's a higher bar than, my actions can be justified. By opening the second AfD, the nom is saying, The first AfD came to the wrong conclusion. By speedy closing it, you're saying, I'm not going to even give you the chance to argue that my prior decision was wrong. If the 2nd AfD really was that egregious, somebody else would have come along and speedy closed it. And, if not, then it would have run for a week, and probably ended up with the same result. So what? The alternative is we're here for a week, and probably back at AfD for another week after that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Unfortunately, there was a procedural error on the first AFD, in that it was closed as Speedy Keep and should have been closed as Snow Keep. Therefore the nominator has some justification in being a jerk about it. Just to shut the nominator up, I suggest that the result be:

:Overturn and Relist with a required run of 7 days, but with a warning to the nominator that, if this results in a Keep, they really will get a Topic-Ban and Block. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

:*Comment - this seems to be a case of semantics to me, the original close of "speedy" was meant to reflect the fact that the consensus was so overwhelming the afd did not need to run for 7 days. If we accept this was actually a "snow" close, surely this just underlines the consensus achieved. Why on earth would we then tolerate the sole dissenting editor another AfD only 5 months later? Please see my comments above about what WP is not. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

:*Comment I don't understands Robert McClenon's response, there is no reason what so ever to request I get a topic ban over one issue. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

:**Robert McClenon is a notorious drama board lunkhead and IMO it would be a net benefit to Wikipedia if he were to receive the Tarage treatment. In this case he's badly jumping the gun in proposing a block. He's not completely in the wrong, though. There is a policy, WP:IDHT (I Didn't Hear That) that may become applicable in the future. The first AfD was nearly unanimously keep, with you being the only dissenter. The second one, whether the early close is determined to be appropriate or not, was heading the same way. If (when) it is closed as keep, should you continue advocating for the article's deletion against clear community consensus, it could become Disruptive and eventually lead to blocks. Of course, it is bad faith to assume you'd do that - I'm just attempting to clarify the position he was taking. Seth Kellerman (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

:*Excuse me? Why would we determine a block based on the outcome of an AfD? I suggest you strike your personal attacks and vindictive threats against the nominator. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist Close was totally out of process. It was neither a swift nomination nor 100% same as the earlier one. Nothing will be lost in 7 days. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

:*Comment - This argument seems to be "process for process's sake". As noted earlier, please see my comments above on what WP is not. I'm happy for this to go back to AfD if that is what people want but I'm not seeing any arguments here that indicate there is a reasonable chance of a different outcome from the first AfD. If this is to be successful, people need to indicate why the original (not to mention very recent and current) consensus is likely to have been wrong. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist: the AfD does not fall under any of the six speedy keep criteria, nor is it a violation of common sense (six months is enough time before re-nominating a page for AfD). Re-open the AfD for either seven days or until a WP:SNOW close is appropriate (whichever comes first). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Five months is a long time after the first AfD and there's no need for rush to stop legitimate process. There's a whole host of reasons why we leave AfDs to run seven days instead of 24 hours. If there were a consensus to keep the article, the nominator could not have deleted it no matter how so he wished and had it resulted in deletion that's not without precedent. A lot of articles were deleted after AfD which was third or fourth instance for them . –Ammarpad (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I feel the community would be better served by allowing the AfD to run for at least a few days. Consensus can change, and if it goes the same way as the first AfD I don't think there will be much resistance to a snow-close. Seth Kellerman (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Freeduc-cd|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeduc-cd (2nd nomination)|article=}}

No clear consensus and little participation after a week. Suggest relisting discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist to obtain a proper consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'm confused. The AfD was closed as delete. You nominated it for deletion, isn't that the result you wanted? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, but I feel that I am responsible as an editor to ensure the deletion process is properly followed, I did this because if I did not do it, I would feel guilty akin to a sense of WP:ILIKEIT. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• FWIW, I did a little searching. I'm having trouble with the AfD nom statement, could not find any hint of reliable sourced coverage anywhere, not even passing mentions in the specialized press, because I found plenty. The only solid WP:RS I found was Knoppix Hacks{{Cite web |title=Knoppix Hacks |author= |work=Google Books |date= |access-date=24 December 2018 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=YaSWlOOxshsC&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=Freeduc-cd&source=bl&ots=rJcph_l0Tm&sig=lnylMUsGK7qC8joTYNhRwt6-6Kg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8ooSi6LjfAhXyYN8KHaGdAww4ChDoATABegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=Freeduc-cd&f=false}}, but there's plenty of other passing mentions, etc{{Cite web |title=Freeduc {{!}} ArchiveOS |author= |work=archiveos.org |date= |access-date=24 December 2018 |url= https://archiveos.org/freeduc/}}{{Cite web |title=Alchem.org |last=Pansanel |first=Jerome |work=alchem.org |date= |access-date=24 December 2018 |url= http://www.alchem.org/spip.php?article12}}. It's worth noting that this is a French distro, so searching the English-language sources may not be the best way to find everything. All that being said, it seems like it's just one of zillions of non-notable linux distros. I'm inclined to say this should be added to List of Linux distributions and then redirected there, but the inclusion criteria of List of Linux distributions requires that entries be notable, and this fails that. On a more procedural note, endorse because objecting to a decision that went in accord with your nomination is just plain wikiwonkery. A relist would have been reasonable. Closing as soft-delete might have been better, but the actual close was fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse but I'm not sure whether WP:REFUND should be available. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. This was a sound closure. Not every AFD needs 10 participants. ℯxplicit 01:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:{{DRV links|Lilblue Linux|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilblue Linux|article=}}

Closed as redirect before consensus could be reached, redirection was only suggested by one editor, and the target doesn't seem appropriate IMO. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse non-notable software, redirect target is appropriate.Polyamorph (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Think again, this particular distribution is not mentioned at the target, and thus, even if people search for it, it won't the slightest be helpful. Also, by that logic, we may as well create [https://distrowatch.com/search.php?ostype=All&category=All&origin=All&basedon=All¬basedon=None&desktop=All&architecture=All&package=All&rolling=All&isosize=All&netinstall=All&language=All&defaultinit=All&status=All#simple 500+] redirects to the same article, none of which would be appropriate or helpful. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Do you have sources that you think meet WP:N? If not, do you have a better suggestion for a redirect target? Hobit (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• I stand by my nomination to delete it, and no, there does not seem to be an appropriate redirect target. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• endorse and close I understand why the nom came here, but we appear to have hit the right place. The redirect maybe shouldn't have happened, but it isn't unreasonable IMO. Could bring it to WP:RfD I suppose. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Ok, I agree that A) having a redirect to an article where the topic isn't mentioned doesn't make a lot of sense. And B) I agree that one !vote probably doesn't justify the redirection. I'm fine with a relist. Hobit (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse and close Nothing wrong with the reading of consensus or redirect result here. SportingFlyer talk 04:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• {{ping|SportingFlyer|Hobit}} Please, once again, reconsider whether it is appropriate to have a redirect pointing to somewhere that does not help any readers searching for the term, (and should not be mentioned per WP:WEIGHT anyway). I used to be a frequent poster at WP:RFD and redirects like these where there is no mention of the topic at the target article are almost always unanimously deleted, regardless of whether it is notable or not (otherwise the topic is added to the article if it is worth mentioning, but it certainly isn't in this case), so that would be a waste of time. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn-ish to delete or relist. It's really hard for me to argue that the close was incorrect per-se. When I close an AfD, if the consensus is pretty much delete, but there's a reasonable redirect target suggested, I'll usually go with the redirect because WP:ATD. But, in this case, since the topic is not mentioned in the redirect target, and the inclusion criteria there do not allow this to be added, the redirect is inappropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Dream Isaiah Saw|xfd_page=|article=}}

A9

I ask for the undeletion of the entry based on extended guidelines for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Songs

The song is performed by a large number of choirs in the United States, has numerous independent recording (as noted in Notable Performances section), mentions in the media, and is only gaining in popularity for this type of music. It is a modern day classical chorus music masterpiece that is a stand alone notable song regardless of composer and poet achievements. It happens that both the composer and the poet are very famous and accomplished in their respective spheres. I intend to write articles on both, one is already is draft (Thomas H. Troeger). The article was written following all Wiki standards, especially in regard to citations making sure that credible sources are cited. I addressed the issue with three different administrators, and as a new editor feel that Wikipedia is akin Kafka's Castle. MtUllaHistorian (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse A9 There is currently no article on the song's writer (I know you've created it in draft, but it doesn't exist in article space yet), plus the deleted article had two references, one of which was a primary source (a book listing the writer's works) and the other returns a 404 error - so it would almost certainly be deleted at AfD anyway. Black Kite (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• I largely agree with Black Kite, but looking on-line, I think this *might* have a chance of being able to meet WP:N. [https://books.google.com/books?id=CEHwCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT684&dq=%22dream+isaiah+saw] isn't a great source and neither are the local sources that have covered some of the performances [https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS752US752&biw=1536&bih=846&tbm=nws&ei=zmgcXPGxIMzjjwSlzJrQDQ&q=%22dream+isaiah+saw%22&oq=%22dream+isaiah+saw]. But it has been done by a number of notable choirs, so maybe? Worth an AfD IMO, though I suspect it won't make it. That said, the A9 was reasonable. Call this an endorse A9, but list per IAR. Hobit (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

:* I think it would stand more chance if the writer's article made it into mainspace first (and at least it could always be merged there), but ... Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

:: The link to a poet's book is unrelated to a song. A composer found the poet hence there is no inherent conflict of interest. Since choir music isn't exactly the hottest thing in the culture, chances of any of us knowing these poets and composers are slim to none in a secular culture. I went to a concert and stumbled upon a song. It was clear on only one hearing that it is a great song for me to start looking for info on it. I found almost nothing and what I found was not very credible and not clear to a lay secular listener like myself. Hence I thought of writing an article. The song is a cultural phenomenon without the fame of its authors. Whatever references disappeared, I can restore (I am pretty confident they are still there). I put an awful amount of time finding references that have some credibility as this song gets the most coverage in blogs, not in official sources of any kind. I repeat that so many choirs perform it, it is famous. There are enough recordings by the best choirs in the US. They are now putting it on par with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_(Handel) as indicated by a concert where the song was included in the oratorio, which is an uncontested holiday performance MtUllaHistorian (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Restore I think this is at least borderline for A9, the article did contain an assertion that it has become a popular song for performance by choirs, along with a list of choirs which have performed it. We do have an article on one of those choirs so it does arguably meet the A9 standard (which is better targeted at popular music than classical music). It did also contain two citations to third party sources, which are best evaluated at AfD instead of through speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 23:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn per Hut 8.5; it did have an assertion of importance: "The Dream Isaiah Saw has become a popular song in many choir performances at Christmas in the United States." Notability is for AfD to decide. Sandstein 10:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)