Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 29

:{{DRV links|Education Not for Sale|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Education_Not_for_Sale|article=}}

Had only one keep vote, consensus can not be determined with 1 opinion/vote. Please relist the AFD. » Shadowowl | talk 15:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I see no evidence that you have first talked to the closing admin, as required by WP:DRV#Instructions. I suspect this can be resolved quickly and painlessly if you go do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse. Read WP:RENOM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. Insufficient participation to provide a consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• This has been renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (3rd nomination). I suggest we just let that one continue. I do think this would have been better off relisted, especially as the first attempt to renominate the article was speedily closed as being too soon. Hut 8.5 18:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• :I had closed it because everybody was saying to re-open a deletion review first. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• ::Ugh. As that's been closed, relist, either this one or one of the subsequent ones. I concur that this is now very silly. One comment in an AfD doesn't equal a consensus for anything. It's certainly not the kind of consensus which would justify shutting down subsequent AfDs on the grounds that there was a consensus in a previous AfD. Granted, the nomination in that AfD wasn't very good, but there are other people who want the article deleted who have cited better rationales. Hut 8.5 18:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Sigh. I'm not one for being a slave to process, but this has gotten a bit silly. At this point, there's a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (3rd nomination). Ignoring whether that discussion should have been started or not, it exists. Closing this DRV and letting the AfD run its course seems like the least disruptive way forward. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• If the sources in the article were clearly over the bar, this would be a reasonable close (strength of argument). But they aren't (only one is an independent source and while it's very good it's only one). So relist was the right option. That said, given that it's at AfD again already, close DRV per Roy. Hobit (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::{{ping|Hobit}} I'd ask you to reconsider whether close was wrong in light of the context I've posted below. But either way, I don't believe that personally evaluating the quality of sources is either expected of a closer, or even within our remit of judging consensus. The fact that sources were cited in the article was sufficient to refute the nominator's statement that "it has no sources" – and that was, in fact, the entirity of their argument for deletion. Even if this wasn't an unusual AfD, if there are no valid arguments for deletion to be found in a discussion, I tend to close it as keep regardless of the level of participation. – Joe (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

:::In general I do think a closer needs to evaluate the strength of argument. And when sources listed, that includes checking to see if those sources can reasonably be counted toward WP:N. Two of three are written by the group itself, so those aren't usable. That leaves one source (which IMO is very strong). But yes, the argument for deletion was just plain wrong, so I can see why you might close it as keep. That said, in the case of a 1 to 1 argument, closing as something other than NC or relist probably would benefit from a closing statement. I took the "no sources" to mean "sources aren't enough" but that isn't what they said. Hobit (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Hobit}} The Guardian piece https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2006/mar/24/danielrandalleducationnotf also looks like a primary source. At the bottom of the article, there is a tag saying "blogposts." I had closed the 3rd nomination since people were saying I had not followed proper procedure. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• WP:SNOW "Endorse" this DRV. Close AfD3 as "Procedural keep", as per the SNOW already there. Impose the WP:RENOM recommended two-month moratorium for a new AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment from closer. I'd like to provide some context here, which I would have been able to do at the beginning had {{u|Shadowowl}} followed the instructions and discussed it with me before taking this to DRV. Or at least informing me. Shadowowl nominated over a hundred articles for deletion on that day and I ended up closing the vast majority of them. They were initially discussed at ANI where it became clear that they were completely indiscriminate; the nominations were mostly copy and pasted and at points was creating 4 or 5 per minute. Still, my understanding of the consensus at ANI (which I wasn't involved in) was that these shouldn't be blanket closed, so I endeavoured to evaluate each AfD individually.

:I would have been foolish to completely ignore the context, though. Specifically, consider that: despite the efforts of several users, the massive volume of Shadowowl's nominations that day meant they all had much lower participation than usual; I assigned virtually no weight to Shadowowl's arguments given the evident lack of WP:BEFORE; and I was reluctant to put off closing large numbers of discussions for another week simply out of blind adherence to process. Essentially, my process became to evaluate most of the discussions as if they were PRODs: I soft-deleted them if nobody opposed, and closed them as keep. (In the very small number of cases where there was substantial discussion and other editors agreed with the nom, I of course closed as delete). Initially I relisted some, like this one, where only one person had objected, but by the end of the day I'd come to the conclusion that that this was giving more credit to the nom than was due.

:With that in mind, I'll paste my reasoning in this specific AfD from this belated discussion on my talk page:

::AfDs are closed by comparing the weight of arguments. The nomination said that it was "impossible to determine" whether the subject was notable because of a lack of cited sources. This is a considerably weaker argument for deletion than arguing that a subject is not notable, and is bordering on invalid; the general consensus is that AfDs are expected to be based on a prior examination of the available sources by the nominator. So we have a weak nomination that was then specifically refuted by the other participant on two grounds: that the article does in fact have sources (easily verified), and that there are reasonable WP:ATDs that weren't considered. Therefore we are left with no valid argument for deletion and one good, policy-based argument for keeping.

:I have to say that, having spent the best part of the day closing Shadowowl's nominations in what I think was the fairest possible way (surely spending significantly more time on them than he did in the first place), I'm disappointed that he opened this DRV without even a courtesy ping. – Joe (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::* The AfDs and DRV over this one page, Education Not for Sale, were bad enough to call for procedural closes and a moratorium on renomination. There are 147 of them?! This page topic is moderately historic, and past, 2005-2009, and the article quality is easily good enough for New Page Patrol. There is no rush to delete this one. Close this DRV with "endorse". Close AfD3. Impose a two month moratorium. Disabuse all that 137 AfD nominations in one day is not a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::::Yep, so many that it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_July_21&diff=851507073&oldid=851505841 broke the log]. See also this current ANI on the nominator. – Joe (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::To be fair. I wasn't aware that there was already a Deletion Review going on and was following procedures. And I am not User:Shadowowl. He never started the discussion. I did. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::You have been pinged https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoe_Roe&type=revision&diff=852778649&oldid=852778594 --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

:::Whoops there is TWO DR going on I didn't realize one had already been opened..... now what? I had also opened a DR at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 July 31, not realizing that there is one already going on. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::::Closing the other DR review and copying over comments from second deletion review:

• Relist: I belive that the AFD was closed a bit too soon. With only 1 vote for keep, it would be a tie. Also, based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoe_Roe&type=revision&diff=852764460&oldid=852764425 his statement "I was more reluctant than usual to relist Shadowowl's nominations because of the sheer volume and their evidently indiscriminate nature"], the editor seem to be biased against User:Shadowowl because of his actions. I had closed my nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (3rd nomination) and request that the first be re-opened and re-listed. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

:Added comment: The Guardian piece https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2006/mar/24/danielrandalleducationnotf also looks like a primary source. At the bottom of the article, there is a tag saying "blogposts." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::"Belated" in the sense that you had already renominated it when you asked me to reconsider. Shadowowl hasn't bothered to notify me at all.

:::::I was not "biased" against Shadowowl. I gave what I believe to be a fair summary of the consensus at all the discussions he started, many of which I closed as delete. When closing AfDs it's normal to consider the consensus across related discussions (in this sense all the AfDs, and the ANI, can be considered related discussion) and other relevant community norms, e.g. policies and guidelines. – Joe (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::::::I asked you to consider when people were saying the deletion review was perhaps the proper procedure. I wasn't sure whether to withdraw the 3rd nomination or not since it did have a delete vote on it by an IP and an editor who later striked out his vote on the grounds of procedure.

::::::My AFD used a different reasoning to ShadowOwl and there were two votes for delete. One on the grounds of WP:SOAP. So technically the 3rd nomination could be considered on its own weight.

::::::That said since people said Deletion Review was the correct venue, I decided to follow the procedure. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Endorse per WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Renominate Andrew's argument for keeping the article was extremely weak (an argument could be made -- or even assumed -- that the merge target he suggested also does not merit a standalone article, and since almost none of the content is sourced it shouldn't be merged without reliable sources anyway), and should have at most been taken as a basis for a "no consensus" close; "[consensus to] keep" when the AFD was 1-1 at close (with neither editor having been blocked as NOTHERE or some such) is inappropriate. That said: {{ping|Tyw7}} you really need to be more careful with these notifications; "deletionists" like you are definitely [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_%E2%80%93_Rescue_list&diff=851448972&oldid=851205272 the lesser of two evils] when it comes to WP:CANVAS, but notifications like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hijiri88&diff=852780405&oldid=852512210 the one you sent me] are inappropriate, since I have never, TTBOMR, expressed any interest in this article whatsoever. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• :I figured you might be interested since you have clashed heads with Andrew before. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

:::That is blatant votestacking. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::::I did notify Andrew too. I only notified Hirijiri because they was involved in other AFDs involving User:Shadowowl so I thought he might want to chime in with his opinion. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::Erm, you just said that you notified Hijiri because of his history with Andrew. Which one is it? Half a dozen other editors have been more involved in the discussions around these AfDs than Hijiri (or Andrew), and yet you chose to notify only the person who had consistently defended Shadowowl. You've already been warned about WP:CANVASsing twice, so I strongly suggest you stop sending notifications unless it's required by policy. So far you've largely escaped the repercussions of this mess, although the nominations you threw into the midst of Shadowowl's were just as bad, IMO. I'd be careful about walking further out onto the thin ice if I were you. – Joe (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::::::Hiriji had a history with Andrew (having clashed with him on several AFDs I've participated) so perhaps he had something to chime in with this DR request. It was nothing to do with him defending Shadowowl. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::::::::{{edit conflict}} So far I've just nominated stub articles that didn't have references in foreign language. I had a check on Google before hand and they didn't seem notable. Plus the stubs were unencylopedic and based on the comments by Shadow, they could be considered disruptive as they were created by a banned editor, who was accused of bot-like edits. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::::If you don't see the problem with notifying an editor of a discussion specifically because you think they will disagree with an involved party, you really, really need to read WP:CANVAS again. – Joe (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::::::::And I had a read and I guess it could come up as a bit canvassy so will stop further notifications. I thought that Hiriji perhaps know of Andrew more than I did, and I was just wondering whether Hiriji wanted to chime in his opinion of the request. It wasn't done to garner a vote against Andrew or in favor of Shadow. If it had come across that I did, I apologize. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::::::::::Tyw7: It was disruptive and counter-policy for you to notify me because of my history with Andrew. Yes, Andrew does frequently, knowingly, flout our deletion policy and (often aggressively) insist that most of it doesn't even exist, and yes he has made some !votes in AFDs over the last few months that have convinced more than a few editors that he needs a TBAN. But I'm not interested in undoing everything he does just because he did it, and I would appreciate you not, essentially, asking me to. Also, my involvement with the Shadowowl AFDs was mostly limited to crappy one-sentence content-forks, which clearly doesn't apply to either of these pages.

::::::::::Joe Roe: I think Tyw7 will take your warning seriously now that I've seconded it, and I think a warning is probably where this should end if he does. There are serious concerns with Andrew Davidson's editing, including to some extent in this AFD (and, ironically, canvassing), and until something is done about it it's possible that going after editors for attempting -- even misguidedly and disruptively -- to address it, in a manner that is above what is necessary (in this case a stern warning), will have unintended side-effects.

::::::::::Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::::I was not asking you to undo it. You know more about policy and Andrew than I did and I just thought you might want to chime in. I was not trying to be canvassy or anything. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::::::::::::If you seriously think your message to me was okay and not canvassy, that is actually a much more serious problem than if you acknowledged that it was inappropriate and promised not to do it again. I think it would probably be better if you refrained from issuing any notifications that you are not required to issue until you have better wrapped your head around WP:CANVAS. Yes, it sucks that most deletion and similar processes have these unusual "It would be good if you notified..." that some people treat as "obligatory" when tou don't follow them, but unless you are told you are required to do so, it might be better to not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I didn't say it was not canvassy. I was just explaining why I did it and I didn't intend it to be canvassy (at least I didn't send it out intentially to try to canvass anyone). And if I had unintentially crossed the line into canvassing territory, I apologize. As I mentioned above I won't send notifications unless required to. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 12:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Relist. There was insufficient discussion. The problem with the multiple AfDs entered at the same time is it made adequate discussion difficult. I know myself how easy it is to get impatient when one sees a large number of apparently bad articles, but the more they are, the more it helps to proceed systematically and patiently. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse ordinarily an AfD should not be closed with only one !vote and no relists. However, this was not an ordinary situation given that Shadowowl had opened over 100 AfDs, evidently without doing any BEFORE work. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• :How about if another editor did the WP:BEFORE? I'm more than happy to go through the references for that article and be a second nominator. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• ::If you followed BEFORE, I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. Lepricavark (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• :::That's the problem. A bunch of people was lampooning me for not following the proper procedure Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (3rd nomination). And the reason given above why the first AFD should stand is that there was a lack of BEFORE done by ShadowOwl. He tried opening Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (2nd nomination) but was quickly closed, with the recommendation of DR.
• :::
• :::Therefore, I recommend that a second editor being able to co-sign the first nomination or allow the third nomination to run it's course with the "speedy keep" and "procedure keep" vote struck out. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• ::::As I understand it, the first AfD was opened by ShadowOwl as part of a batch of over 100 AfDs. That's just too many AfDs to open at once, especially since ShadowOwl was not doing any BEFORE work. I believe that Joe Roe handled the situation appropriately. With those AfDs now closed, I don't have any problem with ShadowOwl, you, or anyone else gradually resubmitting the articles to AfD, provided that the proper BEFORE work is done. That's not what ShadowOwl did with the second AfD; instead, he complained about Joe Roe's closure of the first AfD and said nothing about the merits of the article in question. Then matters became even more confusing because this thread and the third AfD were both opened. I would recommend that you wait for this thread to be resolved before doing anything else. If the article does return to AfD in one way or another, I would recommend that you and ShadowOwl avoid commenting on the closure of the first two AfDs and focus on the merits of the article. Lepricavark (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

::::::I think one of the problem is that Shadow did not post any notices of this DR. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Relist per Stifle and DGG. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Växjö United FC|xfd_page=|article=}}

Speedily deleted as A7 by {{ping|Anthony Bradbury|p=}}. I contested the nomination, pointing out that the club met WP:FOOTYN through participation in the Svenska Cupen. I also added this to the article so as to ensure this credible claim of notability was apparent.{{parabr}}If there are doubts about the wider requirements of WP:N/WP:GNG being met, then AfD should be the place to discuss that.{{parabr}}(Note previous discussion with deleting admin and article creator {{ping|GiantSnowman|p=}}) Nzd (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn and list at AfD. WP:A7 does not apply when there is a Credible claim of significance. I don't know if participating in the Svenska Cupen is enough to pass WP:FOOTYN, but it's certainly enough to get past A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment as the speedy delete of the article I would not dream of arguing here or anywhere else. I took the view that as any Swedish league team can enter this competition then accepting entry as conferring relevant notability would be equivalent to conferring notability on a British team from a minor league who entered (as any team can) the FA cup. If consensus does not agree with my interpretation then I hereby apologise for the deletion. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• {{ping|Anthony Bradbury}} It is completely untrue that any British team can enter the FA Cup. Only teams playing in the top 10 levels of the English football league system can enter, and even then only if their ground meets a series of criteria set down by the FA. Some random pub team playing in their local park would never be eligible to enter. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. I meant, but did not clearly state, any league team. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. The corresponding article in the Swedish Wikipedia, :sv:Växjö United FC, has been deleted. For possible sources, see {{Find sources|Växjö United FC}} Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

:*{{ping|Eastmain}} - two years ago, prior to them playing in the Swedish Cup... GiantSnowman 14:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn Clearly passes WP:FOOTYN as we presumptively keep all clubs that appear in a country's national cup. Would vote to keep if proposed at AfD, especially since its next match against Hacken will generate press coverage. SportingFlyer talk 22:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy list at AfD. A contested pedestrian CSD#A7 should be speedy listed at AfD on any reasonable request. If someone wants the discussion, let them have the discussion. I advise User:Anthony_Bradbury to do this immediately, as a courtesy to the editor requesting, with no implications beyond that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD (as article creator) - should never have been deleted as A7. GiantSnowman 07:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Overturn Clearly passes WP:FOOTYN, but happy to go to AfD for consensus. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn - Given that the subject meets a subject specific notability guideline, it's clearly not WP:A7 eligible. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
• Overturn per above with listing at AFD optional if someone brings it there after restore. Had sufficient claims to indicate significance (competing in a notable league Division 3 (Swedish football) suffices imho, no matter the Swedish Cup participation). On a side note, I find it disheartening that {{u|Anthony Bradbury}} thinks that an experienced editor (and admin) would create A7-eligible content. While we are not supposed to have hierachies, I would like to think that someone like GiantSnowman will not create content that should be speedy deleted and a reviewing admin should consider that. Regards SoWhy 15:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

::While I agree with User:SoWhy that this should be overturned, I disagree with his reasoning. All editors, including admins, should be held to the same standards. Everybody makes mistakes. I make mistakes. Articles are judged on their content, not who created them. The one time I commented in an AfD that we should trust some particular editor because of who he was, I got my head handed to me, and rightly so. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

:::{{re|RoySmith}} I'm not disputing that people make mistakes. However, I think we can agree that such mistakes, especially creating A7-worthy articles, are increasingly rare for experienced editors. As such I think the spirit of collaboration ought to prompt an admin considering such a deletion to verify that the user really made such a mistake. Speedy deletion is a possibility, not a must, and it's entirely reasonable to decline a request based on the fact that one can safely assume that the creating editor has considered the subject's significance before creation. Anyway, my !vote was based on the clearly existing claims of significance. That last part was only an obiter dictum if you will. Regards SoWhy 17:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)