Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 28#Ed Winters

:{{DRV links|File:WBBL05 Cap Logo Heat.svg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 April 30#File:WBBL05 Cap Logo Heat.svg|article=}}

I supported its deletion formerly. However, when I'm back with the articles that it was used (like 2020–21 Brisbane Heat WBBL season, 2022–23 Brisbane Heat WBBL season), I feel something is missing, especially the logo. I'm not sure that contents described in these articles can make readers understand without the logo. Kys5g ^talk! 03:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse: DR isn't really a place to try to re-argue an FFD per :WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and it's not clear how the closer's close might've been incorrect given the "delete" !votes (based on items 14 and 17 of :WP:NFC#UUI) posted in the FFD. Perhaps the closer should've been asked about this and given a chance to respond before bringing this up for discussion here since it probably would have saved some time and effort. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Nonsensical nomination which fails to explain why the close at FfD was allegedly incorrect. As Marchjuly correctly noted above, DRV is not FfD redux. Also noting for the record that Kys5g failed to consult Explicit before jumping straight to DRV. -Fastily 09:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - The appellant fails to identify any error by the closer. If the appellant is saying, "I changed my mind", that isn't one of the reasons for deletion review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. No valid reason given for opposing deletion. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Ed Winters|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Winters (2nd nomination)}}

Withdrawing my request based on the advice of editors below. I will request undeletion/draftification at WP:REFUND shortly. Gottagotospace (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Since the deletion discussion in 2020, the subject has become more notable and received more media coverage, and I believe he now meets notability guidelines. Even from a three-minute Google search, I found plenty:

I do admit I'm a little biased because I am a vegan myself, but I'm unbiased enough to know not every animal rights activist is notable enough to have their own article. Ed isn't even my favorite vegan activist (my favorite is someone who is not notable enough to get her own article yet), but I recognize that Ed is one of the most prominent modern vegan activists. I can provide more information if requested, but I think this is enough to at least start the discussion. Gottagotospace (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

:I have just notified all editors involved in the 2020 deletion discussion that I opened this deletion review, except those who have been blocked or those who seem to no longer be active on Wikipedia (based on me checking contributions history). Gottagotospace (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

::As far as I can see only about three of these are even RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

::Also I can't recall what the problems may have been, but the RS are not about him, they just quote him. Thus I am unsure we can write an article about him based on them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

:::I think Wikipedia articles about other animal rights activists could be a rough template here, or examples of things that can be covered. For example, see David Olivier, Karen Dawn, Joey Carbstrong, Jack Norris (activist), and other activists in Template:Animal rights. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

::I agree Ed has become more notable ever since the deletion of his article a couple of years ago. If my memory serves right, for the most part I was arguing for the retention of the article based on the available sources back then. If we have more reliable sources (I'm sure we could glean more as in the above list) and if other editors agree with those, I think we can have Ed's article updated and moved to the main space. Cheers. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

:Found some more coverage:

:* https://www.popsci.com/story/health/vegan-zoonotic-diseases-covid-coronavirus/

:* https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/books/2022/02/why-are-vegans-so-reviled

:* https://cornellsun.com/2019/04/11/speaker-asks-why-do-we-love-dogs-eat-cows-and-wear-sheep/

:* https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-is-vegan-propaganda-by-ed-winters-review-hmxtxgtv8

:* https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/rachel-johnson/vegan-youtuber-ed-winters-weighs-in-on-kurt-zoumas-cat-abuse/

:* https://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/viral-vegan-activist-plans-school-visit-9295855/

:* https://www.hot-dinners.com/201910098920/Gastroblog/Latest-news/unity-diner-earthling-ed-wentworth-street-spitalfields

:* https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/ed-winters-vegan-propaganda-32706013

:* https://www.bigissue.com/culture/books/meet-earthling-ed-the-vegan-debater-and-activist-exposing-lies-of-the-meat-industry/

:* https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/01/27/every-argument-for-killing-animals-debunked-the-ethical-case-for-veganism

:* https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/01/22/how-can-we-prevent-another-pandemic-go-vegan

:* https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/02/the-teachers-of-white-plaza/

:Yes, I know that not all of the places I have posted links from count as "reliable sources", but some do, and also the other sources are here to show additional coverage of the subject and his activities since the last AfD. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

::Note, even if his book is notable, he may not be. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

:Note from closer it's been 4 years since the 2nd AfD (which I closed) and so the sourcing available may very well have changed to establish notability now. This doesn't seem to be about whether or not the consensus of the AfD was correct so I won't say anything further other than to say I will watch this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Allow recreation. There was nothing wrong with the 2020 close, but the appellant doesn't need our permission to work on a new draft. WP:REFUND would have been a better venue if they want to start work where the deleted version left off. Of course, this source list needs to be trimmed down to meet SIRS. Owen× ☎ 16:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• :I like your suggestion. Thank you! Do I need to wait for this deletion review to be officially closed first, or can I go over to WP:REFUND right now without waiting? Gottagotospace (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• ::{{u|Gottagotospace}}, you can withdraw your appeal here any time, which will trigger it to be speedily closed with no action. Then you can ask for draftification at WP:REFUND, linking to this DRV to speed things up. With any luck, by this time tomorrow you'll be working on the draft. Owen× ☎ 17:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• :::Okay, I will go ahead and withdraw it (I'll post something above) and then head over to WP:REFUND. Thanks! Gottagotospace (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• ::Or you can withdraw here, skip REFUND and start work on a fresh draft right away, if you don't need the old text. Owen× ☎ 17:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - It is not clear whether the appellant is saying that the 2020 close should be overturned, or whether the appellant wants to submit a new article, but apparently the latter. This is mostly a URL Dump, and is about as useful as most URL dumps, and is insulting to the reviewers, because it implies that the appellant is too busy or too important to put the URLs into a real draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• :I apologize for any perceived insult. I certainly did not intend it that way. So what happened was I was about to make a draft article about Ed Winters, and then Wikipedia was like "HOLD UP STOP RIGHT THERE, an article with this title has been deleted before!!!" (obviously paraphrased haha). That's what led me here. I am happy to make a draft, and that was my original intention. This is my first time drafting an article that has previously been deleted, so I opened this deletion review under DRV Purpose 3 to seek consultation. I figured it would be better to seek consultation from other editors (who might spend like 15 minutes participating in this discussion) first, versus me spending 3-4 hours on an article without seeking consultation first and then having it end up immediately deleted or rejected. Gottagotospace (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I have long disliked DRV Purpose 3, because most of the DRV Purpose 3 cases that we get are where the title has not been salted, and the appellant can simply either submit a draft for review, or create an article subject to AFD, and these appeals ask DRV to give permission to submit a draft for review, when permission is not needed. But I have already lost that battle, and DRV Purpose 3 is still there. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• :I have long agreed with you on this. At some point the right answer to an AfD that closed with delete (or an equivalent outcome like redirect) is to just write a new article with the new information. That shouldn't be the day after it closes (where it really should come here) but is also, in my opinion, sooner than 4 years after the most recent AfD discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• Allow Submission of Draft subject to Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
• I have restored this to a draft Draft:Ed Winters, so I guess this can be closed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)