Hello, I believe that the 1977 Allentown mayoral election should not be closed as "no consensus", and should either be relisted or closed as delete. No policy-based arguments were used against the deletion, and consensus is formed on strength of arguments as much as voting. No final relist was ever given for this article. I will open a deletion review if I do not hear back from you. Cheers, -1ctinus📝🗨 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @1ctinus - I'd agree with the closer here, purely on numbers there's only a nomination and a single weak (analytically) support. It was relisted twice. There was a fairly engaged discussion between yourself and a keep supporter. WP:POLOUTCOMES on mayorality is not unambiguous, there are multiple factors which influence determining notability. To my knowledge, there's never been a community consensus around the size of a municipal area which provides some kind of presumed notability, although roughly speaking to my reading of the discussions, anything greater than 100,000 people is more often than not persuasive. A third relisting was unlikely to have brought any further insight to the discussion, no consensus seems fairly reasonable to me. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- From Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will not normally delete it." "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should be done only when there is consensus to delete." Clearer consensus was needed to destroy an article.
- From Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Determining consensus: "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented..." It is not a vote, but multiple perspectives are required.
- From Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting discussions: For several reasons, "repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice." (Italics and boldface appear there, not added here for emphasis.) The word final does not appear anywhere on the deletion process page. Announcing "final relist" is not necessary. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for claifying. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Doczilla. With reference to your closure of the The Peel Club AfD, and considering that your deletion was endorsed and the page re-deleted after having been tempundeleted,
please generate a page such as Talk:List of Regular Show episodes/attribution history at Talk:Glasgow University Conservative Association/attribution history (or under a similarly-titled subpage), containing the attribution history of The Peel Club,
because content was merged from the deleted The Peel Club article into Glasgow University Conservative Association during the interval beginning with the improper undoing of the tempundel notice and ending with the redirection of the page and restoration of the same notice.
The way the things are now, attributability for the all of the content at the Glasgow University Conservative Association article is not being maintained, because Special:Diff/1244174242 says to see the source page's history for who the authors of the added content are, which can not be done because it has been (duly) deleted. This issue was mentioned toward the end of the DRV discussion.
Outputting attribution history as text is one of the non-ordinary but accepted ways to provide attribution.
Regards,—Alalch E. 14:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Off the top of my head, my first thought concerns that "because Special:Diff/1244174242 says to see the source page's history" bit: You're the one who wrote that, so you cited yourself in order to back up your own request. I'll read the rest of this again tomorrow. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I need to decline. You might get someone else to do it, but my role in this AfD was as closer and neither the AfD nor the DRV closed as merge. Merge was not really even discussed as an option during the !vote.
- Some editors abused the tempundelete in order to merge their self-promotional material into another article anyway. If the prior history seemed important, someone who was concerned about that (and who knew those club members were cheating by merging without awaiting the outcome of the DRV that one of them had requested) had plenty of time to copy it during the extended period of temporary undeletion.
- You appropriately cited precedent with that List of Regular Show episodes example, but an exception is not the rule. The history does not normally remain public when an article is deleted. I prefer not to become part of deciding when exceptions should or should not happen. Sorry. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply. Just following up to say that the matter is resolved now. —Alalch E. 12:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Doczilla,
I was looking at some of today's AFD discussion closures that you did. Several seemed to fall under WP:NOQUORUM but you chose to close them as "Delete" rather than "Soft Delete". I agreed with the closures, I would have just closed them as Soft Delete due to the extremely low participation in the discussion. Was there a reason why you thought a stronger closure was called for? Thank you for any insight you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft delete would have made sense. Normally I relist those with no quorum or close as no consensus after relists. I almost never do otherwise. Those particularly struck me as a waste of time to continue. Probably should have soft deleted. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just to preface, I'm not looking for you to overturn your close. Unfortunately I didn't notice the newer two comments in time, but I think the first contains an egregious enough misrepresentation of the coverage that it needs to be called out:
the 2022 article in The National, which discusses how she overcame an ankle injury that nearly ruined her career to become the first woman representing Egypt to win a silver medal in the long jump in the Mediterranean Games.
There is in fact zero discussion of the subject beyond the subheadline "Many training centres in the country are in need of repair and this could hold long jumper Esraa Owis back form [sic] achieving more", which itself has nothing to do with the headline "Egyptian athlete overcomes injury to win silver at Mediterranean Games - in pictures". The whole "article" is a handful of low-quality un-captioned pictures, which obviously cannot contribute to GNG.
Would you be willing to reopen this and let me respond so that this rebuttal is recorded? JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reopening an AfD for such a reason creates too many potential problems. You need to respond while AfD is in progress. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I registered for a free account to view The National photoset. The photos all seem to be of the subject and I think are intended to illustrate her recovery from ankle injury. The subhead is a separate topic but still related to Owis' training. I think that photosets can contribute to GNG, it's just another form of media coverage like an article or video. --Habst (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What? No, bare images do not contribute to notability... Among other things, they are clearly primary (as noted at OR). A video that had zero commentary on the subject would also fail. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bare images do not, but a photoset published by a news organization with metadata like a title and description can, for the same reason that news interviews can count towards notability (even though the subject's words are primary) because there's some importance behind the decision that the news org decided to interview that person. --Habst (talk) 19:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is not how notability works. You are talking about indications of notability, not establishing notability (or even creating a presumption of it). GNG (and N) is achieved through secondary independent coverage, full stop, which primary and non-independent images do not provide at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that secondary coverage is required, but there's no requirement that coverage be in the form of articles versus interviews or photosets or videos. I think there's a misunderstanding -- I never claimed the images themselves weren't primary, but the photoset package (including title and subhead) as published by a newspaper could certainly be considered secondary coverage, which is also the side that I believe the community took in the AfD. If you don't think that was the consensus, you're free to do a deletion review or renominate the page. --Habst (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A handful of images with only headline-level context contains exactly as much secondary coverage as provided by the headlines. If there is zero analysis of the images, then there is zero information we can extract from them that isn't primary. No the "community" did not take the position that this photoset (or the interviews) was secondary coverage, that is a totally spurious conclusion to draw. The initial keep !votes, and the last one, relied on the personal belief that her level of achievement and the existence of sources verifying it gave sufficient indication that GNG sourcing might exist elsewhere, but explicitly did not actually evaluate any of the sources. It's not even possible to claim anyone besides the last two !voters (and @OwenX) even saw that the photoset was being cited, let alone actually clicked on it. That is absolutely not consensus that any given source provided IRS SIGCOV, or that SPORTSCRIT was met; all we can say from the !votes is that 3-4 of them amounted to IAR. JoelleJay (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily disagreeing with you on all of this, though just because a comment is the last one in an AfD doesn't mean that earlier commenters didn't read and agree (or at least not disagree enough to correct it). I do think that the Owis AfD decision wasn't primarily based on WP:NEXISTS (even though that would have been perfectly valid P&G-wise) – there were several sources linked even if analysis of them was not explicit, and I think that ultimately, a closure was made based on a policy-based community consensus. --Habst (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
