Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
1.
Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
} ~~~~
2.
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{Delrev|date=2024 January 22}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{Delrevxfd|date=2024 January 22}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{Delrevxfd|date=2024 January 22|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}</noinclude>
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {TempUndelete} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
As the nominator, I think there is fairly clear consensus to delete this article. Contrary to the closing statement (Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge editor's are all over the map here), there were three delete !votes (if you count my implicit delete as the nominator) to zero bolded keep/redirect/merges, much less a redirect/merge target. I am not sure what exactly the closer meant when she said Of course, a discussion about a possible Redirect or Merge can continue on the article talk page, given that nobody mentioned anything about redirecting or merging the article. Here are the two contributions by people who did not explicitly support deleting the article, which I will let speak for themselves except to note that neither included any sources:
Hi @HouseBlaster, let's make edits to make it less promotional please.
It is an account of a not-for-profit that is working in some of the remotest regions of Pakistan. The Wikipedia would certainly help people to know more information about the organisation. Please correct if anything in the article is against the wikipedia guidelines. — 202.141.250.25005:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
(I did respond to the question, which you can see at the AfD page.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment Reading over this AFD, I can't make sense of my closure either. All I can guess is that I was reviewing a different AFD and closed the wrong discussion by mistake. Admins tend to close AFDs quickly, one after another, bing! bing! bing! I apologize for my mixup during my closure duties, I have no issues with overturning this closure as it looks like it was a mistaken closure on my part. I will try to not let this happen again. LizRead!Talk! 02:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Works for me! I have no idea how to close a DRV, so I will leave that to someone else. (I assume a closer can amend their close without further input here?)HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The administrator considered that there was consensus for the deletion, but the dispersion in the number of votes and added sources demonstrate that there was no consensus. A review is valid in this case. Svartner (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. I agree that the result was marginal, and you are well justified in bringing this here. That said, going over the views expressed in that AfD, the Delete !votes are well anchored in policy, relating to the lack of SIGCOV in the numerous sources cited. And numerically, the Delete views outnumber the Keep ones two-to-one. Not a vote, I know, but these are valid views backed by substantive arguments. The closing admin was right in their read of consensus to delete. Owen×☎ 20:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse - The numerical vote count favored Delete, and there were policy-and-guideline-based arguments both ways, so Delete is a valid conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse, closure is within the bounds of reasonableness. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse: closed based on guidelines and policy. // Timothy :: talk 09:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse - Close was a perfectly valid reading of consensus. Jogurney (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse per all the above. Admin could not have closed any other way without being legitimately dragged here to explain. Jclemens (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse As mentioned, it's close to a no consensus, but the result of the AfD was correct. I've also done some sleuthing and couldn't find any additional sources which jumped out at me, in part because the search function on Serbian web sites generally is not great, but I would not mind this being draftified if anyone thinks additional unmentioned sources exist. SportingFlyerT·C 12:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. Reasonable finding of a rough consensus, seeing how the delete arguments point to specific issues with the sources, while the keep side tried to argue that there is significant coverage without rebutting those arguments; or that, assembled together (interviews, questionable-sources-in-a-BLP and all), the coverage somehow meets GNG; and that the footballer is a significant figure, which wasn't met with much agreement.—Alalch E. 13:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Jan Peder Jalland – Restored to draft by original AfD closer. (Yes, I !voted, but this is a procedural close of action already taken. If someone sees an issue, please feel free to revert.) StarMississippi 23:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was a deletion that happened during another era, where the main motivation for AFD'ing it was a depecrated guideline (WP:NFOOTY). GNG/SIGCOV was an issue, but today I believe the actual quality of the sources would have been discussed with more insight than the comments at the time, which seemed superficial to me. Nonetheless, the subject is a football manager whose career has developed significantly since then; he took over Norway U21. Some online sources about his takeover and the start of his tenure (from national outlets this time...) include [1][2][3] In addition there are in-depth pieces about his earlier life, somewhat focused around a bout with cancer, written in Norway's two largest newspapers (paywall): [4][5]. Among others since I can access the paywalled articles, I request that this article be draftified (or userfied) so I can flesh it out. Geschichte (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Recreate it When there are substantial new sources that cause a reasonable editor to think that GNG is now met when it wasn't before, any admin should feel free to restore the deleted version to draftspace of userspace for improvement. As long as you've added the sourcing and made it a different article before mainspacing it, G4 doesn't apply. Of course, trivial changes or marginally improved sourcing may be seen as gaming the system, but it doesn't sound like that applies here. It's been 4+ years and there's more coverage? Go write an awesome encyclopedia article incorporating the new sourcing. WP:TOOSOON is all about this. Jclemens (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy restore to draft. Close was good, but three+ years later we have an established editor requesting it to work on and improve it based on new information before restoring it to mainspace. If needed when moved, can be addressed via another AfD. StarMississippi 22:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Restore to draft. The original closing was correct, but the situation has changed. No reason to deny the appellant access to the deleted version, preserving attribution. Owen×☎ 23:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
As the deleting admin, I have restored this to Draft:Jan Peder Jalland. In general, unless there's some strong reason to keep the history deleted (i.e. WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO), restoring a long-ago deleted article to draft so somebody can improve it is a no-brainer. Especially if the reason it was deleted is no longer valid, as appears to be the case here. RoySmith(talk) 16:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! If no one objects, I believe we can now speedily close this DRV. Owen×☎ 16:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Journal of Commercial Biotechnology – Closure endorsed. There is sufficient support below for allowing an immediate renomination (at any editors volition) at AfD. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I believe that the keep arguments were were too repugnant to policy for the discussion to be closed as anything other than delete. In particular, Headbomb's vote (and thus the associated "per x" vote) starts off by referring to WP:PURPOSE, effectively a version of the fallacious hyper-inclusionist argument rebutted at WP:NOTEVERYTHING. He then makes the argument that Indexers are by very definition third party reliable sources, which, while true, only adreseses non-existent verifiability concerns, rather than the actual notability concerns. Seeing as how 2/3 keep votes have effectively no weight, I see clear consensus to delete Mach61 (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse While the nuance of differing word choices will vary in local dialects of English, to characterize a difference between interpretations of essays as "repugnant" strikes me as reminiscent of Reichstag-climbing. It's a notability dispute; we have those every day. And, in fact, we have two groups of editors who disagree here. The nom isn't great--I don't think sockpuppet is likely the correct word to use in this context--but we have evenly-numerically-matched editors, one set referring to an essay that deals specifically and in detail with this particular topic, while the other side makes references to higher level policies and guidelines where good editors can differ about how they apply to this specific topic. Classic no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. As not-a-lawyer, the word connotes something worse than merely being unseemly or odious in my lexicon. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse no consensus close. The AFD ran for 20 days (extended 2x) and mustered only 5 participants, who split 3 keep and 2 delete, neither side using unreasonable arguments. I can't see how a reasonable closer could close in any other way than No Consensus. A no consensus close does not preclude renominating for deletion at some point in the future, and I would not be surprised that a more robust discussion at that time might lead to a Delete close. Martinp (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Revisiting to read points made after me (as I try to do whenever I comment early in a discussion), I think there are solid arguments below why a more robust and well-attended AFD would probably have reached a consensus to delete, and that would have been the "right" outcome. However, such a discussion did not happen in spite of the 2x extension. Therefore no consensus was reached, and in such cases we default to no action, not deleting this article. I think the meta-discussion here demonstrates we have inconsistencies to resolve regarding various policies, essays, and guidelines regarding academic journals. We should resolve them, following which it will be easier to reach consensus on articles like this. Then someone can renominate this article for deletion, and I expect it is quite likely to get deleted then. Martinp (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse my close but of course defer to whatever consensus emerges here and have no issue with the close being brought for a broader look. I have re-read it and don't see another way I could have closed it. This discussion, IMO, is a micro version of the broader discussion about N:Journals last year. The community hasn't quite landed on whether Scopus et al are sufficient and that was reflected here with editors making valid cases in both directions. StarMississippi 14:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there's a reasonable case that meeting NJOURNALS is the same as being notable at all. One of the most unambiguous dictums in WP:N is that articles must meet either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). It is very bad for the rule of law at AfD if people can just claim inherit notability for any subject they want to without gaining the consensus necessary for a {guideline} tag, and if they're persistent enough closers won't downweight their votes. Mach61 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
For a not insignificant period of time in Wikipedia history, being indexed in Scopus was generally considered sufficient. (Not saying it was right or wrong, just was. ) This is not dissimilar to the changes in guidelines for schools and athletes in the last few years. My opinion is the community remains split since the change was recent. We're humans, we're slow to change. In my opinion as closer, the consensus in that discussion reflects that split. NB, it may be helpful for you to look at it from less of a legal POV. We really don't have any "rule of law" here, even when it concerns policy. Not saying this to dissuade you at all, but it might be a different frame. StarMississippi 19:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Overturn to delete. The participants who recommended keeping did not say that the journal is notable, they said that the article meets WP:NJOURNALS criteria (Headbomb and Randykitty) and that the page is helpful (XOR'easter). Saying that a subject passes NJOURNALS is not saying that that subject is notable, because that essay is not about notability, it's about preventing pages from being deleted by saying that their subjects qualify for a stand-alone article irrespective of being able to establish that the concerned subjects are notable. This is evidenced in WP:JOURNALCRIT which are patently and notoriously not about notability while purporting to present reasons for page inclusion and retention, completely bypassing the fact that lack of notability exists as a reason for deletion (none of the three criteria has anything to do with notability). The nomination correspondingly failed to express a cogent argument that the article should be deleted, lacking an argument that it is non-notable. However, during the discussion a relevant delete argument did form eventually, with two editors saying that the journal is not notable. After that point, there needed to have been comments saying that the journal is, after all, notable. But there were no such comments.—Alalch E. 17:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. Despite two relistings, consensus failed to materialize. None of the views expressed in the AfD can be summarily WP:DISCARDed as invalid. Headbomb's "Keep" relies, inter alia, on the journal's evaluation in the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals, a legitimate method of assessing notability. Similarly, XOR'easter's reasoning relies on sourcing per GNG. Randykitty agreed with Headbomb's reasoning. The appellant may not agree with those three, as indeed they and two others hadn't in the AfD, but I see no valid reason to discard those Keep views.
As for WP:NJOURNALS, while not a policy, it--especially WP:JOURNALCRIT--is the standard by which we normally measure the notability of journals. It seems disingenuous to turn around and claim that we are to ignore years of "case law" on hundreds of AfDs based on this essay simply because it does not have the power of law. WP:JOURNALCRIT, in its various iterations, has been used as our practical guideline for over a decade, and is our de-facto standard for academic journals. I will not overturn a valid AfD closing based on the claim that "NJOURNALS is merely an essay", especially seeing as one of the Keep arguments was anchored in GNG. Owen×☎ 20:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
If "NJOURNALS is merely an essay" is a reason to discard a vote, then so is "WP:HEY is merely an essay", and so all "keep per WP:HEY" !votes can be discarded. Likewise for "delete per WP:TNT". Procedurally, none of these would make sense to do. Suggesting a course of action per some essay is just giving an argument in abbreviated form, i.e., stating that in one's opinion, the essay contains good advice that is applicable in the present circumstances. The fact that an essay is not binding like policy means that there is of course room to disagree with it; but a consensus of arguments written in abbreviated form is still a consensus. XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:HEY and WP:TNT are arguments, arguments with detailed reasoning in their text. They save editor time. WP:NJOURNALS is written as assertion, as if it were accepted among the community that meeting its criteria is enough to justify an article, when in fact NJOURNALS has not gained consensus. Mach61 (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't call WP:HEY "detailed", and WP:TNT reads to me like a bunch of "assertions", but so what? Functionally, they're all essays being invoked as arguments. That is the role they play. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
HEY and TNT are arguments that invoke specific P&Gs. NJOURNALS does not attempt to align with any P&G. JoelleJay (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
NJOURNALS criteria recently failed to gain consensus on its own talk page. That a very small number of editors have been misrepresenting it as a guideline for a decade is the definition of LOCALCON and is explicitly disallowed by WP:N. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
When was the last time an essay was promoted to a policy? It is now almost impossible to change policy. GNG and other policies have sadly attained the status of Scripture, making them effectively untouchable canon. Any such RfC is doomed to end up with views equally divided between those who don't like the proposed change, those who don't think it is needed, and a minority who see the change as an improvement, even if it isn't everything they hoped for. Consensus is nigh near impossible. So we end up with broad, vague policies like GNG, and a long list of topic-specific essays and a history of "common law" in the form of AfD results, which are followed closely despite not having the power of policy. The fact that NJOURNALS failed an RfC to turn it into policy tells us nothing. We are still using this "essay" as our only consistent guideline when it comes to the notability of journals. Ignoring it while embracing GNG is a bit like ignoring WP:N while embracing WP:IAR. We don't ignore rules - or common practice - if we want consistently applied inclusion criteria. If you have a valid reason why we should ignore NJOURNALS in this particular case, then the AfD was the place to raise it. Claiming that someone's !vote on AfD should be discarded because they listed, among other things, a common practice we apply every day that isn't policy strikes me as baseless. Owen×☎ 00:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
It has failed multiple times. And there is a consistent guideline on the notability of journals: GNG. And consensus for drastic changes to P&Gs have occurred in recent years -- take NSPORT as an example. Automatic notability for simply being listed by an indexing company that the journal applies to join just means that Wikipedia hosts a copy of the journal's own self-description that will appear at the top of search results. That is not the secondary independent coverage required for a neutral article. JoelleJay (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say this, but even after all the discussions we've had on this topic, you clearly still don't know how these databases work and what inclusion in it means. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse as a participant; I can't see any other way to read the final result than as a "no consensus". XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse clear no consensus case here. "Keep arguments were were too repugnant to policy" is simply utter nonsense. We have no deletion notability policy, we have guidelines, and guidelines are not absolute. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I meant no notability policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a key point: policies like V are non-negotiable, N--which is at issue here--is negotiable. It is entirely within Wikipedia's not-rules for a consensus to form that overrides a guideline in a specific case or set of cases. Academic journals are a set of topics that are clearly important, but (and I'm not sure from whom I'm stealing this observation, but I'm relatively certain I read it in a past Wikipedia discussion) if they do their jobs well, no one writes about the journal. Thus, it's perfectly OK for an admin to consider !votes that say "The cited guideline is wrong for this application and leads to a less-than-encyclopedic result" as was done here. Had they been in the clear majority, it would have been acceptable to close this discussion as Keep--but they were not. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. I would have preferred a "keep" here, but given the discussion and the arguments presented, "no consensus" was the only reasonable outcome. --Randykitty (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Overturn to delete I think the close itself wasn't necessarily bad, but it ignored the fact GNG has clearly not been met, which was clearly demonstrated by those wanting it off the site. If that's the argument for keeping a journal, then journals have become the new cricketers. We shouldn't put up with spam... SportingFlyerT·C 23:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Overturn. NJOURNALS is not a guideline, its "notability criteria" cannot be used to assert notability any more than any other project essay, and especially not in the demonstrable absence of the required secondary independent SIGCOV for GNG. Keep arguments were not based on P&Gs.
The criteria are not even notability criteria. According to the essay, an article about a journal should not be deleted, because it is deserving of a standalone page, if the journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area, is frequently cited by other reliable sources, or is historically important in its subject area (and there are reliable, independent sources on the subject, but significant coverage is not required). And only if all three of the following conditions are met: The journal is (1) not influential, (2) not frequently cited, (3) not historically important, then and only then need notability be considered. See the sentence: If a journal meets none of these criteria, it may still qualify for a stand-alone article, if it meets the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria. So whether it meets the conditions of notability is irrelevant as long as it meets at least one of the three "don't delete" criteria. The essay is literally saying that notability only need be considered for journals that are not influential, not frequently cited and not historically important. Absurd. This essay is not a notability essay. It's an anti-notability essay. —Alalch E. 01:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. It may be a journal, but none of the sources support a Wikipedia article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)WP:HEY. The current state of the article includes many sources, none were analysed or addressed by the nomination (obviously). Wait two months and WP:RENOM. GNG not met? The GNG is just a guideline, deletion requires consensus at AfD, such as a consensus that the GNG failure means this article should be deleted. There was no such consensus. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
This reasoning seems circular; the entire point of my DRV is that I see a consensus to delete. May you elaborate? Mach61 (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
There was not a consensus to delete. You probably overweight your own !vote. I read your !vote as weak. No single guideline is every the “only” one. You didn’t address the sources that were added.
Work though the added sources. Give it two months. Read WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Mach61's comment comes after the WP:HEY exclamation of Dec 24, and he responded to it by saying that significant coverage comes in paragraphs of prose and that articles can't be based off of databases and indices. What was added were databases and indices, to verify fulillment of JOURNALCRIT, discussed previously. Self-evident and not in dispute that these are indices and databases as he said. So when reading in context -- a participant did address the later-added sources. Ultimately, there was a consensus that the GNG failure means that the article should be deleted, because after two editors said as much, no one was able to relevantly oppose these recommendations, and the only later comment was that the page is helpful. —Alalch E. 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
That wasn’t my reading of the AfD. Ok, should I read through the sources? They are all junk, for Wikipedia notability, all primary sources. At AfD I would !vote delete. Or “Merge to publisher”, ThinkBiotech. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not in the habit to re-affirm my !vote if somebody else !votes opposite. That doesn't mean that I consider myself rebutted. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Please do not rewrite history, Alalch E.. There was no consensus at the AfD. The three Keep !votes are here with us, and do not need you to second-guess their intentions. True, they didn't come back to badger the Delete !voters on that AfD. How you construe that to be acquiescence is beyond me. We don't give extra weight to an opinion just because it was expressed later in the discussion. In the end, six editors expressed a valid opinion on that AfD. Slice and dice it any way you want, there was still no consensus there. What's next - discard the seven "Endorse" views here because they didn't come back to argue with you? Sorry, that's not how consensus works. Owen×☎ 13:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
An AfD's participants are not individual stakeholders in the matter of an article's retention (the totality of the project is the single and only stakeholder), so I did not mean to say that they acquiesced, and whether they did or did not is not what I consider to be important. It's not a negotiation, and reaching consensus, with its particular meaning on Wikipedia, is not about consenting, as in waiving an objection. Any other editor or editors could have opposed the best deletion-supporting argument during the extended relist periods, but no one did. Why? Because the issue with the sources is self-evident. I respect everyone in the AfD and here, and I appreciate and value the opinions that articles about non-notable journals should be kept based on WP:JOURNALCRIT and that helpful articles on non-notable subjects should be kept, and I have no doubt that these editors only make these arguments in the best interest of the encyclopedia, and do not second guess their intentions. —Alalch E. 15:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
You said, Any other editor or editors could have opposed the best deletion-supporting argument during the extended relist periods, but no one did. Why? Because the issue with the sources is self-evident - I'm sure the issue was self-evident to you. But until you get the WP:OFFICE bit, you cannot simply override lack of consensus by decree. Owen×☎ 15:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
You think there wasn't a consensus, I think there was, we think about this differently, and that is all there is to it. No need to second-guess my intentions involving a supposed desire to enact decrees. —Alalch E. 16:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Wait, what? I certainly did assess the sources that were in the article (and did my own GS search), as should be evident from my !vote. Should I have spelled out that specifically the primary trivial info from the databases and indices cited were not sufficient? Do I need to quote the notability guideline Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). and consensus policy For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. every time, or can I assume any closer is aware of these? Two editors noted that there was no coverage that suggested meeting GNG. (Also pinging @Enos733) No editors made any claim that GNG was met or put forth an explicit IAR argument; sourcing was purely evaluated by keep !voters in the context of verifying the journal met the essay criteria, not that it met the policy requirement of secondary sources or the relevant guideline requirement for SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I find your !vote looks confusing and weak. It does not suggest that you did your own thorough analysis. Had have you asserted that you looked yourself at the sources and they they are all “primary trivial info from the databases and indices”, I think it would have closed as “Delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Not a direct response to your point per se, but this comment reminds me of Joelle's remark (at WP:ARBDEL) about how A lot of frustration arises from AfD participants never having any idea how particular !votes are weighted by closers, or to what degree policies and guidelines (or just policies?) trump numerical majority. This encourages many !voters (me included) to respond to each argument that is not P&G-compliant or that makes inaccurate claims with rebuttals, out of concern that a closer unfamiliar with the guidelines (and consensus interpretation thereof) in the area will be misled.Mach61 (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I would point to Headcount's rebuttal "Indexers are by very definition third party reliable sources," RandyKitty's point toward WP:HEY (suggesting the article was sufficiently improved since nomination), and XOR'easter's comment "Adequately sourced" as claims that GNG was met. From one end of the spectrum, they are ambiguous statements that coverage exists. But, to me those statements in the discussion go a step beyond hand-waving and could not be dismissed out of hand by the closer. To your question, the burden on an AFD is usually from people who do not believe a subject should have a stand-alone article - and once supporters to keep the article argue the sourcing is sufficient, the burden really falls on supporters to delete the article to point out that the sourcing is insufficient. - Enos733 (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Enos733 I believe I did that with my comments referencing WP:IINFO and claiming that notability, as opposed to verifiability, was the issue Mach61 (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree. I just think your argument was contested and there was no consensus on the matter. --Enos733 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse - the outcome was well within the closer's discretion of assessing the balance of arguments. While contrary to GNG, keep !votes made reasonable arguments in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia's core policies and can't be dismissed outright; no consensus is a reasonable call to make given the balance of arguments made. The applicability or lack thereof of WP:NJOURNALS is a longtime point of disagreement within the editing community that needs to be resolved more clearly at a project level before arguments made on that basis are a priori tossed out as invalid; irrespective of what the correct path forward is for future English Wikipedia P&G, Star Mississippi made the correct call as an individual admin here. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Are we just going to ignore Editors are cautioned that these WikiProject notability guidance pages should be treated as essays and do not establish new notability standards, lacking the weight of broad consensus of the general and subject-specific notability guidelines in various discussions (such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). and For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. for AfDs relating to this particular area? JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
No one's ignoring that, we're talking about a discussion where a numerical majority composed of experienced editors argued for an exception to a guideline, which I believe includes in its definition Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Reference to NJOURNALS in this discussion isn't laying down the law so much as it is referring to a condensed argument. Misuse of an essay would be more along the lines of ruling in favor of a minority that wants Foo because there's an essay that says to do Foo. signed, Rosguilltalk 03:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse I struggle to see any different way to close the discussion. As it was the keep comments did inculde suggestion or implications that GNG was met. No consensus was the correct close. --Enos733 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. Given that WP:IAR is policy, comments that ignore, stretch, or (arguably) misapply a guideline must be given reasonable weight. AfD's are not debates settled by unrebutted arguments but discussions which are closed based on consensus. Arguments may be devalued if they ignore policies, are in bad faith, appear to be canvassed, but not simply because they weigh guidelines like WP:N or judge encyclopedicity differently than others. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying the close was IAR? No one argued for IAR in the AfD so an interpretation that the !votes supported IAR retention would not be valid. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
No I am not saying that the close was IAR. I believe that the close was a correct reading consensus. I am saying that IAR status as a pillar of Wikipedia means that Mach61's argument "that the keep arguments were were too repugnant to policy for the discussion to be closed as anything other than delete" represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between project guidelines like WP:N and consensus. Core content policies like WP:V and WP:BLP cannot be ignored by a local consensus, but it is simply not the case that closers should devalue opinions that argue for exceptions to WP:N or WP:GNG based on there own preferred criteria. Guidelines have exceptions determined buy consensus, and the way to determine consensus is by having discussions at AfD not forcing every possible exception be hashed out at WT:N or a similar policy page. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I do not think it is unreasonable to say that the "flexibility" of our notability guidelines come primarily from the several existing SNGs that supplement the SNG, or to expect that IAR arguments be held to a higher standandard of consensus than was found at this relatively low participation AfD. Mach61 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
In the event it needs to be said, explicitly saying my close was not IAR. When I do that (and I do at times), I say that I have and why. I did/do not believe there was a consensus to be found here, and I closed it as such. Others see it differently, which is all good and why we have DRV. StarMississippi 03:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse After three weeks of this AFD being open, it was clear that consensus did not form. The keep voters made a credible case that GNG was met, and the delete voters made a credible case that it was not. No consensus was certainly within the closer’s discretion, and I believe the correct choice. FrankAnchor 05:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Also adding that the original nominator was later indefinitely blocked for disruptive edits. Take out the nomination statement, and there are only two delete votes remaining. If all keep votes were discarded (which is clearly not the case), it would have been closed as a soft delete or no consensus. Now add in a few valid keep votes, and no consensus makes the most sense as a result. I maintain my endorse vote and add prejudice against an early re-nomination. FrankAnchor 18:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
weak endorse, favor a new AfD This appears to be a for-profit entity without sourcing to meet WP:N and with no relevant SNG met. I like academic journals as a notion. But this one doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines and I'd !vote to delete it at AfD. This isn't AfD, it's DRV. And I think the discussion was leaning toward delete, but the close was within discretion. I get why people want these academic journals to have articles. I don't think *this* has any redeeming qualities and I'm seeing no evidence it meets our inclusion guidelines. It has an impact factor of around 0.2, which basically is really really bad. https://mdanderson.libanswers.com/faq/26159. It looks like a "write-only" journal (people write articles and no one reads them). Hobit (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
No objection to a shorter than normal re-nom window as closing admin. I didn't see the point in an additional relist because of the less than normal AfD traffic at the holidays but if (generic) you feel can get input later this month or early next, feel free. StarMississippi 23:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
:*I don't know where you got that 0.2 figure, but this journal has no IF because it's not indexed by Clarivate. The link to mdanderson is a bit misleading as it is written from the point of view of oncology, a high-citation density field. IFs are very much field-dependent. Oncology journals have some of the highest IFs around and an IF of, say, 5 would be quite average. The same IF for a mathematics journal would indicate a top journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this being a "write only" journal, looking at GScholar, I see a rather robust citation record, with several articles cited over 100 times and many others 56, 60, or even 80 times. Looks like the people writing in this journal get read (and cited), too. --Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment: as much as I enjoy the debate about whether the journal is notable or not, this isn't what the DRV is meant to adjudicate. The only question before us now is whether the opinions expressed at the AfD were prima facie valid or not. Even if those Keep views are ultimately found to be misguided (which I don't believe is the case), as long as they were made in good faith by established editors relying on policy or common practice for the benefit of the project, they cannot be legitimately discarded. Owen×☎ 14:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, I've struck my last two comments. --Randykitty (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Further discussion at Randykitty's talk page. Hobit (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Allow immediate renomination. The AfD is defective, if only due to the nominator now being blocked. It was a weak nomination, and the sources added during the discussion were not reasonably discussed in the AfD. End the end, I see the discussion having been closed as “no consensus” primarily due to confusion. On how to renominate, see advice at WP:RENOM, namely, make it a good thorough renomination that summarises what happened in prior AfDs. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. The AfD nominator was indef banned for disruptive deletion nominations during the AfD, which allows us to discard their view. If we do so, it leaves us with just two legitimate !votes for Delete. With this in mind, claiming there was a clear consensus to delete is just ridiculous. Owen×☎ 09:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Their indef was a little more complex than bad AfDs. StarMississippi 14:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand, but the fact remains that this was not an editor in good standing at the time of closing. We have the option to legitimately discard it. Owen×☎ 14:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I've already said I have no issue with a speedier than normal re-nom. A relist didn't make sense, but with distance from the holidays we may get more input. StarMississippi 14:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse - If a closer finds No Consensus, and an appellant comes to DRV, it is sometimes because the appellant thinks that the closer should have supervoted. it is very unusual for a close of No Consensus when the !vote count was approximately even to need to be overturned. This is not the special case. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse, accurate closure. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse, and a trout to the opener of this discussion. I have mixed feelings about WP:NJOURNALS, but the idea that this AfD could reasonably have been closed as anything other than NC or K is ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Hucksters.net – Endorsed. WP:SNOW. There is no prospect of success: Over the past few days, editors agreed that the information brought up by the DRV nominator is not the type of information that would justify recreating the deleted page, further contributions are unlikely to be helpful as there is nothing else to do or discuss here, and rapid closure was recommended. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 15:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse and speedy close, the "new information" presented in this application for review is clearly insufficient to overturn the recent consensus at AfD. Daniel (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. Participation in the AfD was limited, but the result was unanimous. The appellant hasn't raised any argument for overturning. The new source changes nothing. Owen×☎ 20:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. The "new" information is that a report by Hucksters.net was given a two sentence mention in an article on another website. That is not substantial coverage of Hucksters.net, and doesn't even vaguely begin to make a case for overturning the outcome of the deletion discussion. JBW (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
More scrutiny needed When a new account is registered just to start a DRV, something inappropriate may well be afoot. Of course, the rationale presented is so ridiculously inadequate to overturn the deletion that this may be exactly what it appears to be. Regardless, endorse. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse per above - no new information here. SportingFlyerT·C 23:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse as a valid close. The originator may submit an updated draft for review, but that is almost always permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy endorse. No valid rationale provided to overturn the deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Claude J. Pelletier – Speedy moot. This is an improved draft by an established editor. DRV is not required to move it to mainspace. As it's not clear to me whether you want to improve it further before moving, I haven't moved it. No one revewing should take my inaction to mean anything else. StarMississippi 23:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The book notes: "Pelletier, Claude J. [Laval, 23 mai 1962]. Claude J. Pelletier complète ses études collégiales en sciences humaines au Collège de Bois- de-Boulogne en 1981. Il poursuit sa formation en histoire à l'Université de Montréal où il obtient un baccalauréat en 1984 et une maîtrise en 1987, puis il entreprend un doctorat sans toutefois le compléter. En 1986, il fonde, avec Philippe Gauthier et Yves Meynard, le fanzine de science-fiction Samizdat et en assume la production jusqu'en 1994, de même que celle d'une petite maison d'édition, Les Publications Ianus. À la même époque, il lance le magazine de langue anglaise Protoculture Addicts. Depuis 1991, il est tour à tour ou simultanément rédacteur en chef, directeur administratif et directeur de la production de ce magazine spécialisé en dessin animé, en bande dessinée (manga) et en culture japonaise."
From Google Translate: "Pelletier, Claude J. [Laval, May 23, 1962]. Claude J. Pelletier completed his college studies in human sciences at the Collège de Bois-de-Boulogne in 1981. He continued his training in history at the University of Montreal where he obtained a bachelor's degree in 1984 and a master's degree in 1987, then he undertook a doctorate but did not complete it. In 1986, he founded, with Philippe Gauthier and Yves Meynard, the science fiction fanzine Samizdat and was responsible for its production until 1994, as well as that of a small publishing house, Les Publications Ianus. At the same time, he launched the English-language magazine Protoculture Addicts. Since 1991, he has been alternately or simultaneously editor-in-chief, administrative director and production director of this magazine specializing in cartoons, comic strips (manga) and Japanese culture."
L'Année de la Science-Fiction et du Fantastique Québécois editions:
The entry notes: "Codirecteur de Samizdat, Claude J. Pelletier vient de terminer une maîtrise en Histoire à l'Université de Montréal."
From Google Translate: "Co-director of Samizdat, Claude J. Pelletier has just completed a master's degree in History at the University of Montreal."
The entry notes: "Claude J. Pelletier m'étonne. Il parle de fond de tiroir et nous menace de Mauvais temps comme d'un châtiment. Je parie qu'il dit cela afin de couper court aux mauvaises critiques. Eh bien, s'il manque de confiance à ce point en son texte, tant pis pour lui. Quant à moi, je l'ai trouvé bon. Dès les premières lignes, et ce malgré un manque de polissage flagrant dans l'écriture des fautes tellement grosses qu'on se surprend à rire. Mais n'est-on pas dans Samizdat ?, Pelletier décrit l'atmosphère feutrée quoique tendue de ce pub enseveli sous les dunes noires. Le lecteur sent la tempête, là-dehors, il sent l'inquiétude des villageois. La scène où les Patrouilleurs entrent par le sas anti-poussière est de toute beauté: simple, comme dans la vraie vie, mais chargée d'une belle intensité. Il y a longtemps que je n'avais pas ressenti le désert comme ça. ... Un conseil à Samizdat: laissez tomber les fonds de tiroir des autres auteurs et continuez à publier ceux de Claude J. Pelletier. S'ils sont tous comme Mauvais temps, ils méritent d'être publiés."
From Google Translate: "Claude J. Pelletier surprises me. He talks about the bottom of the drawer and threatens us with Bad Times like a punishment. I bet he says this to cut down on the bad reviews. Well, if he lacks confidence in his text that much, too bad for him. As for me, I found it good. From the first lines, despite a blatant lack of polish in the writing of mistakes so big that we find ourselves laughing. But aren't we in Samizdat? Pelletier describes the cozy although tense atmosphere of this pub buried under the black dunes. The reader feels the storm outside, he senses the worry of the villagers. The scene where the Patrollers enter through the dust airlock is truly beautiful: simple, like in real life, but full of beautiful intensity. It's been a long time since I've felt the desert like this. ... A piece of advice to Samizdat: drop the other authors' funds and continue to publish those of Claude J. Pelletier. If they are all like Mauvais temps, they deserve to be published."
Codirecteur de Samizdat, rédacteur en chef de Protoculture Addicts et membre fondateur, avec Yves Meynard, des Publications lanus, Claude J. Pelletier la terminé une maîtrise en Histoire à l'université de Montréal.
Sous des soleils étrangers, [Y. MEYNARD]
Collectif. Laval: Les Publications Ianus, 203 pages.
Pour la recension, voir sous Yves Meynard, p. 137-138.
From Google Translate:
Pelletier, Claude J.
Co-director of Samizdat, editor-in-chief of Protoculture Addicts and founding member, with Yves Meynard, of Publications lanus, Claude J. Pelletier completed a master's degree in History at the University of Montreal.
Under foreign suns, [Y. MEYNARD]
Collective. Laval: Les Publications Ianus, 203 pages.
For the review, see under Yves Meynard, p. 137-138.
The book notes on 116–117: "Dream Pod 9 is a company that had a long and varied history before it ever got into roleplaying. It began with a Montreal-based company called Ianus Publications, which was founded by Claude J. Pelletier to first publish historical papers and later a science-fiction fanzine called Samizdat (1986). The company name of Ianus referred to this duality, for the Greek god of portals had two faces, one looking back to the past and one looking forward to the future. When Pelletier was introduced to the Robotech TV show in 1987, he decided to publish a Robotech fanzine as well, Protoculture Addicts (1987). ... As part of this expansion Pelletier brought in a new partner, graphic designer Pierre Ouellette."
The book notes on page 119: "A newborn company called Protoculture retained Protoculture Addicts and two of the former Ianus staff, Claude J Pelletier and Martin Ouellette; the magazine remained in print through issue #98 (July/ August 2008) and is still active on the web today."
The article notes: "lanvs was founded by publisher/editor Claude J. Pelletier in 1988 to publish French language historical and sf novels to the discerning fans of Canada. Around that time Harmony Gold's Robotech tv series was resonating across North America, and Pelletier was inspired to create Protoculture Addicts, the definitive Robotech magazine. Through the years, as popular interest in the Robotech series waned, PA expanded its horizons to cover more and more of the anime and manga field. Five years on, most of the original staff have departed. and the new people have transformed PA into what it is today. ... The core staffers of lanvs are all locals of Montreal; Claude J. Pelletier, founder and head honcho, is company president, the driving force behind the PA magazine; ..."
The review notes: "Some of the best-recognized talents of the young sf community in Francophone Canada are assembled in Sous des soleils éntrangers [Under Alien Suns], a small-press anthology of Québec sf edited by Yves Meynard and Claude J. Pelletier. Eight short stories and one poem, each prefaced by a short biography and the author's comments, make up the slim volume."
The book notes: "He credits Claude Pelletier, editor-in-chief and production manager of Protoculture Addicts, with early "well thought out" pioneering efforts to support anime in Canada. Pelletier, who translated books on anime from Italian, also wrote an anime fan guidebook. Protoculture Addicts, which passed its 97th number in early 2009, started in 1987 as a ʼzine for fans of "Robotech"—a 1985 anime cobbled together from 36 episodes of the sci-fi saga "Macross," followed by two other anime (the splicing occurred in order to reach the 65 episodes needed for weekly U.S. syndication). ... By 2004, Pelletier had thought of closing down the venture, due to the tremendous workload for small-to-no profits; then in 2005 when it linked up with ANN, it changed its name to Anime News Network's Protoculture Addicts. The two entrepreneurs "played with the content” and regularized its schedule to come out six times a year. ... Pelletier's wife, Miyako Matsuda, who grew up on a farm in Japan, works as a freelance translator and as a contributing editor. (They met at the 1991 Anime Expo in Los Angeles.)"
The book notes: "He was coeditor, with Claude J. Pelletier of lanus Publications, of the original SF anthology Sous des soleils étrangers and of two books by Daniel Sernine (the two-volume collection of Sernine's Carnival sequence, which includes the story in this book)."
The article notes: "One of those shows, Robo-tech, inspired Montreal's Claude Pelletier to start Protoculture Addicts in 1988. It's now North America's longest-running anime magazine, and currently associated with Montreal-based Anime News Network, which publisher Christopher MacDonald describes as "arguably the most trafficked anime website in the world.""
I would like to see if this is enough to get the draft moved back into article space. I am going to continue to work on the draft article as time allows (although I admit I will struggle with incorporating the French sources). I am sending a courtesy ping to all the AFD participants to allow them the chance to review the new sources: User:SephyTheThird, User:AngusWOOF, User:SwisterTwister, User:Jclemens, User:Atlantic306. BOZ (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy close: there's nothing really to overturn here. You followed the path decided by the AfD, and now you can submit the improved draft for review via the standard AfC/review process. If approved by the reviewer, the draft will be moved back to main namespace, replacing the current redirect. Owen×☎ 00:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment: or seeing as you are an experienced editor yourself, apply our standard article creation acceptance criteria and determine whether your draft is ready for main namespace or not. CSD:G4 shouldn't apply here, and you don't need to run this by DRV. Owen×☎ 00:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Allow Submission of Draft or Allow Recreation, subject to AFD, but those actions were already allowed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment - Should we revise the introductory language for DRV to clarify when improved versions of articles that were deleted for inadequate notability or inadequate sources do not need to come to DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says "Deletion review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". When recreating articles that have been deleted at AfD, I sometimes have taken them to DRV first (if I feel recreation could be controversial) or sometimes just directly recreated the article (if I feel recreation likely would not be controversial). This is up to editorial discretion. It is fine for BOZ to seek the community's opinion at DRV on whether the sourcing is sufficient, especially since the 2016 AfD was very divided.
Yeah, I was going by criterion 3 when I decided to submit to DRV. I figure that if this does go to "allow recreation" that essentially voids out the previous AFD in case anyone wanted to challenge it later. It may not be necessary, but if there is no consensus here then I can submit for AFC after building up the article with the new sources. BOZ (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
DRVPURPOSE criterion #3 specifically talks about articles that were deleted. When an article is draftified (or in older days, userfied), the explicit intent is to improve it and move it back to mainspace. No appeal or overturn is needed to follow this prescribed sequence. BOZ chose to err on the side of caution, which is fine. When I said, "you don't need to run this by DRV", I didn't mean they mustn't, but that the original AfD result gives them the option to assess the article and skip DRV.
At this point, seven experienced editors have chimed in, five of whom are or were admins or new page reviewers - including BOZ themselves. Not a single one objected to the procedural move BOZ requested, for which BOZ doesn't really need our permission, and already has our blessing. There's no harm in keeping this DRV open for another six days, but there's no real point in doing so either. Owen×☎ 18:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment This really needs to be an FAQ. Someone want to draft an essay that can be linked? Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
It would be a reasonable decision for you to decide to move that to mainspace.—S MarshallT/C 08:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree, the amended article now passes WP:GNG so is ready for mainspace in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
We've already got WP:DRVPURPOSE #10. If people aren't reading the instructions, repeating ourselves in them won't help; if people are reading the instructions but being a bit more cautious than they need to be, repeating ourselves in them still won't help. —Cryptic 09:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
On the other hand, I see that, while the original title isn't salted, it'll still need the intervention of an admin or pagemover to get the draft back there with its history intact. I was already an admin before WP:RM/TR came about and have never followed it; is it usual practice there to refuse requests to re-mainspace previously-deleted content without looking further? —Cryptic 09:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
EFS Facilities Services Group – Deletion speedily endorsed. It's snowing. An established editor is welcome to bring a draft for review if they feel factors have changed StarMississippi 01:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
None of those are new, all but one are patently unusable even at a glance, and the remaining source accepts payment in exchange for coverage. Plus, we just reviewed this in November. —Cryptic 06:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Time to resurrect WP:DEEPER, perhaps?—S MarshallT/C 08:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse, but can we restrict the filing of review requests to registered accounts who can at least be asked whether they have conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Allow Submission of Draft subject to review (and knowing that reviewers may be inclined to ignore the draft rather than decline or reject it). Robert McClenon (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse should be a salted title, no new information. SportingFlyerT·C 21:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. The closing was based on unanimous, well-reasoned views, and none of the newly presented sources establish notability. Owen×☎ 00:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. Properly deleted by consensus. Do not encourage drafting. It does not meet WP:CORP. It’s routine. It’s highly actively promotional. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse. This isn't new information, per Cryptic.—Alalch E. 09:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Endorse per above. Clear consensus at the AFD. I have no objection to a recreation as a draft, but a draft based on the above references would stand no chance at WP:AFC. FrankAnchor 15:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.