Wikipedia:Deletion review

Administrator instructions

Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result 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.

Purpose[edit]

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. 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);
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. 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);
  4. 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);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. 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.
  2. 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[edit]

 
1.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{} ~~~~ 

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{} ~~~~ 
2.

Follow this link to today's log 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:

{} ~~~~ 
3.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{} ~~~~
4.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

5.

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>{}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

Any editor may express his or her 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:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • 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[edit]

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 non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. 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 finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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.)

Speedy closes[edit]

It's rare, but not unknown, for a deletion review to be speedily closed.

  • 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).
  • 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.
  • 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".



Active discussions[edit]

27 January 2020[edit]

25 January 2020[edit]

Mad Ghost Productions[edit]

Mad Ghost Productions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted, mostly because it needed more work and more details added. Since its deletion, the production studio has continued to work on movies, television, and comics. This article should be reinstated, because it is a notable production studio. If it's reinstated to a draft page, I can continue to work on it. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment: Probably unfortunate DisneyMetalhead did not engage with talk with Nosebagbear upon Nosebagbear's first reversion; or perhaps on the article's talk page, or perhaps even before raising the DRV. Assuming the DRV is not struck for failing to discuss with Nosebagbear (closer) before coming here. The problem with the initial article remaining in namespace was notability, and the reasoning for the article to return and remain is namespace is a demonstration of notability. @DisneyMetalhead .. please read WP:THREE and prepare your best three (and only three!) sources demonstrating notability of the subject. Present them here, or as otherwise directed. It you wish to develop the article it should be possible to copy and paste from Old revision of Mad Ghost Productions to a page in your own userspace (dont copy the categories though!) where you can continue development and when you have it ready for mainspace it can be shown to Nosebagbear for comment first and then taken to DRV if necessary and then copy/pasted back over by yourself (This is the neatest way and pretty well avoids copy attribution problems that might occur in draft space). That's my suggestion anyway. (On a procedural note I dont see a link to Xfd discussion on the talk page of the redirect).Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm happy to have this discussion out here now we've got this far, though if recreation was on the basis of new notability I'd happily have looked at it again. This isn't an incorrect decision-overturn DRV, but for what it's worth this was a NAC decision by me. Djm gives the correct approach. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Allow Re-Creation in Draft as per Djm. There doesn't seem to be an issue with the close, but a request to be permitted to create a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Exactly, users: @Djm-leighpark:, @Nosebear:, and @Robert McClenon: - I simply would like the article reinstated to a draft article, to where I can continue to work on it. It was originally deleted (from the discussion that was brought to me), for lack of sources. I would have preferred it be moved to draft, than to be deleted; but I'm asking if we can begin that process now. Thanks friends!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@DisneyMetalhead Please don't say exactly when you don't get my point. It is perfectly possible for you to followed the link to Old revision of Mad Ghost Productions; go into the editor and do a copy paste (Do not save and ideally miss the categories; and save it to a page in your userspace and work on it there. This doesnt require action from anu administrator if you have the requisite skills. The reason for keeping it in your userspace as opposed to draft is that nobody else will likely make any significant change to the article while you develop it which means you can copy/paste it back when consensus is agreed and the attribution is good. Doing this via draft is trickier as potentially would require a histmerge to move back. The page could be moved to draft but this risks the whole thing being deleted in 6 months if you give up on it. But all you have to do is simply establish notability, best with your three best WP:RS sources here per WP:THREE and it should be possible to re=instate the article as it stands. No amount of article editing will help the re-introduction to mainspaces, it is the establishment of notability which is independent of article content which is the crucial point. I am of course assuming you have no conflict of interest with the article subject, but even if you did establishment of notability is key. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Directory information about a recently made one man company. It was a premature WP:SPINOUT. Do not encourage DraftSpace, all coverage belongs in the biography until there is consensus to spin it out. It should never have gone to AfD as there is a single obvious merge and redirect target. There is no prospect for delete, so this doesn’t rise to the scope of DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It's a discussion from around a year and a half ago and came to a redirect result. No DRV is required to make it back into an article if there is now satisfactory sources etc. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
DMH may be asking here due to the full protection on it - when I was trying to implement the original result I ultimately had to ask @Courcelles: to check I'd closed correctly and protect to prevent it from being reopened despite the AfD. Courcelles is inactive, but either this DRV could agree to reduce the protection, or an RFPP request can be made, whatever is ultimately easier. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boot[edit]

Geoffrey Boot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Boot is a member of the House of Keys, which is a legislature, and passes WP:NPOL 1, but the closing admin, no longer an admin, closed as delete without comment. ミラP 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC) ミラP 15:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Have you made any attempt to ask the closer about it? I've restored the article for review, honestly I don't think there was much of a delete consensus at that AfD, and if there's sources available I'd see no issue with recreating it. There wasn't much in the article in the version that was deleted. ~ mazca talk 16:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Miraclepine: Yeah, sure they don't currently have admin rights to restore it, but it's still often the quickest and politest way if you think they made a mistake or that the situation has changed - even if they technically can't, another admin would likely be happy to speedy restore it if everyone agreed. ~ mazca talk 17:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • These are the two sources that show he is an MHK: [1] [2] ミラP 17:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Comment who cares that the closer is no longer an administrator? They were not desysopped for improper closing of AfDs, they voluntarily handed in their tools and would be eligible to get them back at this time. This AfD was 3 years ago. Why not just write a new article and see if it sticks per WP:CCC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Without the admin tools Euryalus can't see the deleted article anymore and, after three years, it's a good bet they won't remember what it was like. So contacting them, though polite, might not end up very productive. Reyk YO! 19:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation- I can't really fault the close since the discussion (and probably the article) focused on his status as a sportsperson. But if there's a case to be made for political notability I don't see any harm in allowing recreation. Reyk YO! 19:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Well neither the deleted page nor the AfD mentioned a political career, so I can hardly fault the AfD participants for not discussing it, but the argument that he meets WP:POLITICIAN is definitely enough to justify revisiting it. I'd support allowing recreation and restoring the deleted version if someone thinks it would be helpful. Hut 8.5 22:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Hut 8.5: I'd recommend restoring the deleted version so I can improve it. ミラP 00:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Allow Re-Creation based on political notability. The article as deleted does not mention his membership in the legislature, which is a reason why the close should not be overturned as such. The close wasn't in error; the article was inadequate to sustain notability, and can be upgraded. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Rough consensus at AfD was fair. Re-creation is allowed if the reasons for deletion can now be overcome. Encourage use of AfC if the topic proponent is unsure. DRV is not for pre-judging notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the House of Keys an international, national, or sub-national legislative body? The Isle of Man is a bit weird. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

22 January 2020[edit]

Methodist churches in Leicester[edit]

Methodist churches in Leicester (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

to facilitate discussion, I have temporarily restored the article history so the final version can be seen DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Questionable nomination criteria

"There's a category for this, and most of these would not meet WP:NOTE. I feel it does not serve a purpose." There is no category, most do not need to meet WP:NOTE, and an opinion (without policy/guideline backing it up) is not relevant.

No consensus to delete

The majority of responses were neither keep or delete, they were alternatives for deletion & that is not consensus to delete. There have been various suggestions offered as preferred alternatives to deletion, including merging, partially merging, dratifying, etc. that are not addressed in the closer's statement. Given the myriad of suggestions which were not to delete, this closure is flawed because it interrupted the community from further discussing those alternatives.

Closer's taken position

In the closing statement, the closer makes it clear that s/he has a preference and dismisses a valid argument over the vague nomination claim & has taken a position in favor of the nominator's who says the list does not meet GNG and doesn't feel it serves a purpose. S/he acknowledges in the closing statement that (at least) one contributor says that the list does meet GNG and provided proof by adding it to the article. Neither the nominator (who provided no rebuttal) nor anyone else claimed that RS did not bring the list over the GNG. The closer has chosen an opinion of one editor over that of one who has offered verifiability.

Closure was premature & discussion should have been relisted

The history from 18:07, 17 January 2020 to 06:22, from 18 January 2020 clearly indicates that the discussion ongoing before the closure at at 06:52, 18 January 2020,

while this entry 06:52, 18 January 2020 (exactly the same time) shows that a participate wished to respond, demonstrating that the discussion had not come to a conclusion.
Complex lists require more time

While giving lip service to it, the closer has not into account the fact WP:LIST that there no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, and may take more time than others, and that discussion at this particular AfD was not complete.

Similar AfDs

The closure does not take in consideration two very similar AfDs, which are clearly noted on this AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester, and which contributors to this AfD clearly believe have bearing.Djflem (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


  • As the (unnotified) closer, I stand by my closure of this discussion as "delete" based on the strength of the arguments being made, in the light of applicable guidelines.
This was a pure, bulleteted list of Methodist churches in Leicester, with their address and no other information (and rather few sources). WP:LISTN makes clear that there is no consensus about whether there are notability criteria for "x of y"-type lists other than the general notability criteria of substantial coverage of the list topic in reliable sources. That being the case, to be counted as valid at AfD, a "keep" argument must make a reasonable case why the inclusion of the list is a benefit to Wikipedia readers in the light of general inclusion policies such as WP:NOT. Few of the "keep" opinions in this AfD made such arguments, or indeed much of an argument at all. Djflem made a pure vote at 21:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC). Pure votes are disregarded at AfDs. Atlantic306 at 16:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC) and Bookscale at 06:22, 18 January 2020 called for an expansion of the article, but made no argument for why it should be kept at all. Only Pontificalibus made something approaching a reasonable argument for keeping the article, but explicitly as a set index article, not as a list.
The closure was also not premature. The required seven days had elapsed, and sufficient people had commented in order to be able to assess consensus.
Moreover, the other AfDs about similar lists of churches, still ongoing at the time of the closure of this AfD, did not need to be taken into account. They were not part of the same deletion discussion, and it is conceivable that there are better or different sources for churches of one denomination or another in a particular city.
For these reasons, if one assesses the discussion in the light of the strength of the arguments presented, I am of the view that there is rough consensus to delete this list. Sandstein 09:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
One sees from Sandstein's evalauation of the article that s/he has clearly taken a non-neutral position and is applying his interpretation of a guidline for which there is no consensus. He has not addressed that the weak nomination mentions only notability, which numerous others in the discussion believe to be fulfilled. The nominator has not satisfactory countered with reasons why the the list is not notable other than a claim and has not disproved the contributions of other editors. Sandsten has again not addressed the many alternatives to deletion, which were the majority of comments. He has taken a position favorable to the nominator making the closure flawed.Djflem (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Closers always evaluate consensus by their arguments. There’s nothing wrong with that; in fact, that’s what a closer is supposed to do.
The nominator not arguing to your own liking is not relevant. The nomination itself is also not the key point for evaluation, since even an AfD with a blocked nominator can close as delete if there is consensus in the other editors' discussion. — MarkH21talk 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I take issue with Sandstein's accusation that my comment was a "pure vote", and, with great respect to Sandstein, it is bad faith to accuse editors of doing so when that was not their intention. The discussion in the AfD centred around whether the article met notability requirements for lists and that was what my comment addressed. Sandstein's comment in closing was that particular editors (which I can now safely assume would include me) didn't address reliable sources at all, and that was the reason that their comments were disregarded. Now he says that they were disregarded because they called for an expansion of the article and made no argument for keeping. I don't know what is supposed to be the real reason?? Bookscale (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Bookscale: The closer's point was that your keep !vote didn't give any reasons for why the article should be kept. You did say as AfD is not cleanup, that's not a reason to delete, but that's not an argument addressing why the article should be kept. — MarkH21talk 19:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-consensus to delete:relist overturn per reasons stated.Djflem (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC) (typo fix 20:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC))
    Above !vote is by the nominator. — MarkH21talk 18:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Djflem is not the nominator of the AfD Djflem (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Of the DRV, not the AfD. The comment was to avoid accidentally reading the above !vote as double dipping. — MarkH21talk 22:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What was the matter with Postdlf's suggestion, Sanstein?—S Marshall T/C 15:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Postdlf suggested redirecting to Places of worship in Leicester. One other editor agreed. That's not enough for consensus, but of course editors are now free to create such a redirect on their own. Sandstein 16:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hm. My reading of WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD is that we can only delete content when we've exhausted all the reasonable alternatives, and in this case I can't help feeling that there was a reasonable alternative before the closer when this decision was reached. Am I missing something?
Equally I don't feel our encyclopaedia is improved by our patchy and inconsistent coverage of religions. Where we do have something about Christianity it's often drawn from the 1913 Catholic encyclopaedia and therefore horribly in-universe. I feel we should treat religions like any other fictional topic, and I don't strongly want to overturn this close. I just don't see it as completely on all fours with our normal deletion practices. Difficult one.—S Marshall T/C 16:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It's quite ridiculous to call this a "fictional topic". Churches are usually solid and substantial buildings with a significant history as centres of community activity. The many places of worship in Leicester are the subject of academic study. Secular prejudice should be dismissed per WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
"Secular prejudice", by George! Thank you, Andrew. I have a new favourite oxymoron.—S Marshall T/C 18:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps "anti-religious prejudice" or "atheist prejudice" were the actual accusations there, rather than "secular". — MarkH21talk 19:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn There was no consensus for deletion and so this was yet another Sandstein supervote. As there are many parallel articles, the outcome is an inconsistent outlier. It makes no sense for the Methodist denomination to be singled out for deletion when we have the Baptist and Congregational cases being kept. We also have pages for the Anglican and Roman Catholic denominations and an umbrella page for all religions – Places of worship in Leicester. The latter provides a clear alternative to deletion, as noted in the discussion, and so WP:DGFA was not followed, "When in doubt, don't delete". Andrew🐉(talk) 17:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Err, the other two AfDs were closed after this one, and they're separate AfDs so they can have different results. — MarkH21talk 18:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The nominations were all tied together with explicit links. It makes no sense to close them separately with inconsistent outcomes. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but any inconsistencies arose after this close so that's an issue with the latter two AfD closes. This one was closed when its 7 days had elapsed. — MarkH21talk 18:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Those two AfDs have also been un-closed by the closer due to them being controversial WP:NACs, so that's now moot. — MarkH21talk 19:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The closes have been reverted because the nominator (MarkH21) badgered the closer. Fiat lux. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The closer agreed that it was WP:BADNAC#2. Don't baselessly accuse me of misconduct. — MarkH21talk 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Despite User:MarkH21 concurrence with the rationale of the closer here which he stated 'closed when its 7 days had elapsed', two others closed unfavorably to User:MarkH21, the original AfD nominator, needed to be open again and took it upon him/herself to do so.Djflem (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
That is a blatant lie. The original closer re-opened the AfDs because of BADNAC here and here after a discussion with me. I did not personally re-open the AfDs. What you linked is me adding the AfD tag back to the article itself as you’re supposed to.
The re-open was procedural and independent of anything you may perceive as being unfavourable to an editor. — MarkH21talk 23:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse: There was clear consensus for not keep, with many editors between delete, merge, and draftify. Among editors suggesting some form of not keep, only Doncram and DGG give non-keep non-delete !votes, with Doncram advocating for merge and DGG advocating for a draftify with a possible post-draftification merge.
    Unless the closer makes it clear that they did not consider alternatives to deletion (which is distinct from not explicitly mentioning alternatives in the closing statement), there is no reason to overturn. Most of the overturn arguments above (particularly the DRV nomination) seem to be AfD arguments rather than DRV arguments. This isn't AfD round 2. — MarkH21talk 18:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Equally there was a clear consensus for "not delete". There were only two pure delete votes, neither of which addressed the sourcing or whether the topic was notable. A relist for further discussion or a "no consensus" close might reasonably have been supported. However, endorsing a delete close in such circumstances is somewhat generous.----Pontificalibus 19:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I see six editors with delete, including the nominator. On my stance on the DRV here, I wouldn't be opposed to relist. — MarkH21talk 20:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Four of those weren't opposed to some alternative to deletion, so shouldn't be considered as part of a consensus to delete unless the alternatives are shown to be unworkable. I appreciate decisive closers, as relisting is often an easy option that doesn't always help. However a relist would help with some appropriate guidance as to what to focus the discussion on.----Pontificalibus 21:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Do not be confused: Not keep does not mean delete, and to suggest so is a misunderstanding of the AfD process.Djflem (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Nobody has suggested that those two are the same. — MarkH21talk 22:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
So as you've stated above you "wouldn't be opposed to relist" Djflem (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse there does seem to be a general feeling in that discussion that the page wasn't suitable for Wikipedia in anything like that form. The opposition to deletion came mostly from people who wanted it merged somewhere else or completely rewritten to be an article instead of a list. If someone wants to have a go at either of those than I suggest we draftify it, but if not then these comments are in line with the view that we shouldn't have this page. The discussion was open for longer than required and had come to a consensus so I don't see a good reason to relist it. WP:LISTN does indeed say that there's no general consensus on the notability of cross-categorising lists, but that's hardly an argument that we can't come to a consensus on this list. It also says that non-notable lists can be kept for navigational reasons, but that clearly doesn't apply here because none of the list entries were bluelinks. Hut 8.5 19:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Not to mention that LISTN explicitly defers to the policy WP:NOTDIR#6 where there is consensus. — MarkH21talk 19:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
(To quote MarkH21 above:"This isn't AfD round 2." So what's this?)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talkcontribs)
Yep, like in the quote, this isn’t AfD round 2. This is about the attempt to use WP:LISTN to say that there is no consensus. — MarkH21talk 22:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I made the point in the AfD that this is not a list article. The topic as per the title does not begin with "List of..." - sure, the article did contain a list, but this could have been reworked as prose focusing on the churches for which there was significant coverage. I had already begun this process, adding sources and detail to the article. It's a mystery to me why people focused on the list aspect, instead of on the topic as per the title, and on whether a decent article on that topic could have been achieved through improvement. Sandstein alluded to my keep arguments in the close but did not address them, and has mischaracterised them above as something to do with set index articles, which again is a mystery to me. Quite simply the topic is notable as demonstrated by the sources I had added to the article by the time it was closed.----Pontificalibus 19:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
They focused on the list aspect because it's a list. It consisted almost entirely of a list of churches, along with a few pictures and a short piece of introductory lead. The fact that a few of the entries had a sentence or two of detail doesn't make it not a list. If you'd like to turn it into an article, with actual paragraphs of prose, about Methodism in Leicester or something similar then I'd be happy to support moving it into draft space. But it will necessitate an almost total rewrite. Hut 8.5 22:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Surely the main role of AfD is to determine whether we should have an article on that topic, not whether the current content of an article is suitable. I’d be happy to improve the article, but only if there is a consensus that we should have an article about these churches. Draftifying only to end up here again would waste a lot of people’s time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontificalibus (talkcontribs) 22:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Alright - I'll rephrase: there was consensus that we shouldn't have this as a standalone page. However a consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone list of churches in Leicester doesn't mean that we can't have an article about Methodism in Leicester, or something else which is fundamentally a different page with a different scope and function. If someone would like to use some of the contents of this page to write that page, or to improve some other page, then I don't have a problem with it being restored to draft space for that purpose. But if nobody is interested in doing that then the contents are no use and we've decided to get rid of it. Hut 8.5 22:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
If there was any consensus, it was on the content of the page prior to nomination. But of course AfD is not cleanup and any objections to a plain list of churches had already begun to be addressed. The vast majority of contributors failed to address the topic under discussion, but focused on the list element. Imagine if New York City had previously been nominated for deletion because it contained only a list of buildings, even though someone had started adding referenced content about the Empire State Building and the New York Stock Exchange. The logic exhibited at this AfD would have seen it deleted, rather than improved. WP:TNT is not a policy however.--Pontificalibus 06:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
That's basically the same as what you said above, and again the page amounted to a list of churches in Leicester, whether that was the title or not. AfD participants will have commented on the page at the time, not on the pre-nomination version. Most of the changes were made on 11-12 January, which is before a good deal of the AfD participation. The changes don't amount to adding paragraphs of text or anything like that, instead they mostly consist of adding references and very brief annotations to the entries. If someone took a list of buildings in New York City and changed "Empire State Building" to "Empire State Building, a skyscraper completed in 1931 [citation]", along with a few similar changes then that doesn't magically make the page into an article about New York City. Plenty of lists have such annotations. Making the page into an article would have required writing paragraphs of actual prose, nobody was doing that. Hut 8.5 07:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, it was not the state of the article that mattered, but whether the sources exist to enable improvement, which they clearly do.----Pontificalibus 07:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Reading through the AfD, I don't think the notability of the list, or that sources exist which clearly demonstrate the notability of the list, has been clearly demonstrated. While some delete voters were delete/merge or delete/draftify, there's more of a consensus to delete or to move the information elsewhere than there is to keep the article on notability grounds and improve it. A simple count of the exact votes were 3 delete, 2 merge, 1 delete first and rename second, 3 keep outright, 1 delete or draftify, 1 delete/partial merge, and 1 draftify. The two keep !votes that were not yours did not explicitly discuss the notability of the list. One of them was also fine if the list needed to be draftifyed. There's a clear consensus this page is not okay as it is, there's a rough consensus the page isn't notable and that some or all of the information should be moved somewhere else, and there's no consensus on where to redirect or merge the information, making the delete outcome proper here. Part of this comes down to the difficulty of determining the notability of lists. I think Methodist Churches in Leicester could potentially be a valid article, and I don't think the close of this discussion prohibits that. The only change I would make to the close would be to make that point clear. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist Ignoring the delete !votes that fail to address the sources I added to the article during the AfD, there aren't any valid delete !votes left at all. Relist for a further seven days with the instruction to determine whether the topic "Methodist Churches in Leicester" satisfies WP:N.----Pontificalibus 19:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist, or close as Non-consensus Statements that "there was consensus that it wasn't suitable in its present form" does not mean that there was consensus to delete it, considering the multiple other options. The only thing that was really clear in hte discussion was that there was no consensus. I would normally just suggest "non-consensus" but it is possible with the sources now added to the article the consensus would be keep. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist or close as non-consensus per DGG. There really was no clear consensus to delete, and the sources that have been shown to be added to the article would show that the article can be kept. It would also give a chance to take into account the other AfDs. Bookscale (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse That was a difficult discussion, but I don't have any issue with the close and I think it's proper - there's not consensus on a merge target, there's not consensus on a redirect target (though postdlf does make a good suggestion), and from a reading of the discussion I think Sandstein is correct in saying only Pontificalibus makes an argument that would actually merit keeping the article. The clarification I would make is that there shouldn't be any prejudice on including this information somewhere else, but the article as it stands does not appear notable. Also, I know whoever closes this will be competent, but most of the participants in this discussion were involved at the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
And why, since it was an apparently difficult call, did one need to be made, especially considering that the discussion was still very very active. Why isn't a re-list more appropriate?Djflem (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
It had been open for ten days by my count, and relisting isn't proper when a discussion can be properly closed. (Also, the close wasn't difficult, the discussion was difficult. I'd be in favour of better guidelines for lists.) SportingFlyer T·C 01:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
A review of the history shows that the discussion was still quite active. If relisting isn't proper then, closing when wasn't either. It is clear the it had not concluded and had been better left alone.Djflem (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Nothing at WP:RELIST would suggest relisting a discussion because active participation is occurring (and to note again, discussion ran for a couple days after it should have been closed.) I know you're passionate about the subject, but there was no error on the closer's part for closing the discussion when they did, which is what we're reviewing for. SportingFlyer T·C 07:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing to suggest that a AfD is required to be closed by a deadline. In a "difficult discussion" which clearly had not come to an end, giving more time - by doing nothing - may have allowed a consensus to gel & we wouldn't be here. Djflem (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Relist as there was no consensus for any decision, neither keep nor delete, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn based on the fact that there is no consensus to delete. I did not participate in the AfD. A Sandstein WP:SUPERVOTE should be overturned and the close should reflect the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. An article can be renominated multiple times, however Sandstein wrongly gave this one the death penalty. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC I can't see anything resembling a consensus to delete the article and I don't see the policy-based arguments to be so heavily leaning in the delete camp to justify deletion. Hobit (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Reslist I spotted this AfD on my rounds, saw that consensus would take time to assess, and when I came back to relist, it had been closed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but why would a relist be preferable to a close here? There was plenty of participation, and a consensus the article shouldn't be kept in its current form. SportingFlyer T·C 14:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Alternatives to deletion were being discussed and no action was required or needed by a closer. Djflem (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No Consensus to delete or indeed to do anything else - User:DGG argues this above better than I can. Having said that, if it does remain it needs huge work v quickly. Ingratis (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse and allow someone to work on it in draft form. SportingFlyer captured my thoughts about the close. What did emerge from the discussion was there was a consensus to not keep the article. While I think there was probably generally agreement that the content should come back in some form, there was a strong sense that the current article is not notable as written. --Enos733 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Intervention by a closer who aborted an active discussion about which direction to take the material was inappropriate and disrupted the community from finding, or not finding, a consensus. Misconstruing not keep (which was far from certain) to mean delete is non-neutral position.Djflem (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
This discussion would benefit from less participation by you, Djflem.—S Marshall T/C 16:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Endorse Clear among participants that article should not be kept in its form as a mere directory of a particular type of church in a particular place, regardless of notability. Voters recognized that the topic did not need its own article rather than listing only the notable/historic churches in a page with inclusion criteria besides mere existence or previous existence of non-notable churches in limitless combinations of places and types. Reywas92Talk 10:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn. There was no consensus to delete, maybe even a consensus to not delete the history. The combinations of “redirect” “partial merge”, “merge” and “draftify” do not fit the close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Overturn to No Consensus - It wasn't an easy close, but deciding that there was a consensus to delete was an easy way out. The views of the community were all over the place, and that is what No Consensus is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

20 January 2020[edit]

Sunshine Mall (closed)[edit]


Recent discussions[edit]

15 January 2020[edit]

14 January 2020[edit]

Archive[edit]

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec