Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 21

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< 2020 May 20
2020 May 22 >

21 May 2020

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Zonic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

There's a number of reasons for concerns about this CSD of a long standing article with a significant number of versions of history and that been viewed by many over the years who have not seen the need to WP:AFD it up until recently. DRV purpose is under "if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion" however I accept there is a counter argument I have not proved procedural errors here and that perhaps in any case they were not substantial. There is a requirement for a CSD nom. to "Use common sense when applying a speedy deletion request to a page: review the page history to make sure that all earlier revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criterion, because a single editor can replace an article with material that appears to cause the page to meet one or more of the criteria." at WP:CSD; key being here make sure; there is to a degree onus on the deleting admin to ensure this has happened. There are three pieces of evidence due diligence was not performed by the deleting admin, while none of these are conclusive they are of concern. 1: When queried about CSD deletion of a long standing article the admin's response was "It was a one-line article with no included detail and, specifically, no claim, expression or inference of notability."[1] which demonstrated no understanding of the need or importance to check the article history.(There is likely nothing in it but equally there is often no point asking someone did you do X as they will often simple respond yes I did X. There are perhaps some reasons for believing nom. would have been honest in his answer if quizzed further but many would not). 2: When deleting the article the admin neither closed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zonic nor made any comment on the WP:AFD which perhaps would have been at the minimum corteous for those visiting the AFD or perhaps indicates lack of due diligence inspecting the article. 3: [2] shows the deletion was at 22:10, 17 May 2020 with a previous action on 22:09, 17 May 2020, the simply implication was that probably less than 2 minutes consideration was given. Ultimately a WP:REFUND has been refused [3] to I need to be here to either request a relist at AFD (And I'll confess I've only had a brief scan and I'm not sure I could come up with a WP:THREE especially as I don't have access to libraries currently during covid-19 lockdown and I'm pretty stacked anyway or whether pragmatically to simply request a draftication so I have the option of working on it at some point convenient to me. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article was indeed old but none of the versions in its history made any claim of significance or importance, and there is no "old articles aren't eligible" rule for A7 speedy deletion. Some of the older versions contain the sentence They offer a range of software development and consultancy services to Macintosh clients worldwide. and similar but I am not sure that this is considered to be a claim of importance/significance for the purpose of A7; anything with a website that is publicly accessible and where everyone can ask has by definition a "global" impact but that doesn't make YouTube channels with comment sections A7-ineligible. I wouldn't necessarily consider #3 as proof of sloppiness; in the past I sometimes checked a number of speedy deletion candidates and then deleted all of them in one batch. So I'd say keep deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus I think I now recall you were the speedy nominator, but such information is not visible to be directly (it may or may not be elsewhere), I didn't check on this occasion (and actually I didn't put 2 2 together there because you are generally a top link AFD closer for the toughies). Keep deleted is not an expected !vote at a DRV .. most people would expect it to mean endorse and in no way refund. Endorse but allow draftication or userification is probably a reasonable result otherwise it might look like you are attempting to block any good faith attempt at improvement, any you are far better than that. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I didn't do anything about this speedy deletion other than commenting here, and my name does not appear in the history. I think it's a fine A7 deletion and while Anthony's reply may not have been the ideal response I don't think it constitutes grounds for an overturn at all. As for userfication/draftification, given how basilar the article was I'd rather recommend that you write something from scratch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Apologies ... I can't see who speedy tagged the article unless there's a temp-delete and for some reason I thought I remembered the name as being yours ... [4]. And I've no clue who it was was (I've check my usual possible place) or I'd have given them the old Template:DRVNote. I'm well at the WP:TROUT farm today. Mind you if it was you issued the speedy I'd probably have noticed it. I'm also a bit anti WP:TNT due to copyvio's and reverse copy content and I like to keep an eye on the attribution history 'cos I can sometimes spot a COI coming up a little better. But thanks anyway. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC). Ah ... the CSD nom. was a 'Jo' as well, but not a 'Jo-Jo' ... probably where I half remembered from.[reply]
  • I'd personally probably have left the AFD run, but the deletion under CSD:A7 was not an unreasonable decision and therefore endorse deletion. Length of tenure does not give a free pass from deletion. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and keep deleted. This is a pretty encyclopedic example of A7. Praxidicae (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7. I've tempundeleted this (except for the first few revisions which were a totally unrelated article under the same title). This was classic WP:A7 material. I don't get this edit: you added an unsourced statement and tagged your own addition as citation needed??? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the temp-undelete. I'm on the road, not on one of my optimal devices, halfway into something, something RL distracts, and I likely should have been doing something else anyway. The article is about organisation, as written but actually I'm seeing products because its products I see more as key. Probably should of removed the CSD notice perhaps in retrospect but last time I did that I got ranted at. I'd still like a userifcation or a draftication despite all the stay deleted. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have no objection to userfying. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 – I don't see a claim of significance anywhere in the history. Nothing of value was lost. If someone wants to recreate it they can gather their sources and tell the reader why this subject is important, just like any other article. – bradv🍁 15:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well you never quite know what gems you find. Who noticed Old revision of Zonic yields the linkrotted [5]. Now probably no different to the zonic primary website and sometimes gives links to other stuff. And sometimes the clues can be even more subtle than that as edits times can sometimes give a good hint as where to apply date filters to searches. Just because one person with a negative point of view can't see something it doesn't mean someone else can't ... or do you deny me the chance to look at my leisure. O mihght even wish to try and consult a revious contributor about something. Salt Sonic if you must of course. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why would we salt Sonic, which is useful, based on another nonsensical, incoherent argument of yours? Praxidicae (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 per Bradv. Reyk YO! 18:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse - On the one hand, the article as it was when it was nominated for deletion and then when it was tagged for speedy deletion made neither a case for corporate notability nor a credible claim for significance. The AFD and the A7 were both reasonable. But why, once the article was already nominated for deletion, was it necessary to tag it for A7 or to A7 it? The AFD should have been allowed to run. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, let the AfD run The A7 itself would have been fine if the article hadn't just been AfD'd, and the A7 not opposed here. Given that speedy deletions are generally meant to be uncontroversial and there's someone who opposes it, why not let the AfD run? That being said, I also strongly doubt this gets past WP:NCORP unless sources are dredged, and there's an easy remedy - write a draft which clearly shows notability - so not too fussed. SportingFlyer T·C 06:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be with you on "CSD is supposed to be uncontroversial", except for the fact that there's no controversy here. For there to be controversy, there needs to be some reasonable argument why the requirements of the CSD weren't met. The argument doesn't need to be correct, or unassailable, or compelling, but it does need to be coherent and plausible. We have neither here. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The A7 is clearly valid. However, this was speedied after the AfD was started, and the user here wants to make an argument at AfD, likely for keep. I don't agree with any of the "concerns," but I do find the procedure itself slightly problematic and it's not something I want to endorse (if something is at AfD, let the AfD run, unless the speedy is serious like a copyvio/BLP attack page is my thought.) The fact there's not a valid keep argument made here (nom admits WP:THREE may not be met) means it's not really a huge concern. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unspeedy so I can argue for keep at AFD" isn't a valid argument at DRV unless the putative AFD argument is valid, and without any sources presented, it's not. If Djm-leighpark were actually saying that, instead of just vaguely implying it, I'd say to bring it back to DRV when they do have sources. But their arguments were -1: WP:ARTICLEAGE - one of the less bad entries at WP:ATA; 0: WP:POPULARPAGE - another of the non-terrible WP:ATAs, and in this case untrue; 1: an assertion that the deleting admin's statement that the article was extremely short and made no assertion of notability must be false because of the article's age, which is both baseless in general and false in particular; 2: the speedying admin didn't close the afd himself - a technicality, as forbidden in WP:DRVPURPOSE not#6; 3: evidence that the speedying admin knows how to use a tabbed browser, or perhaps can read a 24-word article, essentially unchanged since two weeks after its creation, in two minutes. Rarely have I seen so poor a DRV nomination outside of a user's first hundred edits. Endorse. —Cryptic 02:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just saying I think the procedure itself was slightly invalid - if it's at AfD, don't speedy it on A7 grounds unless it gets brought up at the AfD. I want to make absolutely clear I don't agree with any of the arguments here other than being discomforted by the speedy after the AfD was initiated. SportingFlyer T·C 04:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I commend Sporting Flyer's statement: One is encouraged at AfD to gather one's evidence; and this may take time, and sometimes this may involve a rescue; or identification of a possible merge, and one may feel disgruntled and irritated should the article be CSD'd in the interim. Then, as a were muggle(non admin), no view of what was their before; with possible exceptions of other copying wiki's and internet archive snapshot's. If the matter is more urgent due to a BLP or a copyvio then a very different matter; though e.g. Earwig can give false positives on long standing articles. By the nature of a DRV the result can be nothing other than an endorse; it is more the draftification that is the point. I also point out would we be as DRV if the closing admin had not suggested I come we but offered a draftication or userifcation instead which would have been a simple, de-escalatory and relatively non-contentious outcome ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A7 the text of the article didn't assert significance, and neither did any of the prior revisions, whether the admin checked them or not. "They offer a range of software development and consultancy services to Macintosh clients worldwide" is not an assertion of significance, that statement could easily mean "they have at least one international client" (or even "they would be prepared to work with international clients"), which is not even slightly remarkable for a software company. I'm not seeing any good reason given by the OP to think that the A7 speedy deletion was wrong either, it really doesn't take that long to decide whether a one sentence article qualifies for A7. Yes, speedy deletion is only supposed to apply to obvious cases, but the fact one person objects to something doesn't make it non-obvious. I suppose we could draftify it but the contents are pretty useless to any potential rewrite and it shouldn't go back to mainspace without evidence that the subject meets WP:CORP, including actual citations. Hut 8.5 07:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5, Many, many years ago, I published a Diplomacy zine. I had a couple of subscribers in Canada. When I write my autobiography, I'll be sure to mention that I was an international publisher. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise for the signing mistake - I do make mistakes signing from time to time ... in this case I think I used five rather than four tildes which accounts for the timestamps. Even the best make typos, though it may be argued I make more than most, witness "also not" rather than "also note" above. The comment is also noted because I have used the Template:unsigned template on several occassions recently (including on myself, and I also note from doing that there is a signing button available that I might explore). I have examined the timeline on May 17th Sunday; and my Covid 17 RL Sundays undergone a significant changes recently (though minor compared to others impact), and that has had some impact into that mistake. Unless peoples wish to further discuss the impacting of non urgent CSD'ing of articles at AfD or beat me up further I am willing to withdraw this DRV providing Zonic can be draftied. Its far far from my most priority WP article subject so it can hang arround with the set under my stewardship set. If there is no draftification it would be my intention to create a userspace/draftspace article with content copied from the CC-BY-SA source at [6]. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, no real excuse for me to not giving it a go. I assume the clever bot thought I am now so experienced I don't need to be checked. I wondered why the bot had stopped doing that like it used to. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Breast Tax (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing editor has redirected me here.[7]

The supervote here is far from making any sense.

The delete !votes were absolutely clear with establishing that there is a clear lack of WP:HISTRS which significantly covered the allegedly historical subject. There was a lack of even recent media sources covering the subject significantly without mainly relying on Nangeli and Channar revolt.

The "Keep" voters mainly relied on the lousy argument described at WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, as they failed to resolve any of the issues raised by "Delete" voters.

Noting that WP:POVFORKs are strongly discouraged, I don't see any consensus for "Keep". "Keep" was vouched by only 8 users. While "delete" was vouched by 13 users and 1 user vouched for a redirect. This shows that almost 2x users disagreed with the existence of this POVFORK. Wareon (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Could not have been closed as "delete". The discussion was erratic, typical of an uncompelling nomination. Read the advice at WP:RENOM. In six months, consider renominating with a much better rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the AfD nominator to have failed WP:BEFORE, and to fail to heed WP:ATD, and thus there is no justification for a relist. Issues with the article should be discussed at Talk:Breast Tax. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (pragmatically prefer albeit perhaps no concensus rather than keep) or just maybe Overturn & Relist. Certainly no consensus to delete, nor was that likely to happen. On a technical point, and it is important and the closer should note this, as far as I can good faith the discussion was not allowed to run for 168 hours and the closer should be WP:TROUTed and told to get a UTC clock or alternatively (and I am happy if this is the case) I should be trouted for incorrect arithmetic. Now if there had been !votes to relist/merge; and of course they might have arisen if the discussion had been allowed to run a bit; that may be an option. There again delete should be looking at redirect/merge options which they do not seem to have explored. I confess I haven't looked at whether a merge is appropriate or not, but anyone having a good faith reason for doing so should raise via WP:MERGEPROP creating a discussion first and expect contention; pragmatically better done that way than in a AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion wasn't closed early. It opened at 07:05, 12 May 2020 and closed at 03:52, 21 May 2020. That's just under 9 days, which is more than the 7 days AfDs are supposed to last. Hut 8.5 12:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for that. I'll eat the WP:TROUT I deserved to get. At least others can add up.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC) NB: That also weakens my already weak feeling for overturn and relist.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: you might want to turn on "Preferences / Gadgets / Appearance / Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time". It makes doing this kind of date math so much easier. I couldn't live without it. Also, I note that the AfD was closed with WP:XFDcloser (aside: anybody who doesn't use XFDcloser to close XfDs is doing it wrong). That provides the excellent feature of flagging with red or green highlights whether the 168 hour discussion time has passed. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the numbers might be with the Delete side but AfDs are closed based on strength of argument rather than as a head count. The idea that this is a POVFORK was never really spelled out, as noted by the closer, and the Keep arguments definitely aren't relying on THEREMUSTBESOURCES - the article has 31 citations, which nobody tried to analyse in detail. The major argument put forward for deletion was that the subject was covered by other articles, but the comments from Necrothesp and Vanamonde93 that the subject is wider seem to me more compelling and go further than just bald assertions. Even if that was the case merging or redirection would be more logical than deletion. Possibly No Consensus might be a better fit than Keep but there was no consensus for deletion. Hut 8.5 12:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to relist per Djm-leighpark. Whether there was a consensus for delete or not, there was certainly no consensus for keep. The major argument presented for deletion faced no convincing rebuttal and Keep arguments read like vague handwaves, i.e. not presenting any scholarly sources which would deal significantly with the subject independent of other two subjects. Clearly more discussion is warranted. Orientls (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would personally have closed as no consensus, but that does not change anything. So endorse. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (note: I !voted in this discussion). There was no substance to the delete arguments; the POVFORK argument is countered by the presence of sources dealing with the topic more broadly than can be covered elsewhere, the hoax argument requires that there not be any substantive coverage at all (a hoax with coverage on reliable sources would still need to be covered on Wikipedia), the "no sources exist" claim has been thoroughly debunked, and the "FRINGE" argument has not been substantiated at all. AfD is not a vote-counting exercise, and the closure was appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete or relist. I also voted in the AfD and I had obviously looked into sources and searched about the subject around before agreeing that the article is a POVFORK. Ultimately there was not a single "Keep" comment which could indeed say anything more than WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST. When argument is in front of you to verify notability independent of closely related subjects then  WP:ONUS is on "Keep" to provide sources. There had to be argument showing the significant coverage separate from the articles such as Channar revolt and that never happened. --Yoonadue (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong result. Ugh, this is a mess. I don't see how this was closed as keep. My first impression is I would have probably closed it as No Consensus, but I haven't really read it in enough detail to know how I would weight the various comments. Apparently there was some canvassing going on, but I can't tell from my quick perusal which side the canvasees were on. So, while I'm not going to explicitly endorse or fail to endorse the close, I do think this ended up in the wrong place.
I'm convinced from a bit of searching that Breast Tax is a notable topic, and certainly deserves to be covered in the encyclopedia, and under that name. However, between Breast Tax, Nangeli, and Channar revolt, there's enormous overlap. I suspect all three could be condensed down into a single article. How to cover a topic between multiple articles is an editorial decision into which DRV shouldn't wade. Take thee to the talk pages and sort that out with your fellow editors. But, looking at the three, I see large amounts of unattributed copy-paste between them, and that's a problem. I don't know if it's a problem DRV should address, but it needs to get fixed one way or another. I also see some lesser levels of copy-paste from this article in thenewsminute.com. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, probably only one article is necessary, but that article is this one as this is the one that deals with the basis for the other two. Which is why trying to get this article deleted in particular was so odd. If anything it should have been the article about the folk legend that was merged and redirected here, whereas it was instead claimed that this article was a POV fork of that one. Which it is very clearly not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other point worth mentioning is that I suspect there's some political aspect here. My understanding of the caste system is largely limited to what was taught in a 1970's American high school social studies class, which is to say I probably don't understand it at all. But, I have noticed that many wikipedia articles that touch on the caste system engender heated arguments. For all I know, whether you prefer Nangeli, or Channar revolt as an article title may depend on your political/social/ethnic background. If that's the case, then we need to tread carefully to make sure there no implicit WP:POV in what we title this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The deleters' arguments boiled down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the closer was right to discount them. They claimed it had no reliable sources, which was not true. They claimed it was a POV fork of Nangeli, which was not true. They claimed it could be adequately covered in Nangeli and Channar revolt, which was not true. They claimed it was full of debunked theories, which was not true. They insinuated that it was all a myth, which was clearly not true (although the story of Nangeli may well be). All in all, this was a very odd nomination and a very odd discussion and I'm convinced there was some sort of motive behind the obvious desire of some editors to delete it, although I'm honestly not sure what that was. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distortion? Deception? I beg your pardon?! And I'm afraid that, however much one may want to, it is a little hard to WP:AGF when so many clearly incorrect claims are being trotted out in support of deletion by multiple editors. Well, the nominator has just reinforced my point about the weirdness of this AfD with a personal attack for no reason (note that, unlike you, I have not singled out any one editor, including you as the nominator; it's simply the deletion voting taken as a whole that I find a bit odd). Well done. Double endorse!! -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • By my independent eye there's no bad faith in that edit, and there were several delete !voters who claimed there were no RS/HISTRS, so that's not a misrepresentation. I understand everyone in this thread is on different sides of the discussion, but that's actually even more of a reason to WP:AGF. SportingFlyer T·C 06:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Disagree with the closure, which failed to address the core argument that the article is a POVFORK. Apparently nobody else provided rebuttal against this assertion throughout the AfD nor anyone cited any evidence that how the article is not a POVFORK. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - This was a clear case of No Consensus, and either Keep or Delete were wrong answers. This should have been No Consensus. There is no material difference in the effect of Keep or No Consensus, but the closer could have avoided this appeal by saying No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The result is absolutely misleading since it does not address any of the concerns shared by most of the participants. The argument about the article being POVFORK is thoroughly valid, and that is why there had to be stronger and meaningful support against deletion if Keep had to be the result. That is contrary to the current situation of the AfD where the major concerns still remain unresolved. Azuredivay (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse the topic is notable. It's not really a POVFORK as far as I can tell (or at least I can't find the POV in question). And I think all the articles in question should exist. But they need to be better organized and not overlap so much. Each can refer to the other. In any case, there is no way such an article should be deleted--at most it's a redirect. I'd probably have closed it as NC, and I think that's a better reading of the discussion. But I think this is within discretion--I do think the keep arguments were stronger. It's a notable topic, and while a fork, I just can't see it as a POV fork. If the article needs improvement, go for it. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse ("without prejudice" of future deletion after cleanup) This discussion was such a mess that the way I viewed it was to check to see if the keep was supported by the arguments (it was) and then checked the article to see if the keep was supported by the article (as if I were !voting in the AfD, though without trying to figure out if I were to !vote keep or delete, looking just at whether this could be kept.) I generally agree with RoySmith's take, but want to note there was nothing wrong with the close - I believe a close of !keep was warranted by the discussion. That being said, I agree with the amount of overlap, and there's going to need to be some editing to clean up the overlap between the articles. If this article gets deleted/merged/redirected in the process after an RfC, this AfD result shouldn't preclude that. In the absence of discussion, we should not be overturning it. SportingFlyer T·C 06:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus- Keep votes go at the bottom, not at the top. Although a no-consensus is functionally similar to a keep, the delete side was stronger and better argued than the closing statement gave credit for. AfD participants give their views with the expectation that they'll be fairly evaluated and proportionally weighted. That didn't happen here. Reyk YO! 15:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse Classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is also apparent in some of the heated comments here in the review by those who voted delete. Most, as in a fairly large percentage, (not all) delete voters were new accounts with <1000 edits, some had even <100. They were unable to understand policy due to their lack of experience at AFD and were perhaps unable to understand that deletion discussions are not majority votes and AFD is not cleanup. Their arguments also appear to confirm that they are not able to grasp policies like GNG and POVFORK. The only policy based arguments were from Lorstaking whose view was the lack of HISTRS may lead to deletion; but HISTRS are used in the article. The canvassing that is supposed to have occurred did not drive any voters to the AFD, and is therefore inconsequential in this review. The Keep should not be overturned. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC) MistyGraceWhite blocked as a sock. Wareon (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability depends on the significant amount of independent coverage, than mere passing mention mainly about a broader subject. Indeed the article is a POVFORK and fails GNG. Nitpicking the policy based arguments while ignoring the classic WP:ILIKEIT and being the newest account in this entire debate but falsely claiming that "delete voters were new accounts" only reeks of your own POV pushing. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Endorse the XfD closer gave a reasoned and fair assessment of the AfD and then called this a keep. A "no consensus" result would also be reasonable and would result in the same outcome: keep. Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: But why you are double voting? Wareon (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Opps. Lightburst (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There are three distinct subjects: (1) a revolt related to caste structures in Travancore (2) a woman (possibly mythical) who undertook a significant act of resistance (3) a specific type of poll tax related to a caste structure. All three issues are related but also independent. Reliable sourcing shows all three to exist and be notable independent of each other; reliable sourcing appears in the article and was elaborated in the AfD process. Whether the title relating to issue (3) is the best title possible is certainly a reasonable question...but not for AFD. Closer made precisely the right decision in line with policy, reliable sourcing and arguments presented. (FWIW I recused myself from !voting due to arriving due to a canvass but did comment, although of late I regularly follow South Asia AfDs so I would most likely have come to this anyway). --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sounds like an excellent reading of the problem, with respect to finding a way forwards. I think the article needs editing, and likely a major restructure. The information may need to be split and merged to different articles. I think the current title is pretty poor. Verifiable historical culture/mythology topics like this are poorly solved by AfD. The AfD may not have found a consensus for what to do about this page with roundly recognized problems, but I endorse the closer's reading that consensus is that deletion is not the answer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to expand my point; mulakkaram (breast tax on women) and the associated thalakaram (head tax on men) are not "mythological"; they're historical facts confirmed in multiple reliable sourcing. There's debate over the actions of a specific woman (Nangeli) who refused to pay the mulakkaram, the mythology surrounds the act of resistance, though not it seems her or the refusal to pay. The conflation of these issues has been the main part of the problem during the AfD (I want to be clear, not suggesting SmokeyJoe doing this).--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per Goldsztajn. There are three distinct bu clearly related topics here, and three articles at present. Merging would be an editorial decision, and was not seriously discussed at the AfD. Close was reasonable, although "no consensus" would also have been reasonable, IMO. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_May_21&oldid=1039586376"