- Max Rose (politician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Major candidate with substantial national press coverage, in U.S. Congressional election La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of order--should the page have been restored prior to the opening of this deletion review? Marquardtika (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It should not have been, but this issue isn't uncommon with redirected political articles in campaign season. Once again I !voted in the XfD so not !voting here, but there's nothing to review here, as deletion review is not XfD. I've added the XfD link, though. SportingFlyer talk 20:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect itself said, "If notability of the subject can be shown, then be bold and convert this redirect into an article on the subtopic." Coverage of this person has increased since the article was deleted, to the point that this issue becomes a new topic. 3 of the 9 references currently in the article were from October 2018, after the deletion discussion closed. La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the deletion review template explicitly says: "Do not blank or redirect this page." So I'm pretty sure the page should not be redirected while the review is going on? Philepitta (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted on the talk page, the template is for articles which were "previously kept", which does not apply to this article. SportingFlyer talk 00:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as far as I can tell the template is for any article undergoing deletion review. Among the rationales for deletion review are "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page," which is certainly true for this article given the extensive recent news coverage. Philepitta (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- At Wikipedia:Deletion review:
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2018 October 31}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion. The XfD ended in a redirect, and the history was not deleted. There's no reason to restore the article until DRV has run its course. SportingFlyer talk 01:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The notice that you're linking says "Do not blank or redirect the page". Why is the page getting repeatedly redirected?Philepitta (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the result of the XfD was redirect, and we are restoring the article to the most recent consensus here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max_Rose (politician) SportingFlyer talk 01:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- But the AFD template says "Do not blank or redirect the page"! So the page should not be redirected. Philepitta (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to continually wikilawyer, but arguably template should not be on the redirect at all, since it wasn't a keep result. SportingFlyer talk 01:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The template on the page is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Delrev. It's not just for kept articles. Philepitta (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I was very surprised to notice yesterday that there was no Wikipedia article for Max Rose, so I helped to write the current article together with User:La comadreja. Although I didn't know anything about Rose until yesterday, there's been TONS of coverage of his campaign in many major newspapers around the country (and world); mutliple NY Times articles, an article in The Guardian, an article in Times of Israel, and many others. Many of the major articles are months or even a year old, so there's been sustained coverage in major independent sources for quite a while. Rose abundantly meets the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Philepitta (talk)
- Additionally, coverage of candidates does tend to increase quite a lot in the weeks leading up to an election. I would be really surprised if the citations currently in the article are the last coverage of this candidate. La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone please restore the page while it is being discussed? The deletion review template explicitly says "Do not blank or redirect this page," but some editors previously involved with the article keep redirecting it. Philepitta (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As per above, I disagree with this - the XfD resulted in a redirect six weeks ago, and the history's already there for anyone to view. SportingFlyer talk 01:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- SportingFlyer, given the wording on the deletion review template, I think your position is unsupported by policy. Philepitta (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging @Alpha3031: who closed the original AFD. Hoping s/he can provide some clarity of process here. Marquardtika (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've protected the redirect. Obviously that'll be superseded if there's consensus to overturn here. That, in turn, isn't going to happen unless arguments meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE are advanced, which, for all the electrons wasted above, I don't see.As to process - a temporary restore's appropriate for articles which have actually been deleted, which this has not, and would leave the article blanked beneath a {{Temporarily undeleted}} template. Which is more or less what we have now. And no, of course you don't get to unilaterally reverse an AFD by reverting the redirect, slap the DRV template intended for intact articles on it, and then claim the status quo can't be restored while we discuss like civilized people. Sheesh. —Cryptic 03:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- NAC Comment. I would be happy to back out of the close for either an admin reclose or a relist, but it would require a policy based reason as to why the AfD consensus was incorrect, misread or no longer relevant. I can see there being a case that WP:1E should not be applied, but consensus seemed quite firmly for a redirect, at least until the election has happened.Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of the previous discussion when I started working on re-writing the article yesterday (just that there didn't seem to be an article about someone I'd just noticed news articles about), but it definitely looks to me like there are abundant sources providing notability. Looking back at the discussion, lots of the sources were published since the previous AfD (although some of them do predate the previous discussion as well), so I guess that would provide significant additional notability? From the previous AfD, it also looks like some editors opposed the previous version of the article because of issues with the article itself (which has been totally rewritten, since I wasn't aware of the previous article). Are these grounds for a deletion review? Philepitta (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the AfD closure. This is fundamentally a judgement call with reasonable views on both sides, and most of the participants thought we shouldn't have a standalone article on this person. Both Keep and Delete !votes mentioned Redirect as a preferable outcome to the alternative, so Redirect is a fair close. I suggest we just wait until the election, which will happen in about a week. If he wins the election then he will clearly be notable, if he doesn't win and never gets any more coverage then the case for a standalone article is much weaker. I agree that the {{delrev}} template shouldn't be used in this situation, it's for articles which were kept at AfD where that decision is being appealed. You can't use it to temporarily reverse the AfD outcome. Hut 8.5 08:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the closure as redirect in reflecting the consensus. ——SerialNumber54129 09:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Close is correct given the discussion. Discussion not so crazy that it can or should be ignored. That said, I think that the outcome is wrong--WP:N is met in spades with international coverage. Hobit (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse to redirect. Can be restored if he wins, but short of that the coverage was fleeting and typical campaign news. Reywas92Talk 03:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close as correct at the time, but allow recreation given the new sources. Quite frankly, this is a waste of everyone's time - the new sources are sufficient that the previous AfD isn't binding. Smartyllama (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, I'm not sure you'd get a different result at AfD even with the new sources. Only three of the sources in the new article were from after the AfD was completed, all of which are local. SportingFlyer talk 02:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but it's sufficiently different that we'd need a new AfD, IMO. Smartyllama (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Unprotect The result of the discussion was to redirect but this is not binding indefinitely as all the content and history is still there for expansion if appropriate, as now seems to be the case. Ordinary editing and talk-page discussion should be allowed to proceed. Andrew D. (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I looked at what was discussed, and it's not a notable subject. All coverage is about the candidacy, nothing from before, which would suggest WP:LASTING. If he wins on Tuesday, then he's notable. If he loses, he's not. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could someone please fix the redirect link on the Max_Rose_(politician) page? I think this requires removing the deletion review template. There's consensus on the talk page for this change, but the article is protected so it requires an admin to make it. Philepitta (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, the "#REDIRECT" must be the first thing on the page for it to be effective. I moved the template down below the "#REDIRECT" line. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore at this time there seem to be sufficient sources. I also have a basic and deep-seated objection to or policy about candidates in a two part system for a national position--it is not NPOV, for it gives an incumbent advantage/ Inclusion of borderline articles or not doesn't harm the encyclopedia--departing from NPOV destroys one of our fundamental principle. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Several sources have called the race for Rose. This article should be unprotected and restored immediately. I'd do it myself per WP:IAR to avoid wasting any more of anybody's time, but it's still fully protected. Smartyllama (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the page protection has just expired, so I've restored the article. If an admin wants to close this, go ahead, but it's rather moot now. Smartyllama (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He just won the election.
|
