As an uninvolved editor in the AFD, I'm asking the article to be relisted. It was open for 7 days, and I don't see a consensus for the redirect; this discussion seemed split to me. There's no harm in waiting another week or two to make sure there's consensus on this. For context, this is about the same time of year that many such articles are created for the biggest teams in the world, as information about the next season is becoming available. There's no indication that a BEFORE was done, and the justification for the AFD is based on the current state of the article, rather than the existence of suitable sources. A very quick look does find sources discussing the upcoming season, such as at this, this, this, and this. Relisting the AFD would allow for the opportunity to discuss these and other sources. Nfitz (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No valid policy reasons were given to keep the article: there was a mixture of ILIKEIT and false claims of SIGCOV. The sources you have provided all seen to be speculative / unconfirmed rumours, so could not be used to add content to the article either. Spike 'em (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - obviously a valid close. WP:OSE is a weak argument in an AfD, even more so in a DRV.Onel5969TT me 22:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, my two arguments are lack of consensus, and the existence of available references. Otherwise I was providing context (and I've edited above for clarity) - elsewhere I've asked for opinions on when is too early for such articles, in an attempt to minimize future conflict. Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be the current modus operandi of WPFOOTY. See this, which subsequently each got a handful of keep !votes from project members, after which they were speedily NAC closed as "snow keep" after 1 day, effectively preventing non-project editors from giving their opinions. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's most certainly NOT canvassing, as per our own guidelines, User:onel5969 and User:Randykitty! Under WP:CANVASSING, section WP:APPNOTE notes that editors CAN can place a message at "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion". Could Randkyktty and onel5969 expand on they don't think this applies to DRVs? Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on this one: a neutrally-worded notification on a related project seems fine to me. It brought me here and I disagree with you on it! Spike 'em (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I told them it was a bad NAC close, but they obviously disagreed. Onel5969TT me 22:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to DRV them - or perhaps one of them. Can I suggest 2023–24 Serie A or 2023–24 EFL League One as they only had 5 keeps. Also, why doesn't the guideline about notifying projects apply here? There's a lot of criticism of User:Jkudlick early closes, so we should ping them. Nfitz (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirection. Participants noted the article can be created in the future whenever it gains SIRS SIGCOV and that there is zero reason to host it beforehand. Those advocating to keep did not rebut this argument with anything remotely policy-based. JoelleJay (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - A relist would have been even better, but redirect was a valid close. We are only deciding whether the close was valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With AfD participation as low as it is, we can't keep relisting low-participation discussions -- because that spreads our limited resources of editor attention even wider on the next week. Wherever possible AfDs should be closed, for efficiency reasons. It was possible to close this, and the close reflected what editors said in the discussion, so I would endorse.—S MarshallT/C 08:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. We don't normally relist unless there's very low participation (<2-3 people) or new information has come through late in the day. Relisting isn't just spinning the wheel in the hope something will change. There was a clear enough consensus and the article can be spun out when the season actually begins. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as fair close. GiantSnowman 21:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A reasonable close based on the discussion. We will have an article on this subject by September once the fixtures start to roll in trades happen --In actu (Guerillero)Parlez Moi 07:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved but I have voted "keep" in similar AFD's). There was at least some consensus to close as redirect. A relist would have been a valid choice by the closer as well. This whole topic will be moot by June at the latest anyway as there will be more info regarding the next Premier League season by that time and a page will be re-created. FrankAnchor 11:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to question the point of all this. Everybody is agreed that it will be fine to have this article when the season starts, which is just over three months from now. There will probably be coverage of the season before it starts, so there's quite a bit of discussion and effort just to ensure that this title stays a redirect for at most three months. And an AfD which ended in a Redirect closure will probably get in the way of anybody trying to recreate the article in the future. Is this really a good use of everyone's time? Hut 8.5 17:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good question, User:Hut 8.5. And the closer we get to the start of the season, the more likely the article would pass AFD. In fact a week after this AFD, the same editor proposed the same thing for a lower ranked team, and it was a unaminous keep - see WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 A.C. Milan season! So is there a fundamental difference between Milan and Tottenham (I hope those days are over!)? Or have we now passed the line where such articles would be kept; we certainly are past the time such articles are normally created. The article was maybe 6 weeks early, at most. And for this, we have a big series of AFDs for very large teams and leagues, that would notable weeks later? It's a very black-and-white view of the guidelines - almost as if it was an attempt to apply Wikipedia rules that don't exist. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's always a question of where you draw the line. If it was 4 months would that change it, or 5 or 6 etc. -- 81.100.164.154 (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment right above suggests that the line has already passed. At the latest, it would be at the end of the season, as UEFA competition spots are confirmed on May 28th - or sooner. Also the status of player and coach contracts are quickly announced - in about 4 weeks time. The article was maybe 6 weeks early, at most? Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And all this time wasting would have been unnecessary if people wouldn't jump the gun. What's the problem with having a little patience and creating this kind of articles as a draft, moving them to mainspace only once sufficient sourcing actually is available? The problem is not that articles like this are taken to AfD (and then DRV), but prematurely creating unsourced insufficiently sourced stuff. --Randykitty (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's factually incorrect - the article was sourced. It cited four sources and there are obviously more available. The issue in the AfD was whether the topic had enough sourcing to pass the GNG. Whether the project has an article which doesn't meet the GNG for maybe a month or two is simply not a big deal. The GNG is a guideline, after all. Hut 8.5 12:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "unsourced" => "insufficiently sourced". Lingering in Draft space for maybe a month or two is simply not a big deal either. --Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mwiqdoh might have jumped the gun a bit on doing the last redirect (and DID jumped the gun originally when they moved the article to mainspace in February); they also spent 6 weeks with the article in their Sandbox rather than in draft-space. But what's wrong with a little patience in mid-April and not AFDing it! Meanwhile I'm now aware that User:Skyblueshaun is working on a version in draft at Draft:2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season - which surely should be moved over the redirect after this AFD is over. I'm not sure why no one ever tried to move the main-space article to Draft rather than blanking and redirecting. And I'm not sure why the closer didn't move it to draft. And perhaps this process would have moved faster if I hadn't DRVed it - though with the SNOW keeps at WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 Serie A, WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 EFL League One and four WP:Articles_for_deletion/2023_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup_Group_A articles, not to mention the unanimous keep at the directly comparable WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 A.C. Milan season and the apparent lack of consensus WP:Articles for deletion/2023–24 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season, I don't know why the most pragmatic solution wasn't to quickly relist the discussion - which had no relists. Sure, maybe it WAS "legally" an okay close. But it wasn't a pragmatic one. Nfitz (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The closer chose one policy argument over another policy argument and the closing rationale reads like a WP:SUPERVOTE. I am asking that the closure be overturned to either keep or no consensus to respect our policy of WP:CONSENSUS. Aoidh had a particularly relevant rationale for keeping. On a straight ivote it was 13 editors favored Keep and 6 editors + the nominator favored deletion. See also relevant conversation with closer where the closer only highlighted the keep rationales that were weak. Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I will note that, as mentioned above, I took part in the AfD and argued for keeping the article, whereas User:Guerillero's reading of the consensus was for the deletion of the article. However, their reasoning for how they determined consensus is reasonable and there is nothing problematic about the close. I still think WP:NOTCHANGELOG should be a surmountable issue but they're not wrong in how they weighed a strict reading of it. I think it should have been kept but I respect that consensus went the other way, and the close was a reasonable one. - Aoidh (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist also feel like WP:SUPERVOTE was used especally when compared to the WP:CONSENSUS for IOS version history was for Keep Popeter45 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i already listed this page for DRV yesterday Popeter45 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Popeter45: This one should probably be procedurally closed then since there's no reason to have two open AfDs and the prior one was opened first, but since I commented above I'll let someone else be the one to do that. This one was likely created because the review notice wasn't placed on the AfD for your listing, which means editors would not have known about it when looking at the AfD itself. - Aoidh (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yea my fault there, long time wiki editior but first time partaking in AfD and DRV so prob missed some stuff Popeter45 (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The close was a supervote and there clearly was not consensus to delete. While the keep side had a strong numerical majority, the delete side had a slightly better and more policy-based argument, specifically citing WP:NOTCHANGELOG.The biggest argument on the keep side cited WP:SURMOUNTABLE, reasonably noting that cleaning up the article can address the NOTCHANGELOG issues. I do not think a relist is necessary due to the high attendance of the AFD. FrankAnchor 18:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
IOS version history – The result is to relist the AfD. Counting those who !voted for a conditional relist (based on the result of the Google Chrome version history DRV result), the majority of participants saw issues with the snow close. While it's very much possible that the result will be to keep the article, there were concerns about a clear-cut case of WP:CANVASS and some noted that several of the keep arguments were weak and not policy-based. There is also a belief that, similarly to what happened with the Google Chrome version history AfD, had the discussion been left opened it would see an influx of differing opinions which could've changed a closer's assessment. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈 16:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Reason : the deletion discussion was started at 00:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC) and it was closed too early by a nom-admin user at 02:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC) their decision to close was based on the previous article for deletion discussion that from 12 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1keyhole (talk • contribs) 02:43, April 26, 2023 (UTC)
Endorse overwhelming support for keep (12 keep votes with some basis in policy/guidelines and no support for deletion outside the nom). This is very reasonable for an early non-admin close as there is no point in extending the discussion on what is a foregone conclusion (see WP:NOTBURO). FrankAnchor 03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to weak relist after learning more of potential SPAs, canvassing, etc. that may have tainted the discussion. Or better yet, start fresh with a new AFD. I do plan to vote "keep" if the discussion is relisted/restarted, but recent findings both here and at the Chrome DRV have shown that there is a lot more than simple keep and delete votes. FrankAnchor 11:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to endorse per my original argument. There is probably some canvassing and SPAs on this AFD but even so, there is clear consensus to not delete. I also think the nom and "delete" arguments on similar AFDs are too predicated on WP:NOTCHANGELOG, which can be addressed through means other than deletion. FrankAnchor 17:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the Canvassing claim has really been overblown by 2 users from the delete camp seemingly as a way to de-legitimise others views, the lister submited a spurious SP claim againts me and others with zero evidence apart from us all wanting to keep the artical Popeter45 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the AFD closer, User:Skynxnex, Buxton, was not notified of the deletion review. 1keyhole, please remember to notify the closer of a deletion review as required by the DRV instructions. Also it is encouraged to discuss the close first before opening a deletion review. FrankAnchor 03:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Frank Anchor, I del-sorted and !voted in the discussion but did not close it. I believe Bruxton did. Skynxnex (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I must have picked the wrong name by mistake, thanks! FrankAnchor 10:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Maybe the closer didn't really need to mention the previous AfD (which isn't especially relevant to this discussion), but either way, this was a perfectly valid application of WP:SNOW, and I'd respectfully encourage the nominator to respect the crystal-clear consensus and move on. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Striking because I wasn't aware of the additional context here, which does indeed make the SNOW closure somewhat less defensible. I'm not going to make another bolded !vote at the moment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as reasonable closure. To the extent there is a concern about a non-admin closure, I, an admin, am willing to vacate the closure and re-close also as keep. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment oh I forgot to mention two votes came from single purpose accounts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1keyhole (talk • contribs) 09:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. RelistThe deletion proposal had a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding.—Alalch E. 10:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC) /I've switched to supporting relisting based on Hut 8.5's comment below (... why 12 keeps to 1 delete over 5 days is clearly a foregone conclusion when 11 keeps to 2 deletes over 5 days for an extremely similar debate plainly wasn't) I was already aware of the other similar AfDs when I endorsed, but believe now that there was in fact a chance of a different outcome. During the remaining two days, it's reasonable to expect that there would have been delete !votes, and it's possible that those !votes could have affected consensus; that's all there is to it.—Alalch E. 16:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)/[reply]
@HJ Mitchell (and @Alalch E.), would you be open to reconsidering given the updated context? I think the fact that this was closed early by a non-admin without acknowledging the canvassing template or the strength of !votes makes the legitimacy of the outcome a lot less clear, and that's without even mentioning the trending deletion endorsement of an AfD with nearly identical metrics and arguments. JoelleJay (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But a new AfD will be even harder to keep open after two SNOW keeps... Why not just relist it for at least the remaining two days so it can be closed by someone who has the full context of canvassing, SPIs, etc.? JoelleJay (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my !vote after thinking more about it, and I've also considered HJ Mitchell's view that a new AfD is better. I'm not sure how I stand on that option. —Alalch E. 16:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: given the direction of 1keyhole's other NOTCHANGELOG nominations – namely Firefox version history and Google Chrome version history – I would suggest closing the discussion early was rather premature. Additionally, although the majority of the people in AfDs did/do want the article kept, WP:WWINexplicitly includes changelogs as indiscriminate information Wikipedia should avoid. Any competent closer should, and would, properly take that into account after a 7-days closure. Additionally, I find myself a little perplexed at people splitting the difference with the Chrome version history DRV; surely the relevant principles are the same? WP:NOTAVOTE, etc... Sceptre (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - We respect the consensus. Also I see that the op has not followed the listing instructions. I will place a notice at the top of the AfD discussion for them. Lightburst (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist if the Google Chrome version history AfD had been closed at this point, it would have likewise have been similarly one-sided. Yet it was eventually closed as delete, and the same could have happened here. * Pppery *it has begun... 16:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also reason listed by @1keyhole sounds verbatium to 6. on when Deletion review should not be used: to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early); Popeter45 (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of the appellant, ten minutes and two days are vastly different from each other. FrankAnchor 17:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, 12 keeps vs. only the nom over the course of five days is as close to a forgone conclusion as you can get. FrankAnchor 17:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was 100 keeps to 1 delete, if the 100 keeps ran directly counter to Wikipedia policy to the 1 delete pointed out, then we would expect the closer to delete on the basis that the 100 keeps had no weight. The arguments to keep the article in the AFD mostly boil down to WP:ITSUSEFUL, which ideally should be given little weight. Sceptre (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And of the 12 keeps, how many should be given absolutely no weight? I count at the very least !votes #4 (ITSUSEFUL), 5 (ITSUSEFUL), 6 (ITSUSEFUL), 8 (ITSUSEFUL), and 12 (ITSUSEFUL). And that's not even mentioning the !votes that make no argument other than "per [x]" with no additional policy rationale (#2, 3, 7, 9, 11), or the presence of obvious canvassing/puppetry (at least #5, 6), or the fact that turning the content into prose would do nothing at all in addressing the prohibition on any material being cited only to primary/official sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't seen an argument as to why 12 keeps to 1 delete over 5 days is clearly a foregone conclusion when 11 keeps to 2 deletes over 5 days for an extremely similar debate plainly wasn't. Hut 8.5 16:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
both to me would be WP:SNOW Popeter45 (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. These AfDs have been plagued with canvassed !voters from the "data hoarders" and "firefox" subreddits, as suggested by the template at the top. That more regular users have also been ignoring NOTCHANGELOG policy with ILIKEIT !votes is disappointing. JoelleJay (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
to an extent i would argue this wasnt a canvassed, linked pages are not about the AfD and was instead about a earlier attemp to vandalise the page via blanking, only after the page was restored did the AfD get created Popeter45 (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's inappropriate to label those changes as vandalism. Regardless of your opinion or even consensus view on the changes, it's apparent that they were made in good faith with the intent of improving Wikipedia. Regarding canvassing, it seems clear that there was canvassing to some extent (though unclear if canvassing impacted the outcome of this deletion discussion). The deletion discussions are mentioned in the comments of both linked reddit posts and this one has two !votes coming from SPAs that seem to have been created to exclusively weigh in on these deletion discussions. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 16:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the closure after five days was appropriate, as with a dozen keeps, many strong, and no comments for the final two days seem to be based on "Other Things Don't Exist". No prejudice against another AFD - but please wait until the DRV for the similar Android article is complete. Nfitz (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, there was absolutely no chance of this being closed as anything else. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. While it's true that there were a large number of early keep votes, discussions following the closure have made it clear that there is not exhaustive consensus to keep this article, so WP:SNOW can't apply—there is at least some non-trivial chance that the policy consensus lands on the side of deletion. I believe the original closure was in good faith and made sense based on the votes at the time, but given that contention over the outcome has emerged, I don't think we can reasonably say that a snow-closure should be kept in place. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits) 16:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - This was a valid non-admin snow close. Arguments that it should be overturned are not persuative. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admins should not be closing AfDs with clear canvassing issues.
thanks for letting us know, I also have account and will vote to disagree with what their trying to do
Awesome, thanks for doing that. Also, please be sure you vote on the iOS Version History) page as well, as the same person is trying to have that page removed as well. The good news though is that there are soooo many people voting "Keep" so I don't see how they're gonna get enough "Delete" votes.
Consensus is not determined by anti-policy or non-policy-compliant !votes, even if they are the numerical majority: Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. In this case, almost all of the keep !votes were some version of ITSUSEFUL, and of the few that explicitly attempted to rebut the NOTCHANGELOG argument, none actually addressed a key factor in the policy: that no content can be sourced only to primary/official outlets. Instead they seemed to think the problem could be resolved by prosifying the tables, which obviously doesn't solve anything when they're still sourced to apple/affiliates. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (uninvolved) — I don't agree with the "consistency" arguments related to the deleted Google Chrome article (which is just WP:OTHERSTUFF). The Chrome article was NOTCHANGELOG exemplifed. Each article gets judged on its own merits. DFlhb (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it either. But there's a reason to relist outside of this argument. —Alalch E. 11:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment — and I'm straining the limits of what can be brought up at DelRev, but with good reason. The iOS version history (VH) article is unique compared to the other universally-awful VH articles, in that I raised the iOS NOTCHANGELOG issue back in October, and proposed and reached a consensus with other editors to remove the tables, and keep and expand the prose. After I removed the tables, people who weren't part of that consensus poured in to complain (not just on that talk page), and naive little DFlhb folded to the pressure and spent days cleansing the tables of copyvio and bringing them back, because I thought our consensus no longer stood (though none of the complaints were policy-based; trout for me). The obvious, obvious solution is to just go back to that old policy-compliant consensus, reached on the iOS version history talk page, by removing the changelog tables (which I've just done). DFlhb (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, there's a strong argument to be made for getting out the TNT; there's the famous "AfD is not cleanup" argument after all, but if an article is in clear conflict with policies for a sustained period, and is markedly resistant to having those problems corrected, then what else can we do? Sceptre (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The resistance was almost entirely IPs, hence why it was dumb of me to backtrack; didn't see any conduct issues otherwise, except those brought by the tables themselves (like the temptation to fill-in blank cells with copyvio) — DFlhb (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Policy and guidelines support the result as did experienced AfD editors. There was a great deal of nonsense in trying to keep this article, it is simply continuing here. // Timothy :: talk 14:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Rather clear instance of a premature closure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Clearly premature close, given straightforward policy and the direction that other debates on this topic are going. BilledMammal (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as null It should indeed not have been closed as speedy, but the goal of the AfD was to remove the tables, and now they're removed. There is objectively no WP:NOTCHANGELOG material left in the article (as all changes are sourced to secondary sources, and everything else is about hardware support rather than changelogs). The original AfD reasoning (and responses) are no longer applicable, so relisting is pointless. If people still want this article deleted, start a new AfD with a policy-based reason that applies to the current version of the article. I doubt that would succeed, since while it lacks citations, AfD is not cleanup. DFlhb (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tables are no longer removed, so I retract my vote; but since NOTCHANGELOG is currently being discussed, and some are proposing changes to it (not just straight removal), I'd suggest that instead of relisting now, that we wait for the NOTCHANGELOG discussion to be settled, and then relist the article. DFlhb (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DFlhb: I reinstated the tables because Android version history set the original precent for the tables to start with and was the original cause for WP:CHANGELOG even getting its current wording to begin with. And the tables can be revamped to not be as exhaustive / comprehensive, but arguably there are like 2 tables in the entire article that go a bit too far in terms of exhaustiveness, and that was when other editors began re-adding the iOS 8 and later tables in full. I have however significantly trimmed down the amount of excessive detail in quite a few of the tables. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the removal of the tables was a good decision and drags it away from violating WP:NOTCHANGELOG. I disagree with the editors' rationale for keeping (the article at the time had large-ass tables contrary to the NOT policy) but agree with the outcome. I would have opted to relist if the tables were not removed. (please mention me on reply) SWinxy (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Not a good closure, there are a number of issues here. Notably:
We have firm evidence of off-wiki canvassing.
I do not think this was an appropriate non-admin closure. WP:BADNAC makes it clear that non-admin closures are not appropriate in situations that are likely to be controversial. A discussion with a massive "this has been canvassed" banner on it and multiple brand new accounts showing up who's only edits are to participate at the AFD should have been closed by an admin with experience of closing canvassed discussions.
A fair number of the keep votes are exceptionally weak. Comments like this helped me so much just today in making a buying decision, this page in it's entirety is extremely useful or There is literally nothing wrong with this article have no basis in inclusion or deletion policy and should be discounted.
Per above, the similar google chrome deletion discussion was in a similar state and ended with a delete result so clearly there is a chance of a deletion consensus arising here, and a SNOW closure was not correct.
on that last one you could just as well say as this closed as SNOW there is a chance of a keep consensus arising there, and a delete closure was not correct.
also once again this same argument of "i found somebody talking about it so all arguments againts what i want are invalid!" Popeter45 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is the first sentence even supposed to mean? It's incoherent.
Have you actually read WP:SNOW? That essay describes a set of situations where a discussion can be closed early due to the outcome being obvious. The sections on when a snow close is wrong are especially relevant, e.g. If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause. and closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. Given the canvassed votes, the low quality and lack of policy basis for a decent chunk of the comments and the turnaround of a similar discussion this was not a good candidate for an early close. 192.76.8.88 (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it was verbatium what you typed just swapped around the argument
and again the disreagading any other viewpoint as "canvassed", you could just as well say the turn around was due to Canvassing by the delete crowd Popeter45 (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this makes no sense. Do you know what canvassing is? Have you read WP:CANVASS? Canvassing is when you inform people about a discussion in a biased or partisan way, e.g. asking people to come and vote keep, informing people who are known to hold a certain opinion, or leaving messages in places where people with only one viewpoint are likely to see them. Canvassing by the delete crowd is complete and utter nonsense, the people who were voting "delete" are regulars of this website, and you have provided no evidence whatsoever that they were brought to this discussion via illegitimate means.
Are you really surprised that a discussion that was tainted via biased recruitment from another website is being treated as tainted? 192.76.8.88 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
neither have you provided evidence, that reddit post everybody is posting has NOTHING to do with the AfD, was actually made before the AfD was even made,its simply being used to discredit the keep argument by constantly shouting down everybody
also care to explain why delete comments always seem to come in sudden batches just when you would think the AfD was about to close and always just spout the same single line, many new ones are all the exact same of "as per WP:CHANGELOG", tell me that doesnt look suspicious? Popeter45 (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally people in those reddit posts saying that they are going to vote at the AFD [1] people being pointed towards other discussions that they should vote in [2] people trying to tell other redditors that this kind of AFD disruption and vote stacking is going to backfire [3]...
also care to explain why delete comments always seem to come in sudden batches just when you would think the AfD was about to close That happens in basically all deletion discussions because a lot of AFD regulars look at the debates that are just about to close. Go look at any AFD log page and you'll see votes left at the last minute. We even have a links in things like {{Deletion debates}} to take you to the discussions that are about to end. There's also a definite trend that once a discussion attracts drama or becomes controversial it attracts the attention of other people.
many new ones are all the exact same of "as per WP:CHANGELOG", tell me that doesnt look suspicious? Someone pointed out the exact policy that supports deleting these pages, and you think it's "suspicious" that a load of people agreed with them??? 192.76.8.88 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I have no doubt that the closure was done in good-faith. On the outset, it appears to be a valid close, however now that additional details have surfaced, it's better to reopen. Might I remind people that WP:SNOW is not policy. Chances are, it'll close in another 7 days as "keep" (because the content is more policy-driven than the other changelog articles), but at least then it will be definitive. Anarchyte (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I don't see any reason to believe that the focus of the discussion or the result will be substantially different from last time. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at 09:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Premature close with canvassing issues. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, canvassing issues with no explicit proof. Mind expanding, @Freedom4U? Just because subreddits have had these complaints, doesn't mean that it has attracted canvassing. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There were literally two 500 upvote reddit posts with explicit calls to canvass and a number of the "keep" votes were wildly unrelated to policy. :3 F4U (they/it) 15:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep - This article has had two AfDs now, both times were keep. It is VERY clear that the vast majority of editors both times wanted this article to stay. Endlessly voting to list an article for deletion because you disagree with AfD consensus is abuse of the AfD system, and canvassing is a non-starter here - there is NO valid way to prove anyone was canvassed despite the subreddit posts, and I would've voted Keep in the AfD too making it an even stronger vote to keep. And are we just going to ignore the WP:SNOW keep result 12 years ago as well and assume that people were canvassed then too? I have said this dozens of times now, in all of these irrelevant and IMHO dumb discussions - deletion of articles should outright be a strict last resort as articles can always be improved, and there are no WP:CHANGELOG violations here because they aren't exhaustive logs. The Google Chrome deletion discussion is an irrelvant discussion because as with everything else in the world, negative conotations tend to attract the most negative editors. I have been on Wikipedia a long time, never in my time until now have I ever seen these articles be AfD'd until now, when apparently it was decided that it would be fun to start misintepreting a Wikipedia policy. Additionally, WP:NOTCHANGELOG is a non-starter policy as well. It is open to vast misinterpretation, due to its vague and downright subjective wording. "Exhaustive" is an outright subjective term. Someone can find something exhaustive while someone else won't. That entire policy is a joke in my opinion, and it was why I opened the RfC to either rephrase or delete it. Because there is no way to objectively enforce that policy without being subjective with regards to what "Exhaustiveness" even means. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
