User talk:OwenX

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics, and sign your entry by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Thank you.

Click here to start a new topic.

Droners recreation

Back in June 2024, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Droners (2nd nomination) as redirect. It was recreated today, I reverted back to the redirect per the AfD, but was then reverted less an hour later. The article is substantially the same as before, but with less references than during the AfD, four total with one being the same as before. I was going to put a speedy repost tag, but since the article technically was not deleted, I was not sure that would fit. So instead I come to you for possible solutions. Aspects (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Aspects!

Seeing as the AfD was over half a year ago, enforcing its outcome now would be seen as heavy-handed, especially since participation was minimal. Instead, I suggest you start a discussion on the article's Talk page, pinging anyone who participated in either of the two AfDs. If that fails to reestablish consensus to redirect the page, you can take it to another AfD. Owen× ☎ 14:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Aria (Indian singer) - discussion of restoration

Hello Hi good day, the page you redirected to X:IN, A discussion about restoration began. This page Deletion closed review AfD informs you of this discussion as a closed admin, thank you!! ~~ Spworld2 talk 14:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

== Deletion review for EV GROUP

An editor has asked for a deletion review of EV GROUP. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jn.mdel (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) ==

@OwenX I hope you would be looking into this request.

I am not sure about the protocols involved at wikipedia - but I left this message on your talkpage only because the "instructions" on deletion review suggest to do so on page of "who closed the deletion discussion".

Anyways I only hope you would peruse the submission from an objective perspective. Jn.mdel (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. You have fulfilled your duty to inform me. The case is now in the hands of WP:DRV. There's nothing for me to decide. Owen× ☎ 11:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see and decide, thanks

DRV for Harsh Beniwal

Hi OWenX I have asked for DRV of Harsh Beniwal. You can find the discussion .here Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Ribu

I noticed that you delinked Ribu in Shiveluch and other pages. In fact, you have to delete this word, because it is not a name, but a classification concluded to be nonnotable/unconventional per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ribu. I am wondering whether you have some tool to redo youre edits. --Altenmann >talk 08:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that requires removing any mention of a non-notable classification. In case you haven't noticed, I was the one who closed the AfD you linked. You are welcome to start a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing to see if there's consensus to remove any mention of "Ribu" from the 400+ articles in which it is mentioned. If so, I recommend using WP:AWB to carry out the task. Owen× ☎ 08:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

No particular axe to grind; I was just asking. --Altenmann >talk 10:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths of Kenny McCormick

Hi! I saw that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths of Kenny McCormick. Would you mind explaining your thinking with regard to The basic claim of meeting WP:CSC Criterion #2 was not adequately refuted by the Deletes, which leaves the question of whether this falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE undecided in this AfD, despite the many here asserting so with little proof. further? I'm obviously a bit partial here since it was my argument, but I think that does not in itself mean that the topic is appropriate for a list but merely defines what entries the list can contain; put differently, proper list criteria is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a list to be appropriate does adequately counter the argument that the article should be kept based on CSC and I likewise think that the argument (also mine) about WP:Writing about fiction specifically saying to Avoid lists of fictional events going completely unaddressed by the editors arguing that the article should be kept fairly strongly favours deletion. Thanks in advance. TompaDompa (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here, TompaDompa. Your point about necessary but not sufficient condition is well taken. Indeed, your argument at the AfD, unlike several others of the Delete !votes there, was solidly anchored in P&G, and given full weight. And while CSC#2, as you correctly point out, doesn't automatically determine inclusion, it still leaves the door open, and casts doubt on the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument. The directive at WP:Writing about fiction is a style recommendation. We generally do not interpret those as a valid deletion criterion. In the end, while your argument was given full weight, after down-weighting !votes not based on P&G, I saw no consensus either way. As this is not a BLP or an attack page, the default action in the absence of consensus is to leave the page in place. Perhaps a better approach would be to start a discussion about some sort of summary format in which the list could be merged with Kenny_McCormick#Deaths beyond the content that is there today. Owen× ☎ 22:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean, if the list is removed (because, well, our guideline says not to list fictional events), then nothing (properly sourced) remains that isn't already at Kenny McCormick#Deaths. I unfortunately rather suspect that suggesting that would be interpreted as an attempt at "backdoor deletion". Hm. TompaDompa (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Consensus seems to lean towards keeping more than is already at Kenny McCormick#Deaths. But perhaps you can find a compromise short of the comprehensive list of the closed AfD. Rather than approaching this from the MOS and guideline angle, see if you can get support via a discussion on the article's Talk page to a workable compromise. In the end, this isn't a POV fork, WP:OR, or anything that is harmful to leave in place for now. Owen× ☎ 23:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Beat

Would you be willing to restore the deleted Mr. Beat page as a draft? It was originally Draft:Mr. Beat until I moved it to Mr. Beat (YouTuber), moved Mr. Beat to Mr. Beat (disambiguation), and made a technical request for Mr. Beat (YouTuber) to be moved to Mr. Beat. I believe that if it had never been moved into the mainspace to begin with, then it would've been safe from deletion for as long as it continued to be edited and not resubmitted ad nauseam.

Sure, I was the only discussion participant to argue for (re)draftification, but I was also the only one to explicitly express a stance on such an alternative action at all. On the other hand, WP:ATD-I says that an article can be draftified if it was created recently. Although the page you deleted had only been in the mainspace for 41 days, if the last iteration of Draft:Mr. Beat was created too long ago to qualify for incubation, then I can see how a lack of support at AfD for draftification would make restoring it as a draft (upon someone's request) no longer an option. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Hope I didn't screw up anything in the process...

Despite your extensive experience, I recommend going through AfC to improve the chances of passing the next AfD. Owen× ☎ 22:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Closeout of Kidnapping of Naama Levy AfD

Seems that you are uniquely qualified to have closed the AfD for the Kidnapping of Naama Levy, as your Hebrew fluency allowed you to directly analyze the discussion at the Hebrew Wikipedia. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Owen× ☎ 17:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Wondering…

Hello there Owen! Why are certain users against non-admin closes at AfD venues, even though the closes are correct and they would have been closed the same way by an administrator? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I know what you mean, Vanderwaalforces. Non-admins are an easy target. WP:NACD and WP:BADNAC tightly restrict what a non-admin may and may not close, making it much easier to contest a NAC. But don't let that discourage you. You've been doing a great job. I routinely get dragged to DRV, largely because I tend to close the AfDs that no one else has the patience or appetite to close. It's no fun to find yourself the subject of DRV, but use it as a learning opportunity. Sometimes the close itself is fine, but the closing rationale isn't detailed enough. And many times, someone simply isn't happy with the result, while the rest of us will endorse your close. Keep up the good work, and don't let the naysayers wear you down! Owen× ☎ 20:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Owen for your comment and encouragement. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This is in relation to this AfD, which VWF closed as a bare "no consensus" despite 5 delete !votes, 2 weak keeps, and 2 keeps (and unanimous agreement that no IRS SIGCOV sources have been identified, thus objectively failing SPORTCRIT) clearly making it within the "close call" realm discouraged in our guideline Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. JoelleJay (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. No-consensus situations are by definition contested territory, making them a poor choice for a non-admin close. I didn't review that particular AfD closely, but it's the type of situation better left to an admin, even if it ends up being closed the same way. Owen× ☎ 21:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, it's always appreciated! Hopefully this will be resolved without DRV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@JoelleJay No, you’re wrong, entirely, for thinking my question to Owen was because of the AfD you’re involved in. I closed/relisted several (15, 20?) AfDs yesterday including yours. How did you manage to conclude this question was because of a “no consensus” closure I made? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Because you came here like 15 minutes after I questioned your close...? Are you going to revert it or not? JoelleJay (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

My reply on my talk page already says exactly what I think. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

(interloper) The reason I don't like non-admins closing delete discussions specifically is because non-admins don't have the complete range of options available to them. If you're closing a contentious decision, there's no way it could possibly be closed as delete because you can't delete the page. Especially if it's a close-ish call and I'm advocating for the close to be deleted, I'd prefer to have a closer who can at least consider and action the fact the close could be deleted. Don't fear DRV, though, it's just a part of the process. SportingFlyer T·C 08:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Before I ventured into AfD closures, I was ready for my closes (and not me) to be taken to DRV, because it is indeed part of the deletion process. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for interrupting, but lately, many editors seem to have an issue with non-admin closures in AFD. However, if we take a moment to think about it, we should actually praise @Vanderwaalforces for their efforts rather than criticize them. They are assisting with the admins' backlog, and it's not like @Vanderwaalforces is a new user — they are an experienced editor. Thank you. Baqi:) (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

A few notes related to the comments above:

• There's currently no AfD backlog. When I do my morning scan, I rarely find more than a couple of stragglers with eight or more days since nomination or the last relisting. By noon, I or another admin will close them. Part of that is, of course, due to the help of non-admin closers like Vanderwaalforces. There is a backlog at RfD, which is why we allow non-admins to close as delete there and at CfD, by adding the RfD or CfD to a queue and leaving the actual deletion to an admin who only does a brief sanity check, trusting the non-admin to do the actual adjudication. We don't use that system with AfDs, largely because there's no need to do so.
• It is hard for me to come up with a scenario in which a "no-consensus" close is not a close call, which means almost all are unsuitable for a non-admin close, per WP:NACD. Traditionally, such NACs are likely to get either relisted or vacated at DRV, even if the NC call was technically correct.
• Specifically with WP:Articles for deletion/Paolo Rossi (footballer, born 1982), some of the Keeps come across as rather weak, P&G-wise. I still don't see a consensus to delete there, but deletion was arguably a possible outcome, making this AfD unsuitable for a NAC. I am not going to exercise my power as an uninvolved administrator acting in my individual capacity to reopen or re-close that AfD per WP:REOPEN, but I think you, Vanderwaalforces, should demonstrate good administrative judgement by undoing your own close, and letting an admin re-close it. As I said, the result would more than likely be the same, but it will carry the weight of a proper, admin close. Save JoelleJay and the rest of us the hassle of going through DRV.
• And as a final note: Vanderwaalforces, your reply to JoelleJay on your Talk page comes across as unnecessarily dismissive. I understand you are convinced your close was correct. But take a few minutes to see how I, or more experienced admins like Liz or Star Mississippi, respond to such comments on our Talk page. Getting defensive or sending people straight to DRV is rarely the best response. Not to mention that JoelleJay is one of our most experienced AfD participants, and a top-notch source analysis WP:GNOME. When she tells me I made a mistake, I listen carefully, and double check my close. More often than not, she knows what she's talking about.

So as I said, don't get too worked up over a single AfD close, and don't let pride get in the way of collaboration here. You're doing a great job, and self-reverting an occasional close will enhance, rather than tarnish, your solid reputation here. Owen× ☎ 21:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not addressing the discussion @JoelleJay flagged as I have gotten to the point I as an admin will rarely close sports AfDs that are close because they are so fraught. But @Vanderwaalforces I have seen you make some very good closes and I don't want to discourage you from closing discussions if they are clear. I do think @OwenX's suggestions on post-close conversations are helpful. HAve a look on my Talk as there are a few recent and here's one User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_20#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tarnobrzeg_Municipal_Stadium where @SportingFlyer and I saw things differently but came to an agreeable outcome, ditto JJ and I User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_20#Liz_Neeley_close. I think what we all want is an understanding of how we got to X even if X isn't the outcome we sought. I personally think we can generally avoid DRV and it's my preference as well. Thanks Owen for the ping and happy to help if I can @Vanderwaalforces Star Mississippi 22:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)