Wikipedia:Deletion review

Skip to:

Active discussions
Recent discussions
Archive
(purge cache)

WP:DRV

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

WP:DRVPURPOSE

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

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

Instructions

Shortcut

WP:DELREVD

Before listing a review request, please:

Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review


1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in `page` with the name of the page, `xfd_page` with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and `reason` with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, `article` is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 \|page=File:Foo.png \|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png \|article=Foo \|reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRV notice\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev\|date=2025 May 6}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2025 May 6}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2025 May 6\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

Endorse the original closing decision; or
Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

6 May 2025

5 May 2025

Kepler-1972

The preprint mentioned in the discussion has been published.^[1] With this article, WP:NASTRO could probably be met, as the article has a primary focus on the topic and provides an in-depth look at the planetary system.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kepler-1229b (talk • contribs) 03:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ Leleu, A.; Delisle, J.-B.; Mardling, R.; Udry, S.; Chatel, G.; Alibert, Y.; Eggenberger, P. (May 2022). "Alleviating the transit timing variation bias in transit surveys: II. RIVERS: Twin resonant Earth-sized planets around Kepler-1972 recovered from a Kepler false positive". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 661: A141. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142822. ISSN 0004-6361.

Endorse. The close was correct long ago. If you want to recreate, got to WP:REFUND and request undeletion to draftspace, improve it, then submit it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to mainspace. Nothing wrong with the original 2022 deletion. As particpants noted, it was WP:TOOSOON. Now, three years later, WP:NASTRO is easily satisfied with the article cited by the appellant, which covers the planet as its main subject. There's nothing to improve in draftspace. The deleted stub was well written, and already cited Leleu et al., back then on arXiv, and now on a major peer-reviewed journal. The appellant can update the citation link once this is restored. Owen× ☎ 12:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per OwenX. Correct close three years ago, based on TOOSOON. Three years later, its not too soon anymore based on the above reference. Even the closer noted Potential to recreate when there is more published research, which would be now. Frank Anchor 15:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted, and no opinion on restoring to draftspace. It isn't apparent to me that the fact that the single preprint is now a published paper strongly indicates that the topic passes WP:NASTRO, which says: A single paper is not enough to establish notability. Are there multiple sources?—Alalch E. 00:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft - Review can determine whether the preprint and any other sources establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other sources. To my understanding, only one source has ever been brought up.
DRV should decide to restore under WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 when there are multiple sources on the table, not only one. —Alalch E. 19:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore per OwenX. There was no problem with the close. The circumstances have changed. That said, this could have (and probably should have) been seent to WP:REFUND. However, since this request was made here, there is no need for extra process. --Enos733 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4 May 2025

Thae Su Nyein – Procedural close: block evasion (with all other editors !voting endorse). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The subject, Thae Su Nyein, was the 2nd runner-up in Miss Grand International 2024. She has received significant media coverage in reliable sources, such as [1], [2] and [3], indicating she meets the notability guidelines for models and beauty queens. I believe the deletion was premature. ^{Yuzy Okkotsu1} (☎) 08:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, pro forma, as the speedy deletion is not substantively challenged. Interested editors in good standing should go to the protecting admin and show them a nice draft proving that this article should exist.—Alalch E. 10:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The deletion of a draft or article that was created by a sockpuppet is not premature. As A1a1ch E. says, a good-standing editor should prepare a draft. What would be premature would be unsalting the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When I read this, I thought that maybe the appellant was appealing a A7 deletion, because this sort of argument would have been appropriate for an A7. No. I then read the history and this is a G5, and the deletion of a sock article was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 May 2025

Ziad El Chaar

The closer's apllication of P+G appears to be mistaken, for example they "discarding non-EC !votes" based on CT/BLP ground but the CT for BLP do not include non-EC restrictions... I've never seen anyone discard non-EC comments on BLP grounds, if thats how its supposed to be done than all the other BLP AfDs are doing it wrong which makes me think it isn't right. Without discarding those comments the situation is very different. This close was brough to my attention by another open discussion about the same closer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC) @Darkm777: who first brought this to my attention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This really seems like the right outcome, very poorly worded. I'm not sure what to suggest exactly. SportingFlyer T·C 16:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You spend more time around AfD than I do, have you ever seen non-EC comments discarded on CT/BLP grounds? I've only seen that in topic areas where the CT actually comes with a non-EC restriction like ARBPIA. My suggestion would be relisting to give another closer a chance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it's clearly a delete - the sources are pretty terrible. I don't understand the reason they were completely discounted. I've never seen that before, and I don't think it was needed to get to that result. A relist makes sense. SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - The closer's exclusion of non-EC !votes when the only contentious topic is that the article is a biography of a living person is unusual, and I am not sure whether I have ever seen it before. With only five responses including the nomination, a relist would have been reasonable anyway, and it seems reasonable at least to see if any trends either continue or discontinue. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request Temporary Undelete for a better understanding of the topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment discarding non-EC votes from every BLP AfD due to CTOP rules seems like it might be technically correct but entirely not what the community had in mind or would support when that specific question is put to them. The non-EC votes in that discussion look no worse than average AfD input. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a technicality that allows it we have not yet identified it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: can you do us the favor of explaining the technical reasoning behind this? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as closer. I wasn't planning to voice an opinion here, but since the appellant asked, I'll comply. First, some background. Ever since they were reprimanded at AN/I for incivility against me, Horse Eye's Back has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, on my Talk page, in RFCs, and most recently - here on DRV, constantly scouring my contribution history for anything to use against me. A quick check of the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool will give you an idea of how much of Horse Eye's Back's time is now devoted to digging up what they believe to be P&G violations by me. I do my best not to engage, as I have no desire to waste my time or the community's on this drama. This specific DRV came about since the AfD was mentioned in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_April_28#Paul_Barbeau, which fell like manna from heaven on Horse Eye's Back's lap.
As for the AfD itself, the Delete result would be there whether I discarded non-EC !votes or not. As SportingFlyer correctly noted above, the sources presented by Originalflavors did not come close to meeting our notability criteria, and were thoroughly rejected as such by the more experienced participants. Darkm777's !vote was essentially a "per Originalflavors", adding nothing to the discussion. This wasn't surprising, seeing as the two of them are very inexperienced editors, While the three Delete views came from some of our most experienced editors and AfD participants. There was no need to reject non-EC !votes to reach the correct Delete outcome, but I thought a technical reason such as CTOP would be a more tactful way to justify discounting the two non-P&G-based !votes, allowing the two to save face while they become more familiar with SIGCOV. In hindsight, that may have been a mistake, and I should have spelled out the weakness of the two Keeps instead of hanging things on WP:CT/BLP, although I did highlight the fact in my second sentence there. Not that this would have saved us from a DRV; Horse Eye's Back would have found some other reason to bring the case here. Owen× ☎ 18:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You make a ton of closes, I have had issues with I think three or four of them (its more or less the same issue though, the closes being based on strong claims about P+G that don't survive inspection)... But this is the only one I've brought to deletion review... So how are we getting to "Not that this would have saved us from a DRV; Horse Eye's Back would have found some other reason to bring the case here." thats beyond the other attacks which I can see as just your opinion into something that doesn't even make any sense... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked: you've participated in a total of four DRVs since registering your latest account in 2020; one in 2021, one in 2024, and two over the past week. The only two DRVs where you weren't a participant in the AfD are--you guessed it--the ones where I was the AfD closer - this one and the April 28 one. Horse Eye's Back, you're not fooling anyone here. I suggest you review WP:HARASS before you continue. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So how are you sure that "Horse Eye's Back would have found some other reason to bring the case here."? I'm not harassing you, these are related issues on multiple articles. I've acknowledge the whole time that "This close was brough to my attention by another open discussion about the same closer." (and I now realize that there is a silly spelling error in there) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back, I'd strongly recommend moving on from this DRV as commenting further is very unlikely to help anything at this point. OwenX, you are getting into WP:ASPERSIONS territory, as the Editor Interaction Analyzer isn't enough evidence on its own (I took a look.) Horse Eye's Back has only made 23 edits total on your talk page, and in only three threads. SportingFlyer T·C 23:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLPs aren't one of the small number of areas where an extended-confirmed restriction applies, so non-EC users are welcome to participate; admins have only a few narrow powers in this area, and while protecting an AfD is fine (though rare), you can't do that retroactively. Given OwenX's alternative explanation above, I would endorse the result but not the reasoning: I know that's an unusual !vote, but I think DRV does need to speak clearly on this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but append a correction to the closing atatement (maybe strike the original text). I endorse the outcome as there was a rough consensus to delete. The closing statement is all wrong however, because the EC restriction is not one of the restrictions imposed in this topic area.—Alalch E. 10:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at minimum it should have been renewed for another week or two. There was clearly no consensus yet.Darkm777 (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment: I was one of the keep voters. Subject meets WP:ANYBIO due to his awards and also WP:BASIC, which says that if there are not enough significant coverage you can combine all his coverage to establish notability. Darkm777 (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10Web

I'm requesting a review of the deletion of the article on 10Web, recently deleted. I believe the decision may not have fully considered the presence of multiple reliable, independent sources that meet the notability requirements outlined at WP:ORG.

Specifically, the subject is covered in four published books on marketing and technology, where 10Web is discussed in a non-trivial context—highlighting its AI-driven approach to website creation. These are editorially controlled, third-party sources that go beyond brief mentions and demonstrate industry relevance.

In addition, the company holds a registered U.S. patent for its AI-based website generation technology: [Patent No. US 11,579,849](https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/11579849). This further supports the claim of original technical contribution and recognition beyond general media coverage. Additionally, this is a new update that was yet to be added to the page, but the page was already deleted before I was able to add it.

While some concerns were raised about tone, the central issue is notability, and I believe the available sources meet the criteria. I’ve been active in the Wikimedia movement for over a decade, with thousands of contributions, and I take tone and neutrality seriously. I was actively engaging in the discussion and improving sourcing throughout the AfD process, but it was cut short due to an abrupt deletion.

I respectfully request a second review to assess whether deletion was the appropriate outcome given the evidence available and still being added. ShahenWasHere (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse consensus to delete, including one delete !vote and an affirmation of another delete !vote after the appellant mentioned the references in the AFD. I have no objection to restoring to draft space if the appellant or any other user wishes to improve the article to a point in which it can pass WP:AFC. Frank Anchor 14:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse,although it is not clear whether the appellant is saying that there was any error (which there was not). The title has not been salted, and the appellant can get a second review either in draft space or in article space. I suggest that the appellant start over rather than waste their time and that of the community by refunding an article that already was deleted once. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if a temp undelete would be possible to make sure a mistake wasn't made? This was a lightly attended delete discussion and I can't see it being kept or overturned but want to make sure there wasn't an error here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the request by SportingFlyer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done (cc. SportingFlyer; Robert McClenon). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I held patents in two countries which have since expired. I'm not notable in part because neither got SIGCOV. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There was no error here. The Delete votes reflect an article that says what the corporation says about itself. The deleted article is not about what third parties say about the company. Refunding the article to draft space would not be useful to the appellant, because there is nothing supporting notability to start with. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse consensus to delete and no clear error was made by those wishing to delete. Thank you for the temp undelete. SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Eagle Flight 5401

Closed as redirecting with comment The result was redirect‎. In think the AfD should have remained open as there was an unfinished discussion about the lasting effect.

After people voted Redirect, the discussion continued that the accident had a lasting effect and so probably meeting NEVENT. One of the Redirect votes JeffUK was striking his redirect vote, at 10:22 on 10 April commenting Striking for now, see discussion RE ongoing changes to procedures and stating in the discussion then that changes things and does make this feel more notable. With a futher ongoing discussion this AfD was closed before for instance JeffUK voted again. The 2 other redirect voters didn't take part in the further discussion. So there was af the time of closing not a clear Redirect result and the AfD should have remained open. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhere between endorse and relist - there were safety recommendations made as a result of this accident [4] but it's also not easy to find sources, possibly because of when the accident occurred. SportingFlyer T·C 16:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak relist. I am also somewhere between endorse and relist, but will lean toward the latter since it was a WP:NAC by a user who had made exactly ten AFD-related contributions before this close. There was numerical support to redirect, but I don't feel the IP's keep vote was adequately refuted, and this certainly was not a clear, uncontroversial, discussion in which a NAC would be appropriate. Frank Anchor 16:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - In view of the history of repeated merging and unmerging, it would be a good idea to get more participation in the consensus on whether a redirect or a separate article is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as a facialy valid protest that an NAC was nuanced and didn't represent clear consensus. Relisting would have been cheap and the best course of action given the issues about developing consensus through the ongoing discussion; that's what relists are for. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1 May 2025

West Side (San Francisco) – Procedural close. There was no deletion. About expressing an objection to a draftification as a bold move, see WP:DRAFTOBJECT. —Alalch E. 20:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article was moved from mainspace to draft without any prior discussion or proper tagging. The justification that it was “machine-generated” and lacked sources is completely inaccurate. The article was entirely human-written by me, based on extensive original research, and includes multiple inline citations as well as widely verifiable, non-controversial facts consistent with WP:BLUE. The draftification was made unilaterally without following collaborative process or WP:CONSENSUS. I request a full restoration to mainspace and a formal review of this improper draftification. —User:Goldrock95

@Goldrock95: Its not been deleted. Its in draft. This noticeboard is for WP:AFD deletions. It was reviewed as part of the WP:NPP sprint that just started. It looks as though it has been LLM generated in part. The article is 50% unsourced and won't be going back to mainspace until its sourced properly and that is much as you can say about it. scope_creep^Talk 19:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close - Wrong forum. This is a disputed draftification. If the author wants the draftification reviewed by a community process, they can move the page back into article space, where it will be nominated for deletion. A page that has been draftified and then moved back to article space should not be draftified a second time, because AFD is the consensus process for deciding whether it is ready for article space. There hasn't been a close yet to review, because there hasn't yet been an AFD. Let the author move the page back to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 April 2025

Comet (online retailer) – Speedy close, with consent of filer. No action needed here, DRV is not AfD 2.0 Star Mississippi 01:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I believe that the contents of this deleted page should go to Misco, rather than Comet (retailer), as the contents pertain to 2019 and onwards under Misco's ownership, not Comet (retailer) which is 2012 and before.Icaldonta (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC) Icaldonta (talk • contribs) 15:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:JUSTDOIT. If you found a better redirect target, go ahead and fix it. You don't need to go through DRV for a routine editorial action, especially a noncontroversial one like this. Owen× ☎ 16:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except they didn't find a better target. They suggested this target at the AfD, but it closed differently. They have since repeatedly tried to implement it anyway. They then started a discussion to get it changed, where I pointed them to DRV (as they want to change the outcome of this very recent AfD) and also gave reasons why the current target is better[5]. JUSTDOIT really is about the worst possible advice you can give. Fram (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need to come to an agreement here. I am proposing that the contents relating to Comet's revival as an online version under Misco's ownership should be outright removed from Comet (retailer) and placed on Misco with a disambiguation left behind, as Comet (retailer) relates to 2012 and before. As such, Comet.co.uk and Comet (online retailer) should re-direct to the Comet section on Misco. This ensures the most clarity for readers.Icaldonta (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I proposed re-directing to Misco on the AfD, but the AfD was closed without any reasoning why this could not happen, nor any discussion regarding it. Icaldonta (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have invited all members of the original AfD to participate in this discussion. Icaldonta (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Icaldonta for the ping. During the AFD I suggested keeping the Comet material together, and now that I've seen the Misco discussion here, I still think the Comet material should be kept together. Two reasons: (1) anybody reading about Comet wouldn't expect to spend much time in a Misco article (WP:PLA); (2) Comet is a brand that is currently owned by Misco but what would we do if they then sold it to Currys or Sainsbury's or whoever? A single Comet article could look at each phase of the brand's life as the world continues to evolve. The Wikipedia:Build content to endure essay may have some relevance here. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I agree with the original AFD outcome to redirect‎ to Comet (retailer)#appropriate_section. -- Northernhenge (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution. At its peak, Comet was a major UK retail chain, comprising hundreds of large electrical stores nationwide. The current incarnation of Comet exists solely as an e-commerce website, which remains relatively obscure compared to the brand’s heyday. It's also worth noting the significant gap between the chain’s closure in 2012 and its relaunch as an online-only retailer in 2020.

I understand your concerns regarding presumptions of lasting attention (WP:PLA). However, I believe that if both Comet.co.uk and Comet (online retailer) simply redirect to a section on Misco for now, it does not present a policy issue, especially considering the limited current notability of the Comet brand in its present form.

If Comet were to be sold to a major entity—say, Sainsbury's, for instance—then it would make sense to update the structure: the Comet section could be moved to the relevant article (e.g., Sainsbury’s) and the redirects from Comet.co.uk and Comet (online retailer) could be updated accordingly. This would ensure continuity and accuracy, while respecting WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL by avoiding speculative content until a substantial change occurs.Icaldonta (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that reinforces my point. If when a long-standing brand gets sold, we move everything about the brand into new current owner’s article, we could easily lose the history of the brand. If retailer X was initially owned by X itself, then owned by A, then B, the article about X should be updated to discuss its change in ownership. X would be mentioned in A and B, but the substantive content, telling the story of its development from a private retailer to a minion in the B conglomerate, would remain in the X article. (Apologies for breaking the markup when our edits overlapped. I’ll leave it to avoid making it worse!) -- Northernhenge (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of the AfD, I'd think we should speedy close this because it is a "a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment" (WP:DRVPURPOSE). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I’m concerned that we’re simply continuing the closed AfD, which is an inappropriate thing to do. -- Northernhenge (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on comments made, I am happy to speedy close this conversation.Icaldonta (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 April 2025

Greece–Turkey football rivalry (closed)

Greece–Turkey football rivalry – Relisted by the closer. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

None of the Keep !votes cited any sort of actual evidence that the rivalry itself meets WP:GNG, which is the standard set at WP:NRIVALRY; one pointed to two clearly unreliable sources – an open public poll and an opinion piece on a website already labeled unreliable. As I noted in an amendment to my original nomination, I would be content with a Merge to another article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak relist. I agree the keep !votes are generally weaker in policy/guidelines than the delete !votes, but I do not see a consensus to not keep a standalone article. The NC close is not terrible, but I think there is still potential for a consensus to build to keep or not keep this page. Frank Anchor 13:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist This is a hard one for me to look at from the point of a distant closer because I edit in this area, would have voted instead of closing, and would have !voted delete because the sourcing just is not there. No consensus is not a bad close, but a relist would not hurt here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I was waiting for AfD to close to propose a merge. Svartner (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (from closer). I would have been happy to relist this had Jkudlick reached out to me prior to opening a DRV. With that said, I closed as NC thinking that did not preclude merger discussions taking place outside of AfD, and considering that despite the delete !voters, nobody had really established why deletion of content was preferable to preserving it (even via a merger)/reworking of content. I am still fine with relisting this, though am away from a stable internet connection for a bit- if anyone wants to do so feel free! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and relisted this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - After one week, there is always enough of a possibility that a trend will emerge that a Relist is better than a finding of No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I think we'll find a consensus. Might be good to suggest people consider possible merge targets they'd prefer if a merge did happen. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 02:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - a premature close after just 1 week. Giant Snowman 02:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Occupancy

During this article's deletion discussion, comments about potential alternatives to deletion, like draftifying the article or reworking it into a more encyclopedic article that went beyond a DICTDEF, were raised. However, the discussion was only open for a week, during which only five people commented. There was not sufficient participation to ascertain a consensus for or against draftifying or otherwise retaining the article. The discussion should have been relisted, rather than closed. silviaASH (inquire within) 04:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Consensus was clear. A one-week listing period is standard. Stifle (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but refund to draft. There is clear consensus to delete and five voters is more than enough to establish a quorum. However, no argument was made against the suggestion to draftify and it appears multiple editors are interested in potentially improving the article. Frank Anchor 12:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An endorse but not really worth bolding - the discussion result is absolutely correct, but the petitioner is also correct that this could be an article if it doesn't violate DICDEF. If that means a refund to draftspace, that's fine with me. SportingFlyer T·C 15:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I respectfully disagree with the idea that it may be useful to refund a dictionary definition to draft space. It would be just as useful for the appellant to start from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article had a fair amount of prose that could have been worked with and was not a pure dictionary definition (although as I said in the discussion, it did not do much to rise above that level). It was a bit of a weird case, which is why I specifically voted weak delete. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
endorse and send to draft I've no idea if the draft will be useful, but I generally feel content creators should get such things on request. Hobit (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SilviaASH, do you actually want the article draftified, or are you just raising a procedural concern? Happy to draftify if there's a genuine interest in using it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly raising a procedural concern; this is not my topic area and I would probably not work on the article myself. However, given that Clovermoss, in particular, expressed interest in working on the article during the deletion discussion, I think that refunding the article to draftspace would be beneficial, particularly if they are still interested in working on it. I agree that the consensus to delete was clear and that it would have likely still been deleted from mainspace even if it was relisted, but I do feel that a relisting to more clearly establish a consensus on the merits of draftifying the article would have been helpful. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what I was thinking of specifically was whether or not the merge the draft I was working on which was about vacancy into this pre-existing article about occupancy. I commented rather than voted because I was trying to think about whether or not I wanted to do that and then never got around to commenting again. Vacancy is probably the better known concept of the two, so I'll probably either move Rental vacancy rate into a broader concept article and merge the draft I'm working on into that or create a separate article entirely. Regardless, it's not the highest on my list of priorities because I'm going to be working 48 hours a week IRL for the next several months.

I will admit to being surprised this was deleted because the article went beyond a simple dictionary definition, with there actually being quite a bit of prose there. It wasn't a good article by any means (lots of uncited text), but not anything WP:TNT level. I don't contribute to AfD discussions very often, but it's definitely not something I'd typically see deleted (à la Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). I'm unsure about the merits of draftifying because that might just lead to backdoor deletion. At least in NPP, you don't do that with articles older than 90 days, whereas this article was created in 2006. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A week is the standard period and five responding participants is good. About undeleting to draft: It's hard for me to accept the idea that some of this content could be useful.—Alalch E. 18:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
recent wayback machine snapshot of the article, for the record. It wasn't great but it wasn't nothing either. I don't know, I mean I voted delete myself and all but I'd rather this have been improved if possible. Well, whatever, it's there if anyone needs to look at it, I guess. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. 1st paragraph of § Building codes: Buildings can have stores at the ground level and flats as well, followed by a US-centric fire safety digression. 2nd paragraph: more US-centric primary source regurgitation. 3rd paragraph: probably more of the same but no citation. 4th paragraph: same garbage. 1st paragraph of § Building utilization: "can also refer to" -- NODICT sensor goes red -- then comes the legendary sentence: "When a motel is at full occupancy, it is common practice to turn on a NO VACANCY neon sign", then a single useful sentence about how demolishing vacant buildings is good for crime; 2nd paragraph: NODICT content. 3rd paragraph: digression to occupancy sensor, only related in the use of the word "occupancy" (it's a sensor to detect if a person is in the room, and is not about "(mode of) use of a builiding" or "number of units of a building that are in use"). "Other meanings" section: clear NOTDICT content. Overall: no, it isn't useful. —Alalch E. 20:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
shrug silviaASH (inquire within) 20:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent discussions

28 April 2025

Paul Barbeau

Was closed as a delete, despite a clear lack of consensus for that, on the grounds that "the retention threshold for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE/WP:BIODELETE is significantly higher than that for WP:CREATIVE". However,

firstly, the subject has won a Canadian Screen Award and has had both CSA and Prix Iris nominations, which are the kind of top-level film awards that permanently nail notability to the wall for a filmmaker — as I stated in the discussion, every single person whose name appears in a CSA or Prix Iris nominee list must always be a valid WP:CREATIVE-passing article topic as soon as somebody gets around to them, and there can never be any exceptions who are "off limits" for us to have an article about;
secondly, the sourcing was significantly improved during the discussion, by both myself and RebeccaGreen, to show that he does pass WP:GNG as a filmmaker, including the fact that it previously didn't even mention the notability-making awards at all until we improved it;
thirdly, even in the discussion the subject himself was clearly backing off from his original request for deletion, and understanding what was being said to him about our WP:NPOV and WP:RS requirements, and expressed appreciation for the efforts that I and other editors made to repair the article's problems;
fourthly, even the few delete votes (which were clearly not in the majority) were all made before the improved sourcing was added, and not a single editor (not even the subject/requester) even attempted to argue that the improved sources still somehow weren't meeting GNG.

So for all of those reasons, particularly the fact that the subject's main concerns were addressed and even the subject himself was softening on his original request, I don't see that the original request should still trump all the improvements that were made. And if a Canadian Screen Award is somehow insufficient to pass WP:CREATIVE anymore, then how the hell am I ever supposed to figure out any sort of new distinction between notable CSA winners and non-notable CSA winners in order to continue working on articles relating to Canadian film at all? Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question (as closer): has Mr. Barbeau withdrawn his request for deletion? All I see in the AfD is an anon with an IP that traceroutes to Montreal talking about Paul Barbeau using third-person pronouns. If VRT Ticket 2025041610019291 has been closed as withdrawn, I'll gladly overturn my close. Otherwise, the conditions set in WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE allow--and recommend--a deletion. Owen× ☎ 19:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see allow but I don't see recommend. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says, Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is currently or was an elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests. (emphasis mine). Owen× ☎ 19:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you get from seriously consider to a recommendation to deletion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the article was significantly improved, by both myself and RebeccaGreen, to demonstrate that he clearly passes GNG. I'll grant that the original state of the article was poor, but it saw improvement, by both myself and RebeccaGreen, to demonstrate a much stronger notability claim and much better reliable sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIODEL requires both a clear pass of GNG and a clear consensus to keep to reject a valid BLPREQUESTDELETE. There was no clear consensus to keep at the AfD. Once again, if the subject withdrew his request, all of this is moot. Otherwise, the deletion follows our policy and respects the wishes of the subject. Owen× ☎ 19:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also requires that Barbeau be a "relatively unknown, non-public figure" (they do not appear to be so) but even then its just "may be closed as delete" there is absolutely no requirement to close it as delete or even encouragement or suggestion to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like the tendentious manner in which you pick and choose the snippets of policies that happen to support your narrative, casually ignoring the rest of those same policies. Owen× ☎ 20:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such a remark would be more helpful if you mentioned the parts of the policy you think I'm ignoring... More than happy to focus on anything you think is relevent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a Canadian Screen Award constitutes being a figure of public interest in and of itself, and a straight pass of our notability criteria for filmmakers. The definition of "public figure" hinges on "have they accomplished something that would make them a figure of public interest", not on having surpassed any particular arbitrary threshhold of "household name" fame — we'd have to delete more than half of all our articles about people if there were any sort of "how likely is it that the average rando off the street has already heard of this person before" test. So "public figure" is not a question of "household name" fame, it's a question of achieving something that makes them a figure of public interest, such as making notable films and winning notable film awards. As I've already said, we have to be able to fill in every single person whose name appears in a Canadian Screen Award article at all, and there cannot be any special exceptions who are "off limits" for any reason. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we'd have to delete more than half of all our articles about people - why, how many of them requested the article about them to be deleted? The policy is very clear. To deny a BLPREQUESTDELETE, (1) the subject must clearly pass GNG, and (2) there must be a clear consensus to keep the page. You keep reiterating #1, while ignoring #2. There was no clear consensus to keep in that AfD. In the absence of a clear consensus, even a rough consensus allows us to honour the deletion request from the subject. Owen× ☎ 20:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I do not accept your contention that a filmmaker who has won an inherently notability-clinching film award, and has other nominations for inherently notability-clinching film awards, and has more than sufficient reliable source coverage about him and his work to pass even the most conservative possible reading of WP:GNG, somehow still fails to count as a public figure. Just because he's not as "household name" famous as Steven Spielberg does not make him "not a public figure" — he has won a notable award that makes him a figure of public interest, and has directed films that pass GNG and can be viewed by the public, and is still working on notable new films coming out this year, and that's the definition of a public figure. The definition of "public figure" does not require fame, it merely requires doing things of public interest — and I do not accept that a filmmaker who has made notable and award-winning films somehow fails to pass that test.
Again, this is simply not up for debate at all: I must be able to fill in every single person whose name appears in a Canadian Screen Award article at all, and there cannot be any special exceptions who are "off limits" for any reason — because if winning a Canadian Screen Award somehow isn't sufficient for notability anymore, and even showing that the person clearly passes WP:GNG on their sourceability still doesn't put the article on safe ground anymore, then where the hell does that leave me in terms of ever writing a new article about any Canadian filmmaker ever again? Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it appease you if I strike out the subject does not clearly pass GNG in my closing statement? The outcome would still be the same, since in the absence of a clear consensus, BLPREQUESTDELETE allows us to delete.
You said, I must be able to fill in every single person whose name appears in a Canadian Screen Award article at all - you should start an RFC to amend BLPREQUESTDELETE and BIODELETE, because as it stands, those policies do not give you the automatic right to object to a valid request by the subject to remove an article about them here. You keep arguing about GNG, but that is not the basis for deletion in this case. Owen× ☎ 20:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wouldn't "appease" me at all, because for the reasons I specified directly above, the "not a public figure" test has not been met. Paul Barbeau has won an inherently notability-clinching film award, and was clearly shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about him and his films, which makes him a figure of public interest and therefore a public figure, and therefore not a BIODELETE candidate because a maker of notable films, and winner of notability-clinching film awards, is a public figure.
Again, the problem continues to be that if winning a Canadian Screen Award is no longer sufficient to establish the notability of a Canadian filmmaker, and even showing that the person clearly passes GNG still isn't enough to keep the article on safe ground, then what the hell is the Canadian cinema wikiproject supposed to do? How can we ever establish the notability of any Canadian filmmaker at all anymore if neither GNG nor the top level national film award are enough to make a person a notable public figure anymore?
Again, I'm not disputing what BIODELETE says — I'm disputing that it applies to a notable filmmaker who's made notable films and won notable awards for them, and has plenty of GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work, and thus doesn't meet the standard of "not a public figure" at all in order for BIODELETE to overrule both CREATIVE and GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (involved). No strong opinion. Endorse after reading more of the arguments. In a case with a valid BLPREQUESTDELETE request, in the absence of a clear "keep" consensus and a clear pass on GNG (which wasn't in evidence; all the discussion centered on an SNG), a "delete" outcome is within the closer's discretion. Relisting would also have been appropriate, since the consensus was trending toward keep but wasn't there yet. But I don't see sufficient grounds to overturn Owen's close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC) Earlier comment: I stand by my assessment at the time I made it (and I did not check back in to see subsequent discussion), but I think a "keep" would have been in play based on the appellant's strong subsequent case for an NCREATIVE pass and the commentary on the page history suggesting that the deletion request might not have been made in good faith. (Note: the appellant did not attempt to discuss this with the closer or provide the required notification. I have done that as a courtesy.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse looking at the afd there seems to be too much discussion of sngs for this individual to be incontrovertibly notable so respecting the request for deletion is well within the closers purview. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (involved). I understand the basis of the closure as Delete in this case of WP:BIODEL. However, I had also thought that the IP contributor to the AfD was either Barbeau himself, or closely connected to him. I have not seen the VRT ticket (still not sure how to do that, sorry), but from the IP editor's comments, it seemed that the main reason for wanting deletion was that the article was out of date, and as the article was improved with both more recent information and better sourcing, that IP editor was much more satisfied with it. If that IP editor is the subject, perhaps they don't know that they have to withdraw a VRT ticket. Is it possible to ask them through the VRT process? If they do withdraw it, would it be possible then to assess the article and AfD arguments against WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE? RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That IP says things like, another film he directed, or Same thing for his producing career, so it doesn't sound like he's speaking about himself. As I said, if Mr. Barbeau has withdrawn his request at VRT, I'd be happy to revert my close. So far, all we're seeing is an IP who didn't even claim to be Paul Barbeau. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was clearly either Paul Barbeau himself (and article subjects frequently try to edit Wikipedia articles connected to themselves while using the third person to hide their conflict of interest, so using the third person doesn't constitute proof in and of itself that it wasn't) or somebody directly connected to him, like a friend or colleague. Bearcat (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - With the votes clearly about 50-50, and both sides having good arguments, this AFD should have at least been renewed for another week or 2. The closing editor did the same with another page here. I think an admin should review his closing practices. AFD's should not close immaturely, when the votes are too close and even then, it should be closed as "no consensus." Darkm777 (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether a relist happens, a BLPREQUESTDELETE situation should not close as N/C. Per the deletion policy, if there is no consensus to keep or delete after an article's subject requests deletion, an administrator may close as delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you get from "may" to "should"? Nothing we have says that "a BLPREQUESTDELETE situation should not close as N/C." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A "delete" is within the closing admin's discretion in that situation, so there's no need to overturn. I suppose a N/C could be within discretion as well but is obviously less desirable since it leaves the page in continued limbo. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might find it less desirable but P+G does not bias us one way or the other. N/C will be the correct close much of the time, thats a feature not a bug. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing that close to our attention... I am struck by "However, applying the standard set of restrictions per WP:CT/BLP and discarding non-EC !votes here leaves us with a unanimous consensus to delete." because BLP is not one of the CT topic areas which comes with an EC requirement (EC is not part of the standard set of restrictions and is not mentioned anywhere at WP:CT/BLP). A wider review of this editors closes does appear to be needed, this playing fast and loose with P+G may not be isolated issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with relist as an acceptable alternative. WP:BIODELETE was not met in that it is only applicable to relatively unknown, non-public figures. This is not a new problem, and I recommend BIODELETE be removed in its entirety, because it was written years ago when notability was much less well articulated and enforced than it is now. We should not be having any articles at all on "relatively unknown, non-public figures" and the number of otherwise good editors and administrators who want to stretch the clause to apply to people and articles clearly excluded is problematic. I get that people want to be nice, but that's not the point: someone is really either notable or not, and we've gotten much better at assessing that over the years since BIODELETE was written. Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I got this right: you are !voting to overturn a close because it followed a policy that you believe should be repealed? Owen× ☎ 12:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Just like the close, you got it wrong.

1) This individual does not qualify for BLPREQUESTDELETE regardless of notability, because he is not a low-profile individual or non-public figure, per WP:WIALPI (which I wrote years ago).

2) BLPREQUESTDELETE should be eliminated, because it doesn't help build an encyclopedia: people are notable or they are not, and any remaining edge cases are appropriately covered by BIO1E. Having BLPREQUESTDELETE as a policy doesn't fix anything, but is consistently misapplied by people trying to be nice and prioritizing being nice over being encyclopedic. The proper response to a subject who wants their article deleted is... nothing. We should never take the subject's wishes into consideration, because notable means notable and non-notable means not-notable. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, closer is wrong about the "retention threshold for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE/WP:BIODELETE" and this is the core of their close. Their claim that "The policy is very clear. To deny a BLPREQUESTDELETE, (1) the subject must clearly pass GNG, and (2) there must be a clear consensus to keep the page." is clearly contradicted by the actual policy, it simply does not say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I take BLPREQUESTDELETE very seriously and I am glad others do. That being said, two experienced editors advocated that he does clearly pass GNG, so I don't see that it's possible to conclude he doesn't from the discussion without it being a supervote. My reading of BLPREQUESTDELETE is that no consensus or close calls should be treated as delete, and I think whether this is close would benefit from more discussion. (I also concur WP:BIODELETE doesn't really make sense when you read it, but the part that doesn't isn't what we are concerned about.) SportingFlyer T·C 15:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that if it gets relisted and there is no further discussion, I would endorse the closure as a no consensus BLPREQUESTDELETE. SportingFlyer T·C 15:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relist The case for meeting the GNG and SNG seem clear (after improvements). The only question is he's a "low-profile individual or non-public figure". I don't think that's obvious either way (I'm finding so little on him that there may be a case that he is "low-profile"), so the relist should probably suggest people discuss that issue. Hobit (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR Relist I guess. On the merits I agree with Jclemens but I think the best reading of current practice / policy is SportingFlyer's. So no blame to Owen× for a reasonable close, but suggesting a relist in the hope that the community can do better going forward. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per closer's comments above and Dclemens1971's comments. BLPREQUESTSDELETE implies that any "close call" when there is no clear passage of GNG should be treated as a delete. There is neither clear consensus to keep, nor clear evidence that GNG was met. Frank Anchor 14:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it has to say "BLP subjects may request deletion of their articles through Articles for deletion or requesting that a member of the Volunteer Response Team do so. Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is currently or was an elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests. Factors weighing in favor of deletion include a problematic article history, real-world harms identified by the subject, and the subject being only minimally notable or notable for only one event.[7] Per the deletion policy, if there is no consensus to keep or delete after an article's subject requests deletion, an administrator may close as delete." where are you seeing it imply that close calls should be treated as a delete? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the deletion policy, if there is no consensus to keep or delete after an article's subject requests deletion, an administrator may close as delete. “No consensus” and “a close call” mean the same thing as far as I’m concerned . Frank Anchor 01:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That says "may" but you said "should" and those are not synonyms. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The closing admin is allowed to close as delete among other choices. Delete is clearly a viable option in this AFD. In my opinion, it is the best option. Frank Anchor 02:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that delete is a viable option in such a scenario or that your opinion it is the best option... But BLPREQUESTSDELETE does not imply that close calls should be treated as delete, "may" should not prejudice the closer either way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is extremely clear evidence that GNG was met, because I and RebeccaGreen, both experienced editors who are quite well known for being experts at finding GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage poorly sourced but repairable articles, both found and added significant amounts of GNG-worthy sourcing. The claims that GNG was not met all came before RebeccaGreen and I came along to repair the referencing problems, and not a single editor even attempted to claim that the new references still somehow failed to satisfy GNG at all. The article had 22 footnotes in it by the time Rebecca and I were done, with every last manjack one coming from a GNG-worthy reliable source — so on what planet can a person with 22 GNG-worthy footnotes possibly still somehow fail GNG? And, in fact, the discussion noted that there were still a couple more upcoming films missing from his filmography which could also be supported by reliable sources too, meaning that he even has more than 22. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request Temporary Undelete - Leaning to Relist, but would like to see how well the deleted article makes the general notability case. (I am surprised that no one has requested a temporary undelete after 36 hours of contentious discussion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. (1) Most importantly: It appears that a serious request to delete the article about oneself did not exist after all. (2) Separately, less importantly: It was strongly argued that the subject was notable, with good sources brought up and no one saying that there's something wrong with these sources, and the only assertion that GNG isn't met did not appear to be backed up by a thorough analysis of available sources. The keep side did not specifically invoke GNG, but it appears that they would have done so, in retrospect, had they anticipated that leaning on an SNG might not be very effective, because of the technicality/arcanity of BLPREQUESTDELETE only recognizing GNG and discounting SNGs (this is for a good reason, but it's still easy to lose sight of). Now these participants argue for GNG in this DRV...—Alalch E. 23:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E.: what do you mean by It appears that a serious request to delete the article about oneself did not exist after all? Is this about the appellant's claim that the subject himself was clearly backing off from his original request for deletion? Because that part has been refuted. Owen× ☎ 07:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't read this entire DRV discussion prior to commenting, and now I have. Basically, I agree with Bearcat regarding the IP. I suspect that the request was initially made out of frustration with the state of the article, not for privacy reasons. The IP initially said "This article is incomplete, his career continues until 2025 but this is cut short at 2011. This seems innacurate and probably better to be deleted". The same IP then changed their approach to essentially requesting particular updates, and the article was updated. The IP also !voted to keep. I'm 98% certain that the motive behind the VRT ticket was that the article was incomplete and that the subject did not like how the most prominent web content about him is really outdated.—Alalch E. 09:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are assuming that the IP, who never claimed to be the subject, and spoke about the subject in the third-person, is the subject, and therefore invalidates the open VRT ticket? That seems to be quite a leap of faith. Owen× ☎ 09:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgement call, but I think it's very reasonable to assume that what caused the subject to ask for the article to be deleted is frustration with lack of updates for more than a decade. Given that you are an active creative professional who has done various things in the meantime, that seems like a very strong driver of a desire to have an online biography of yourself removed. It's *almost obvious* that this is the "mover" behind everything, this desire. Not a desire for less visibility, privacy... —Alalch E. 09:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The IP could be anyone. Once the request has been made via VRT, the only thing that should confirm a BLPREQUESTDELETE has been withdrawn is another VRT request. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be so rigid and need to look at things in perspective. —Alalch E. 22:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats interesting if true, but where does it say that? We seem to generally accept withdrawals that don't involve another VRT request, albeit in situations where its more clear that the editor is the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor showed up claiming to be the subject and asking for deletion, I’d accept that in good faith… except in a case like this one where there’s a separate VRT request made, in which case there is too much risk of mischief in a BLP. If someone had claimed in this debate to be the subject and wanted to withdraw the request, I’d direct that person to file a new VRT request so it could be properly verified. In this case, of course, the IP neither claimed to be the subject nor rescinded a request for deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All fair points but it's practically obvious that the VRT request to delete the bio was motivated by the lack of information on the subject's achievements in the past decade. What Bearcat said in the AfD is important: In actual fact, what really happened here is that there were repeated attempts to advertorialize it back in March, which sparked some revert-warring between administrators and anonymous IPs — so once again, this is clearly less a case of "I'm actually not notable", and more a case of "I want this article to not exist at all if I can't have editorial control of it", which is not how Wikipedia works.—Alalch E. 13:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as I pointed out above, I believe the possibility of a bad-Faith VRT request raised by Bearcat would have made a relist an appropriate action (and probably the best choice). But we’re debating here whether or not “delete” was within the closer’s discretion and without a clear consensus that the BLP request was bad-faith, I still think Owen’s close was an acceptable outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The close is only enabled by the arcanity of policy which required keeps to cite GNG by name and not any relevant SNG. They missed the opportunity to do so, and even though they made detailed and normally relevant arguments for keeping, these count for nothing. It's an unfortunate misunderstanding. There was sand in the water pipe. They should have argued for GNG, and they were and are able to at least argue (not prejudicial as to the result of their arguing), and need to be given the chance. Much better than the current close would have been a relist saying "consensus needed on the matter of GNG". —Alalch E. 18:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ask for your personal opinion, I asked where it says that... If you want me to be more specific where in policy and/or guideline does it say that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about WP:COMMONSENSE? If someone files a VRT request, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that an IP editor who discusses the subject in the third person and has a different perspective is the filer of the VRT, unless VRT receives correspondence to that effect. This whole discussion is shades of personal opinion, FWIW, since BLPREQUESTDELETE is in (mild) tension with WP:N and so there's going to be shades of grey as editors articulate the premises and values that inform their interpretations of the policies. It's not a cut and dry matter, which is why this particular DRV has gone on so long, and since I am not obliged to WP:SATISFY your repeated requests that do not acknowledge the tension in these policies, I'll let this be my last word. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP knew and stated things about the subject's career (e.g. an award from a minor film festival that doesn't get reliable source coverage in order to have been found just by googling, and several upcoming film credits that were still missing even from IMDb) that only the subject himself, or somebody directly affiliated with him, could possibly have known. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you are right, but I do think we have to assume they still want it deleted until and unless they go through the formal process. I still favor a relist (as mentioned above) but I don't think we can ignore the request on the basis of the IP interactions... Hobit (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can. Not just on the basis of the IP interactions but based on the totality of the circumstances. And at that point, provided that we have legitimately considered the circumstances, we would not be "ignoring" the request, we would be comprehending it in context. The question is what we truly believe and what we truly want. —Alalch E. 21:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist the BLPREQUESTDELETE concerns were addressed and he plainly does pass the GNG and NCREATIVE from what is shown here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What were the BLPREQUESTDELETE concerns, and how do we know they were addressed? Do you have access to the VRT ticket? Owen× ☎ 18:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist is reasonable here, although I only see two reliable sources and did not see the ticket request. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Meyers (closed)

Susan Meyers – Reopened. Closing despite involvement, as original closer was indeffed as an LTA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closer of this AfD, Scoperiou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is a new account that has made only five edits, all of which have to do with closing this AfD. This makes it appear probable that the account was created to evade scrutiny. In any case, the closure violates WP:NACD's instruction that "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." This AfD concerns a controversial topic and needs analysis by an experienced administrator. I therefore ask that an admin WP:REOPEN the AfD and possibly re-close it. Sandstein 08:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that I had some difficulty notifying Scoperiou of this DRV, because they created their user talk page by transcluding "{{user talk:vanamonde93}}", which is another indication that the account may have been created and the AfD closed in bad faith. I'm pinging Vanamonde93 to inform them of this apparent attempt at impersonation. Sandstein 08:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I !voted in that AfD, so my hands are tied. Owen× ☎ 12:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd situation where I don't know if my hands are tied because of the impersonation attempt - but regardless, I did !vote, too. I'm quite certain this is one of our AfD LTAs that have made a habit out of bad NACs. What they hope to gain, I cannot fathom - there is no way the closures stick unless they're extremely obvious, and if so the account hasn't achieved anything besides doing our maintenance for us. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy relist out-of-process non-admin close with evidence of bad faith. Even without these factors, an NC close does not seem correct here. Consensus to remove a standalone article appears to be forming, though there is disagreement regarding a merge/redirect target. Frank Anchor 12:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi or Extraordinary Writ: can we please get a speedy revert for this disruptive BADNAC? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 14:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist this Bad Non-Admin Closure by an editor who is now blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 April 2025

Nike Campbell – The page was originally soft-deleted. I advised the appellant on their Talk page to take this to REFUND. I don't think there's more for us to do here, but if you disagree, feel free to revert this close. Owen× ☎ 21:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I hope this is the right place to raise this, but this article was marked for deletion last year but I do not understand why. Would appreciate any guidance that can be provided. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmmy (talk • contribs) 19:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 April 2025

Luigi Mangione – Speedy close this before it becomes a waste of time too. Nominator has been indefinitely blocked by User:Star Mississippi. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closing Editor claims the whole AFD was a waist of time. Putting the result up for review given that the subject is due for trial in the coming days. Caperbum424 17:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 April 2025

Sexuality in The Lord of the Rings – I've undone the disruptive non-admin closure in my individual capacity as an administrator, see WP:REOPEN. Sandstein 08:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Inappropriate NAC "SNOW" close after one vote when no speedy keep criterion appear to apply. Requesting uninvolved admin reopen and let it run. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and List - The closure conflates a Speedy Keep with a snow close, and does not meet the criteria for either. It is not a Speedy Keep because it does not correspond to any of the 6 Speedy Keep criteria. It is not a snow closure because the discussion has not been continuing long enough that consensus is obvious. Also, the closing statement is a long supervote, which is inappropriate in a close. I think it is too bitey in tone to be good advice on a user talk page, but that is not important. An editor who doesn't clearly know the difference between a Speedy Keep and a snow close should avoid either type of close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, although I'm sympathetic to the closer because an IP nominating a GA is a bold move (if not a WP:BOLD move). But it doesn't meet the speedy keep criteria and it wasn't SNOWing yet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 April 2025

Patrick McClean

Apologies if this is the wrong place to request this but is it possible to undelete and draftify the article as I believe I can bring it to a good standard but this would help not start from scratch. Besides, this was deleted in 2017 under WP:NFOOTY which has since been depreciated as a rationale and WP:GNG is the usual standard here. I would also add that 8 years in professional sports is a very long time. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The deleted article provided the following six citations, which at the time were deemed insufficient for both NFOOTY and GNG. Abcmaxx: which sources are you planning to add to pass GNG?

Owen× ☎ 19:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: I don't know what the article looked like before, but I saw this Guardian article in the news today, and given his brother is a reasonably well known footballer was surprised to see this person doesn't have an article. There are red-links to him as well in a few places. There are other WP:GNG about this emerging story such as Belfast Telegraph (I won't bother entertaining the Daily Mail and The Sun as sources but they are national outlets nonetheless) but there's also news on his other career steps such as his retirement for example. That's just after a 5 minute search, so there should be enough for a half-decent article, but I asked to draftify first rather than restore so it can be worked on 1st. Also I would add that League of Ireland would be WP:GNG unless someone quoted WP:ROUTINE but it looks like there was little actual discussion on the AfD about the sources, just barely justified delete votes. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derry City F.C. and Glentoran F.C. are professional football clubs in professional leagues (League of Ireland Premier Division and NIFL Premiership respectively) so unsure how WP:NFOOTY fails here anyway but the AfD was in 2017 and a lot has changed since. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The Guardian and the Belfast Telegraph sources are no more than BLP1E. Having a famous brother is WP:NOTINHERITED. The BelfastLive retirement announcement reads like WP:ROUTINE, so I doubt it counts as SIGCOV for GNG. The appellant admits to spending only five minutes searching for sources, so I'm not sure where the confidence about the existence of sources comes from, nor what they'd achieve by working on the article in draftspace in the absence of sources supporting notability. I'm also put off by their dismissive tone regarding the views at the AfD of some of our most experienced, trusted editors, including @GiantSnowman, Spiderone, and CAPTAIN RAJU. While this appeal was made in good faith, I get the clear impression that the appellant doesn't understand what is required to meet GNG, and that draftification is just a backdoor to mainspace, forcing us to go through another AfD. Yes, a lot can change in eight years, but apparently not enough to make this subject notable. Owen× ☎ 20:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX: There's good reason to be sceptical of the AfD and rationales provided. The AfD had no discussion of sources at all. And I strongly resent this thinly-veiled attack on my understanding of WP:GNG. An article discussing the players retirement calling it a huge shock is not routine coverage at all especially as he is the main subject of the article. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because his main notability is being a football player not this event he is currently in the news for. Given previous series of AfD's I had to endure e.g. 1, 2, 3 and many many others, I think your comments are way off the mark especially as I was asking to draftify and improve not restore in whatever previous form it was, but this Wiki-lawyering-admin makes me think that I would have been better off making a completely new article and then defend it at yet another AfD in order to keep the article (which I would have had every right to do so). Abcmaxx (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I agree with OwenX. I don't see anything wrong with the close - it reflected the consensus of that discussion and there were many experienced editors involved. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 21:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - good deletion. Not notable then, does not appear to be notable now. Giant Snowman 21:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if this is an appeal of the close as Delete, but I don't think that this is an appeal of the close. I think that this is a request to refund the deleted article to draft space so that the requester can improve it. I don't know why editors who want to develop a new article on a living person whose article was deleted in the past want so strongly to get the deleted article returned to them in draft space, because they will be starting with something that was deleted. I have no opinion at this time on whether to refund the deleted article to draft space, but will advise the requester to start from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct deletion discussion but there's no reason why this can't be restored to draft space, but unless better GNG sources are found it will be deleted again, so AfC is the correct place. I don't have any problem with the Belfast Live article. If that's routine, we can't have any sports articles on here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to user or draft space No reason to start from scratch and the topic is certainly above the bar for a draft. Hobit (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, the original AfD was closed properly, so happy to endorse that. But I don't think that's what this request is about. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete to draft. The DRV nom made a "tactical misstep" of mentioning the more famous brother which really sounds as if the subject isn't wiki-notable and there's no valid argument to be made that he is, but the new sources aren't worthless, and I have reason to believe that the deleted content is better than nothing as a starting point for this established football editor.—Alalch E. 23:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft. There is clearly potential, and the request is in good faith. Nothing more should be needed. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ROW Rybnik sections (closed)

Template:ROW Rybnik sections – No action. It does not appear that a breach of deletion process has been made out. All listing formalities appear to have been followed, and the most that I can say is that the TFD attracted only a modest number of submissions – and I mean no disrespect by saying that is standard for TFD, which is a low-traffic technical area. It would appear to me that if the OP feels there is a way forward for one or more of the deleted templates, a request at WP:REFUND would be sensible. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Someone deleted a whole host of templates but no rationale was ever given. I believe it may be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Maybe I have missed something, or maybe the nominator has missed something. This is a sub-bundle of a larger bundle of TFD nominations that were made on 17 September, and some of them were spilled over to 30 September. I have limited experience with TFD, but there appears to have been some discussion in the 18 September minutes, and then some more discussion in the 30 September minutes. Is there something wrong that the appellant hasn't explained? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I have missed this, but I dont really see where the initial discussion, if there was one, is? Also can you really delete that many templates off the back of one discussion? Abcmaxx (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Abcmaxx - You ask two reasonable questions about a complicated situation, and I will try to give reasonable answers. Under the long list of the templates, there is a link that says: Split from 2023 September 18 per request. Click on that link, and you will go back to the previous discussion with an even longer list of templates. And, yes, it is possible to bundle a large number of pages into one XFD discussion. There is no specific limitation to the size of a bundle. The disadvantage to large bundles is that they sometimes become what are known as train wrecks. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: But the discussion you linked has the rationale "As long as there are three links or less". That's not true for example for Template:Resovia_sections which I created and was determined without so much as a warning and no discussion at all, it was just bundled in with the rest (but unsure even in which bundle). It also seems to go against consensus in for example Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 12#Template:Hammarby IF sections as well. I'm led to the conclusion that this particular series of megabundles was very ill-advised. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Abcmaxx - If I understand your comment, you are saying that the template in question wasn't properly tagged with {{TFD}}. There don't seem to be specific instructions about the bundling of TFD nominations, although the bundling of TFD nominations is common, so I would assume that the bundling instructions for AFD nominations also apply, and they say that each of the pages should be tagged with {{AFD}}. So the question that I see is whether a template that was deleted after not being properly tagged should be undeleted on request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admin request for to look at the histories of some of these templates to verify whether they were properly tagged with {{TFD}} for seven days. If not, the deletions should be changed to Soft Delete so that they can be undeleted on request. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a random sample of six of them. They were all tagged with {{tfd}} on 22 September 2023, and deleted 15 days later, on 7 October 2023. Owen× ☎ 20:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:OwenX Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Abcmaxx - The instructions at Requests for Undeletion say: The first case is restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted … in deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. Have you tried making a request at Requests for Undeletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not and it currently looks like the much better option given the above. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 April 2025

Quintessential (company) – No consensus as to whether the AFD was closed correctly. I choose to exercise my discretion to relist the article on AFD and I will execute this shortly. I would encourage the participants not to edit-war over versions whilst the new AFD is running. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article was in a poor state (COI version), I cleaned it up (cleaned version) and then it was nominated for deletion. During the AfD it flipped between cleaned and COI versions, confusing participants. The closer provided no rationale, I asked them about the situation but I wasn't clear enough.

Looking at the AfD I will run through the particpants and ping them rather than contact them individually:

User:DotesConks saw the cleaned version. After nomination they reverted the COI version twice but stopped after that. It would be ideal to keep watching the article or tip off the AfD, as well as notify any substantial contributors if you can work it out. They didn't link to a specific notability guide, claimed that they read the four sources (I was pleased they could bypass the paywall of one but surprised of their analysis that it only contained a couple of mentions which would have been obvious given the name of the company was in the headline). Looking beyond current sourcing is an important aspect of AfD. They also equated linkdn followers with notability and said there are millions of real estate companies in the world. Sure, but if millions of companies bought A$250M buildings in 2024 that would total 5x the US national debt.
User:OsFish also saw the cleaned version. Prior to the AfD, in a question from them on COI noticeboard, I disputed their WP:ORGTRIV link with WP:SUBSTANTIAL. They didn't mention my comment include or any links in their AfD comment.
User:MCE89 saw the COI version but dug around for sources. They asked for an interpretation of WP:CORPDEPTH. This was the sole Keep.
User:लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक (LA) asked for TNT and HEY. I assume they looked at the COI version and didn't reslise that the nominated version that had been demolished and rewritten.
User:Robert McClenon must have missed the cleaned version. They presented a now irrelevant history of the article's COI development and prepared a big 25 row table that included pointing out that citations to app stores aren't independent, reliable or secondary. I understand that this may have been for the benefit of the COI editor. They also claimed that journalist bylined articles in newspapers with editorial review are press releases. Were the articles based on press releases? Probably. Are the newspaper articles primary or secondary sources in this context? That would be a meaningful discussion.
User:GMH Melbourne uses the big table and asks for the article to be rewritten, not seeing the cleaned version I assume.
User:Darkm777 mentioned deep coverage but it is not clear if they are refering to MCE89's 15 links. Likewise with User:Eluchil404.

I mentioned somewhere that I won't be tied to this article in an AfD, but I would like to know if consensus says that the subject doesn't meet the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources bar. A relist may very well end up in conclusive deletion. I was going to say something in the AfD but was totally surprised by the close and didn't notice the deletion action on my watchlist. The quick and the dead I suppose. --Commander Keane (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

endorse its not the quality of the writing, its the failure of the sources per the comprehensive and compelling source analysis in the discussion. Fundamentally, we have higher standards for corporations, businesses or organisation because of the amount of routine or self-serving content. It was impossible for the closer to go any other way. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A temporary undeletion of the page would be appropriate in order to compare the versions described by the nom. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And once that's done can the DRV appellant, Commander Keane, highlight the two versions that appear to be the best and worst ones under consideration? I'd find that helpful. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was temporarily undeleted:
COI version

cleaned version
Commander Keane (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (involved) - Of course I was assessing the sources in the version of the article that was moved to article space after I rejected it in AFC. The author was gaming the Articles for Creation process, and submitted a draft that was declined three times. After it was resubmitted again with no substantive changes, I rejected it. The author then moved it to article space. It was then correctly draftified, and moved back to article space. At this point I began the source analysis because I was planning to nominate it for deletion. DotesConks then nominated it for deletion, and I completed the source assessment table and included it with my Delete. I wasn't confused. I was assessing the sources in a page that was blatantly moved into article space twice in disregard of established review practices.
Comment - The question at this point should be whether the closer should have Relisted the AFD. I will wait to see the history again before I decide whether to Endorse or to vote to Overturn to Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was a clear consensus to delete, even after reviewing the keep !voter's argument, and I don't think a mistake was made. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily undeleted for deletion review---- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I don't think Asilvering erred in closing it as Delete. It is unreasonable to expect a closer to check which version was in force at the time each !vote was entered, and it is dangerous to discard !votes solely based on improvements since they were entered. That said, the appellant presents an unbiased timeline of the AfD that raises reasonable doubt as to which revision each 'Delete' there refers to. I believe the article will benefit from another look at the improved revision, and an extra week in mainspace isn't a tall order. Owen× ☎ 14:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closer note: I don't see how anyone could have closed this as anything other than delete, but I'd happily have done a userspace restore if asked; this went to DRV before that discussion went anywhere. Regarding overturn-to-relist, I don't like that option for two reasons: one, the AfD was closed a while ago, rather than, say, in the last week; two, I think the parade of delete !votes is likely to prejudice the outcome of the AfD in favour of deletion, whether Keane gets a strong vote in there or not. I normally try to avoid DRV of my own closes, but can I suggest that we do a no-prejudice vacate of the previous AfD result, and start a new nomination, pinging all previous participants? Robert McClenon, if folks here agree that's a good idea, would you make the nomination? If I'm reading you correctly, you're still in favour of deletion, and I'm sure you'd be able to write up a neutral description of this discussion along with your deletion rationale. -- asilvering (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was closed less than four weeks ago. We have AfDs that stay open for longer than that. As for the chilling effect of the existing Deletes there, my hope is that those who participated will come back to review the new evidence, and either reaffirm their Delete, or amend their !vote. As a minimum, we know that Robert McClenon will be there. Either way, we'd be left with a more definitive outcome. Owen× ☎ 17:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While a relist is acceptable, for the reasons OwenX articulates, there was a clear consensus to delete. After the source analysis provided by Robert McClenon (which appeared to review all of the source provided in the article's history), participants concluded that the sources were not sufficient to meet WP:NCORP (as participants properly reviewed the sources, not the state of the article). That all said, the article from the Sydney Morning Herald could be a promising start for a rewrite of the article as a draft (as the title is not salted) and then it would need to go through AFC. As for the closer's note, I don't think a vacate is a good idea at this point, as the voices of multiple editors may be lost or discarded. The challenges of the AFD brought up by the nominator are real, but did not taint or prejudice the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). After reviewing the history in detail again, I am more persuaded both that I voted correctly and that the closer assessed rough consensus correctly. Commander Keane writes: I cleaned it up and then it was nominated for deletion. During the AfD it flipped between cleaned and COI versions, confusing participants. I see that is true. As I noted above, I did not see the trimmed version because I began my analysis before the trimming. The confusion was partly the fault of Commander Keane, who never noted in the AFD that they had cleaned or trimmed it. It was also the result of edit-warring by the promoters of the original (COI) version, who tried to restore their version. The instability of the article during the AFD is a reason why the closer had no obligation to check which version an editor was viewing, especially since the AFD never said that there were warring versions. The instability of the article would have been another reason for voters to say to Delete and for the closer to conclude that there was a rough consensus to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Approve Restoration of Trimmed Version to article space. I oppose a vacate of the Delete result, because it was the most accurate assessment of consensus in a messy situation. User:asilvering doesn't say which version they are proposing to restore or relist. It should be very clear that we are only restoring or relisting the trimmed version. I do not oppose a restoration of the trimmed version for a new AFD. I have not reviewed the trimmed version. If it is restored either to draft space or to article space, I will assess its sources, a less tedious task than assessing the sources of the original version. I will nominate it for deletion with my rationale if I do not find that the sources warrant keeping the trimmed version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appellant Comment. Sure I will wear some of the blame, I should have spoken up sooner. The AfD nomination and first delete had no substance (to me). Then a keep came finding the 4 sources I used and 11 others. So I relaxed and I thought this is what AfD is about; an analysis of 15 independent and reliable sources (or more if found) to evaluate notability against the guidelines. That is what I want and why I am here. I couldn't know that Robert McClenon was already preparing a convincing table of irrelevant analysis that included five rows pointing out that a company's website is not an independent source. Discounting the weird press release definition that was challenged but never addressed, the only "comprehensive and compelling source analysis" was of one source (theaustralian.com.au); a "maybe". I didn't know that delete AfD participants don't use the Google News link at the top. Or that the AfD expectation is to look at nothing more than the current sources (is that really the case? Why does every AfD have 9 links to find sources at the top. Does that mean that a featured article level article on a topic that is exceedingly notable, but doesn't display the required sourcing it gets trashed?). I still don't know if the closer clicked the convenient "edits since nomination" difflink at the top of the the AfD, saw the +6,478 byte change and thought nothing of it. It is unreasonable for a closer to check the article state for every comment, but a quick click on a button and some thought isn't arduous. COI-induced instability in an article is a reason to delete it so as to vindictively teach the COI parties a lesson, and COI levels in Wikipedia are rediculous at the moment and a deletion reason on those grounds would have been interesting. I could have worked with the closing admin on their talk page more, and apparently I could have achieved a userfication which is pointless because if I want a brief neutral overview of this company's origin and investment strategies and some links to the most pertinent newspaper coverage I can look at the deleted version I wrote (as long as my admin tools are still active). AfC is for checking if articles have a >50% chance of surviving an AfD and bullying the creator to work on the draft. I write all this stuff but there is no crisis. Generally speaking AfD is a place where you can combine a nominator who knows nothing about Wikipedia guidelines, participants that can't/won't do any research into a topic and a bot with sysop permissions that can count votes and you miraculously end up with same result as a real analysis.--Commander Keane (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable for a closer to check the article state for every comment, but a quick click on a button and some thought isn't arduous - point taken. Owen× ☎ 11:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not sure that I understand User:Commander Keane's latest post, which appears to be all over. My source analysis has 5 rows saying that a corporate web site is not independent because the COI article that was being tendentiously moved into article space had five references to the corporate web site and I was assessing all of the references that the spammer had bombed the document with. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, I will follow up on what I had said I would follow up on. There has been discussion of restoring User:Commander Keane's version of the article and Relisting the AFD. So I tried to assess the sources. The trimmed version has four sources, one from The Australian, one from the Sydney Morning Herald, and two from the Financial Review. One of them is good, one of them is not so good, and two of them are inaccessible. The Australian article is mostly about Brookfield but does have significant coverage of Quintessential, so that is a Yes. The Sydney Morning Herald article is an interview with Quintessential. Then there are two Financial Review articles about building purchases. We have differences of opinions about whether announcements of building purchases are significant coverage, but the real problem is that the stories are behind a paywall. I can't view them. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are aware that paywalled sources are permitted for verification of content, but they should not be used for verification of notability when reasonable editors disagree as to what counts toward notability. I am also aware that a subscriber to a paywalled publication does not see that their sources are paywalled because the subscriber is also behind the paywall. Can User:Commander Keane either provide PDF's of the Financial Review articles or provide comparable free sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: my comment was all over the place, I was trying to address all of the interesting arguments in one dot point. Sorry about that.

About the sourcing, is it written down somewhere that sources need to be accessible (no paywall) for a notability evaluation? What about a book, or newspaper clippings from 1920? Every AfD participant needs access to everything? I wonder if Wikipedia can even have articles on notable topics if they are based on the best sources (generally the valuable publications get paywalled, or they haven't been digitised).

I don't have Financial Review access, I tracked down a Wikipedian that does and they emailed me the articles. I don't know if they want me to further disseminate, but email me if they say it is okay and I can forward the copies. But again, you are going to look at current sourcing (now four), there would be more effort to do a proper check (the keep did something close). Commander Keane (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've not read most of them (and I'm not sure I'd plan to unless this gets relisted) but most of Australian Financial Review articles older than 3 days should be available via ProQuest as publication 2040384 for editors with 500 edits/6 mo/10 edits in the last month (so uh, most AFD participants probably), for example "Quintessential wins jewel in Adelaide’s high-tech precinct" is 2501830229 (the title is usually different, but article contents are generally the same). I think most state libraries also hold it via NewsBank, so, if you live in Australia, half-week old news articles are your thing, but you don't quite qualify for TWL access yet (and still somehow found this DRV)... life pro tip I guess. Though to be honest I find it easier most of the time to access it through *cough* acertainarchivesite *cough* uh, probably less than entirely legal means. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031, I'm not sure what you're implying with and still somehow found this DRV - Keane started the DRV. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just that my advice to use NewsBank if one does not have access to ProQuest probably would not be useful for many people. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I think that resolves the question of whether AFR articles can reasonably be evaluated by AFD participants (feel free to email me if you don't have access to ProQuest and want to participate in a discussion involving sources available on that). As for whether it might have made enough a difference to merit a relist in this specific case... Well, I don't think it's conclusive, but I'm willing to lean towards supporting the relist. I would consider undelete-and-renominate to be roughly equivalent, I would not have a preference for one over the other. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe other editors see the answers to some questions that I haven't seen the answers to. Commander Keane writes: About the sourcing, is it written down somewhere that sources need to be accessible (no paywall) for a notability evaluation? Well, I don't know how an editor can assess the contribution to notability of sources that they can't see. If I were to complete a source assessment of the trimmed version, I would find one good source, one non-independent source, and two invisible sources. Alpha3031 writes: Anyway, I think that resolves the question of whether AFR articles can reasonably be evaluated by AFD participants. Only if I can see them. I haven't seen the sources. Maybe the readers and I are supposed to take the word of the proponents that they have seen the sources. I am not ready to rely on the word of other editors that they have seen the sources and that they know that the sources provide significant coverage. Then Alpha3031 discusses a relist. Relist of what version? If they mean a a relist of the trimmed version, then an undelete and renominate would be cleaner, so as to get rid of the original version, which was spam. If the AFD is simply relisted, the previous votes including my source assessment will still be there unless they are stricken, and if they are stricken, it would be easier to start over. A Relist will be very confusing to close, and a new AFD would be less difficult. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned AFR is available via ProQuest which is available as part of the Wikipedia Library to probably most editors here in another comment. I can see how someone might have missed that though, that's my bad. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I don't know how an editor can assess the contribution to notability of sources that they can't see. They can't do so effectively. (1) Notability guidelines are a guess that an article meeting the core content policies can be written; (2) source assessment is a guess that a subject meets the notability guidelines; (3) AfD pile-ons guess that the previous comment was good.

The impact of guessing can be reduced by: (1) not referring to notability guidelines - exhausting; (2) doing the source assessment on everything you can - exhausting; and (3) doing your own research or looking carefully at caveats in previous comments like "I think one source is a maybe and 24 are bad but I haven't looked further" - either exhausting or not possible.

The guessing game works really well, as I said there above there is no crisis. It is not essential, but it can help a bit if the article somewhat approaches content policies when you take look at it.

The pilots of a Boeing 777 can set autoland, close their eyes and have a successful landing 99% of the time. With eyes shut, purely based on experience and cockpit motion/sounds, they can make the assesment "this is going to a great landing". Better than nothing.

@Alpha3031: thanks the push towards TWL's ProQuest and public library membership. I have both cooking now. Commander Keane (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates