Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:17, 27 April 2005 view sourcePlattopus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,625 edits []← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:29, 10 January 2025 view source Extraordinary Writ (talk | contribs)Administrators75,420 edits apparently my previous approach broke the DRV bot. Let's try this instead. 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{Floating link|Administrator instructions|Administrator instructions}}
]]]]<!-- I know they're often at the bottom, but putting the cat and interlang at the top keeps me from deleting them off the bottom when I clear the old stuff. -->{{Shortcut|]}}
{{hatnote|This page deals with the ] and ] processes. For articles deleted via the "]" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at ]}}
Articles and multimedia are sometimes deleted by ] if they are thought to have a valid reason for deletion. Sometimes these decisions are completely correct, and undisputed. Sometimes, they are more controversial. Before using this page, please read the ] and ].
{{redirect|WP:DELREV|Revision Delete|WP:REVDEL}}
{{no admin backlog}}
{{Ombox
|type = notice
|image = ]
|text = <div style="text-align:center;">'''Skip to:''' {{hlist |class=inline | ] | ] | ] | {{Purge|(purge cache)}}}}<br /><inputbox>
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages:Deletion review
break=no
width=50
searchbuttonlabel=Search logs
</inputbox></div>
| imageright = {{shortcut|WP:DRV}}
}}
{{Deletion debates}}
{{Review forum}}
'''Deletion review''' ('''DRV''') is for reviewing ] and outcomes of ]. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.


If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "]" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the ] below.
The archive of deleted page revisions may be periodically cleared. Pages deleted prior to the database crash on ] ] are not present in the current archive because the archive tables were not backed up. This means pages cannot be restored by a sysop. If there is great desire for them it may be possible to retrieve them from the old database files. Prior to this, the archive was cleared out on ] ].


== Purpose of this page == == Purpose ==
<div style="border:2px solid grey; padding: 2ex;">
It is hoped that this page will be generally unused, as the vast majority of deletions do not need to be challenged. This page exists for basically two types of people:
<noinclude>{{#ifeq:{{{shortcut|yes}}}|no||{{shortcut|WP:DRVPURPOSE}}}}</noinclude>
Deletion review may be used:


#if someone believes the closer of a ] interpreted the ] incorrectly;
# People who feel that an article was wrongly deleted, and that Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored. This may happen because they were not aware of the discussion on ] (VfD), because it was deleted without being listed on VfD, or because they objected to deletion but were ignored.
#if a ] was done outside of the ] or is otherwise disputed;
# Non-sysops who wish to see the content of a deleted article. They may wish to use that content elsewhere, for example. Alternatively, they may suspect that an article has been wrongly deleted, but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted.
#if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
#*As a subset of this, sometimes an article which is appropriate for a sister site is deleted without being properly transwikied. If the page is undeleted temporarily, it can be exported complete with history using ], and then redeleted. This will be especially useful once the ] feature is completed.
#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:
This page is about ''articles'', not about ''people''. If you feel that a sysop is routinely deleting articles prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at ]. Similarly, if you are a sysop and an article you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.


#because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be ]);
==How to use this page==
#(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per ] 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.)
If you wish to '''undelete''' an article, follow the procedure explained at ]. If the conditions are met, the page will be undeleted.
#to point out ] 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 ] 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 ] 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 ] 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 ] 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 ]. 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 ] will not be restored.'''
</div>


==Instructions==
If you wish to '''view''' a deleted article, list it here and say why. A sysop will provide the deleted article to you in some form &mdash; either by quoting it in full, or by emailing it to you, or by temporarily undeleting it. See also ].
<noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:DELREVD}}</noinclude>
<section begin=Instructions />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 ]. 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===
Some articles are listed here, and after discussion and review, a consensus is reached to keep the articles deleted. They are listed at ]. Archives of recently undeleted pages are recorded at ]
{{Warning|If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a ], restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use ] instead.}}
{| style="border:solid 1px black; padding: 0.5em; width:100%;" cellspacing="0"
|-
| style="background:#F5B158;text-align:center;" colspan="2" |&nbsp;
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''1.'''</big>
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;" |
{{Clickable button 2|Click here|url={{fullurl:Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/{{#time:Y F j}}|action=edit&section=1&preload=Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/New_day}}|class=mw-ui-progressive}} and paste the template skeleton '''at the top''' of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in <code>page</code> with the name of the page, <code>xfd_page</code> with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and <code>reason</code> with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, <code>article</code> is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
<pre>
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
</pre>
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''2.'''</big>
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;" |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
:'''<code>{{subst:]|PAGE_NAME}} <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>'''
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''3.'''</big>
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;" |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach '''<code><nowiki><noinclude>{{Delrev|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}<nowiki>}}</noinclude></nowiki></code>''' to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
|-
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width: 5%; text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" | <big>'''4.'''</big>
| style="background:#FDF5E4; width:95%;padding-bottom:1em;" |
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 '''<code><nowiki><noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}<nowiki>}}</noinclude></nowiki></code>'''
* If the deletion discussion's subpage name is ''different from'' the deletion review's section header, then use '''<code><nowiki><noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=</nowiki>{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}<nowiki>|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude></nowiki></code>'''
|-
| style="background:#F5B158;text-align:center;" colspan="2" | &nbsp;
|}


===Commenting in a deletion review===
If a request to undelete is made, a sysop may choose to undelete the article and protect it blank so that people may look at the article on which they are voting. This is done through use of ].
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 (<nowiki>'''</nowiki>) on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) 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 ]); or
*'''List''', if the page was speedy deleted outside of the ] and you believe it needs a full discussion at the ] to decide if it should be deleted; or
*'''Overturn''' the original decision '''and''' optionally an '''(action)''' per the ]. 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:
== History only undeletion ==
* <nowiki>*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~</nowiki>
History only undeletions can be performed without needing a vote on this page. For example, suppose someone writes a biased article on ], it is deleted, and subsequently someone else writes a decent article on Fred Flintstone. The original, biased article can be undeleted, in which case it will merely sit in the page history of the Fred Flintstone article, causing no harm. Please do not do this in the case of copyright violations.
* <nowiki>*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~</nowiki>
<!-- New entry right below here. Please start a === section === for today's date if one does not exist, and put the entry in ==== a subsection ==== -->
* <nowiki>*'''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. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~</nowiki>
* <nowiki>*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~</nowiki>


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 ]; 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 == ===Temporary undeletion===
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{Tlx|TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the ] should not be restored.
<!-- New entry right below here. Please start a === section === for today's date if one does not exist, and put the entry in
==== a subsection ==== -->


===Closing reviews===
== Votes for undeletion ==
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 ] exists. If that consensus is to '''undelete''', the admin should follow the instructions at ]. If the consensus was to '''relist''', the page should be relisted at the ]. If the consensus was that the deletion was '''endorsed''', the discussion should be ] with the consensus documented.
:''Admins - please review the deleted history of these requests and provide the most complete version for discussion here.''
'''''Add new article listings below here'''''
===] ]===
====]====
Deleted with copy vio concerns, explained in article talk that this is not the case. --] ] 11:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


If the administrator closes the deletion review as '''no consensus''', the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
I'm afraid your request didn't make it clear that the information would be released under the ] license and could be and will be copied all over the Internet. This isn't appropriate copyright release. RickK
*If the decision under appeal was a ], 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 ], if they so choose.
] 17:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*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 ] can be processed immediately as though they were a request at ]
* 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 ]). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".<section end=Instructions />
{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Active}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recent}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Archive}}


{{Misplaced Pages community|state=collapsed}}
Webcomic deleted for lack of notability. The deletion debate and the article failed to mention its best claim for notability, namely that it had a several page crossover with ]. Not the most important article in the world, but it's still a webcomic of non-trivial note, and I'd like to get the chance to expand the article with some more information and let it go through another VfD debate in its modified state. ] 17:00, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
]

]
Update: WHAT? I did some more looking into it, and this is a KeenSpot comic. For those not up on webcomics, that means that the comic ran under one of the biggest webcomic sites in existence. This is not a trivial comic at all, and its low Alexa rating is probably more related to its being ended than anything else. Frankly, I think there's a strong case to be made for Keenspot and Modern Tales comics being inherently notable. This was a bad VfD - it was an article that could easily have been fixed if anyone had noticed it in the five day period. The fact that nobody did should not mean that the article can now never be written. ] 03:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
]

Further comments: I note that even the strictest webcomic inclusion grounds (Which have largely been backed off on now) said to allow the top ten Keenspace strips. Keenspace is the more minor version of Keenspot. The fact that Elf Only Inn graduated up to Keenspot from Keenspace means that it was more notable than the top ten Keenspace strips. In other words, this met the strict webcomic inclusion guidelines. ] 15:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete'''. The crossover makes it more notable than many of the webcomics we have articles for. ] 19:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*I don't see any grounds for undeletion here since the article was really a poorly written stub. Also, as crossovers are rather common among webcomics, I'm not sure how that demonstrates notability. However, if you think you can write a good article on the subject, by all means, go ahead. ]]] 07:59, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
**Although crossovers are fairly common, the lack of crossovers is one of the somewhat notable things about Penny Arcade - I think there have only been two. ] 14:47, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
**Beware of those who will delete it anyway, despite being completely different content. --] (]) 16:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', as per VfD. ] 15:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': If you want to write an article on Elf Only Inn, you're probably better off doing so from scratch, as the deleted article was of poor quality. --] 00:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*Keep deleted. ] 00:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**Nice to know the limits of your inclusionism. ] 00:26, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
***Non-notability is outside the limits of my inclusionism. ] 00:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. If someone is going to recreate it, they must be aware that the main problem was not the poor article, but lack of notability. Was it seriously discussedsomewhere else outside its home? In some permanent sources? I.e., chat rooms don't count. ] 02:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. Worthless. ] 02:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Abstain''' I'd say that if Snowspinner (or anyone else) wants to take another shot at this article, they should by all means go for it. On the other hand, the dismal '''''' suggests very severe notability problems with the subject. I know Alexa results don't count for everything, but for a webcomic, it's pretty important, and I doubt it would survive another VfD. ] 02:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
*Undelete. If a decent editor will bother to put in the effort to make a borderline deletion - and this was borderline - into a good article, only good can come of it - ] 16:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted.''' Properly deleted in process. Article not a useful starting point. Anyone who wants to write a half-decent new article may do any time without prejudice. If a ''new'' article is created and for whatever reason is speedied as a re-creation I will gladly vote to undelete ''that.'' ] ] 01:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*Keep deleted. Webcomics are truly a dime a dozen. ] 13:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**'''Note:''' Above vote was deleted, by accident I think. I have restored it. ] 02:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

*Undelete. Make sure to expand. I love comics too.--] 04:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', notability not established the first time. ] 07:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**I don't see where it is estabilished the second time. ] 09:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===], ]===
====]====
In 2004, he told us he was scheduled to appear in the 2005 ''Who's Who in America''. What ever happened with that? ] 04:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Considering how the last IP to make this comment on here turned out to be a sockpuppet of Mr. Boyer ,, I say we disregard this desperate plea for attention. Bugger off. ] 04:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::I did appear in the 2005 ''Who's Who in America''. Now, lazy researcher though you may be, I think you would be able to look it up, or, if you don't want to do that, refrain from commenting on it. --] 17:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Well, hello, Gov. Stoughton! No, 24.4.127.164 is Wiwaxia! I checked the box for "Stay logged in", it should have posted my name instead of that IP address. Still looking through false venues for sock puppets everywhere, aren't you? How the hell was that post a "plea for intention"? How the fuck was writing about the Daniel C. Boyer appearance in ''Who's Who'' "desperate"? I merely nominate the Daniel C. Boyer article for undeletion and that means I ''am'' Daniel C. Boyer? If I'm that artist, then you're J. Wales. ] 06:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::A quick look at ]'s shows a variety of (irregularly spaced) contributions, mostly of the housekeeping type -- in marked contrast to the diff you cite -- so your off-the-cuff accusation strikes me as markedly unfair to 24.4.127.164. Strikes me as an obvious question to answer, though I'm skeptical of the notoriety a ''Who's Who'' listing really shows.
::I think you owe 24.4.127.164 an apology. --] | ] 04:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::Screw 'em. It's a puppet. In addition to the first undeletion request by a Boyer IP, he recently added his own name to Requested Articles, which I don't believe was the first time. This has been his semi-sneaky M.O. since his article got trounced on VfD over a year ago and people have been watching him. What other reasonable explanation do you have for why an IP that hadn't even been used for several months would come back just to ask about a soundly rejected undeletion request from August, 2004 for a nonnotable, self-promoting Wikipedian? ] 04:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::Hello? The diff you just cited is from ] (), not ] (. You '''can''' tell the difference between 24.4.127.164 and 141.219.44.182, can't you? You '''can''' tell the difference in their contributions, can't you? Or do you tell all IP-number contributors to go screw themselves?
::::Further hint, courtesy SamSpade.org:
:::::*24.4.127.164 = c-24-4-127-164.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (Comcast Cable, Mt. Laurel, NJ)
:::::*141.219.44.182 = patpc27.lib.mtu.edu (Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI)
::::So what's your "reasonable explanation" for conflating the two? --] | ] 04:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::Conduct. 65.174.34.14 and 141.219.44.182 were both used to promote a Boyer article and also to edit his user page. True, both of those resolve to Boyer's hometown (Hancock and Houghton are within about a mile of each other), and 24.4.127.164 resolves (actually) to a local Comcast server in Philly, but I don't see why that matters. I for one have logged into Misplaced Pages from at least eight different computers in four or five different states on both U.S. coasts within the past year. Are you shackled to your home computer? 24.4.127.164 also hasn't edited the Boyer userpage ''yet'', but the main point is that Boyer has obviously used multiple and unrelated IPs before to do this kind of thing. ] 05:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::::No, I guess you '''can't''' tell the difference in their contributions or haven't bothered looking. Let's try this one more time, since you are seriously missing the point. You slagged 24.4.127.164 and justified yuor slagging by pointing to '''someone else's''' edit (141.219.44.182). You did this despite the fact that 24.4.127.164's edit history doesn't have a single page in common with 141.219.44.182, (nor, as far as I can tell, with ] himself) and has neither edited the Boyer userpage (nice attempt at ass-covering with that "yet" - your crystal ball working okay?) nor edited any other surrealism/Daniel C. Boyer obsession article. Now you're crossing over from overzealous to outright intellectual dishonesty. You were wrong, you were insulting, and all your handwaving doesn't change that. --] | ] 02:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks for sticking up for me all this time, Calton. ] 07:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Trying for an Oscar there? It was a reasonable suspicion based on outward conduct. ]. ] 03:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Obvious keep deleted''' this is either a very clumsy attempt at sockpuppetry, or perhaps a somewhat clever stealth attack against Boyer. In any case, a ''Who's Who'' entry, even if true, certainly does not show notability for an article. ] 00:09, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
* Keep deleted. Incidentally, I don't see any need for apologies here. ] 13:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* '''Keep deleted''' - ]]] 17:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* '''Kp Del''', no new evidence presented, and if there were evidence of W's W that wouldn't do it. --]] 04:19, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)
** There is evidence of ''Who's Who''. It's called a book. Perhaps you've heard of them. --] 17:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*** Sorry buddy, but an appearance in ''Who's Who'' doesn't necessarily prove notability, and you're not helping your case with smart-arse remarks. '''Keep Deleted'''. (Incidentally, you already perform auto-fellatio with enough vigour on your user page, is a main namespace article really necessary?) ] ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:25, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
**** I'm not advocating for a main namespace article. I am listing you on Requests for comment. --] 17:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
***** You're trying to undelete the article on yourself in the main namespace... how can you post here and still dispute that? And as for the RfC, I believe you need to have attempted to work out the supposed "dispute" in my talk page beforehand, and there needs to be two seperate complainants. Honestly I think you crave a bit of melodrama (and to be the centre of attention), but disrupting people by frivolously using RfC is just annoying. ] ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:17, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', Who's Who means absolutely nothing. And talk about frivolous rfc! --] (]) 17:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===], ]===
====]====
http://en.wikipedia.org/Falling_Up_%28band%29 was deleted by a VFD apparently around April 9th, unknown to me. I never knew a falling up band article had ever been created, and I wrote an entirely new one. The main reason given for the band to be deleted was that they had made only one CD independantly and were therefore non-notable, whereas in reality they were signed on to BEC recordings, a major Christian label that also produces for big Christian Contemporary names like ], ]. (Take a look at http://www.becrecordings.com/front.php). As well, there is a precedent for single-album Christian Contemporary bands on the wikipedia--for example, ].
To summarize
My article was different from the article deleted and should, at the least, get a separate VFD.
The reason for the VFD (independant release and therefore non-notability) was untrue since they were signed on to BEC.
Please put my article back :) ]

:Agreed that a separate VFD is needed if it wasn't a re-creation of the old one. Can an admin verify this? --] (]) 23:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. The first version (that went through VfD) simply stated that Falling Up was a Christian rock band and then listed its members. Comments in the VfD mentioned the lack of notability. The latest version, while a stub, is more informative and offers at least a basis for notability. I don't know enough about the labels to make a call on that basis, but I wouldn't consider this version a recreation of the deleted article. ] | ] 05:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. VfU is not to be used to try to get VfD votes redone. ]] 21:30, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
**Unless the article is a re-creation, rather than a new article that was created, deletion policy '''clearly''' states that it must be separately VFDed. This at the very least prevents me from writing a substub that says "Stephen King was a man. He was not a dragon-man." and taking it through VFD, and then using that as a rationale to delete any article on Stephen King. You've done this before and you're doing it again. Please stop trolling. That has to be what you're doing, as you've been informed before that the deletion policy clearly protects articles like this.
**Is there some way for both the old and new revisions to be undeleted temporarily? Like a full history undeletion rather than just the most recent article? It would be nice to verify that in fact the two articles were different. --] (]) 21:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**Oh, by the way, this VFU is not for trying to redo the VFD. It's for trying to undo what seems to be an improper (though possibly well-intentioned) speedy. --] (]) 22:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Weak undelete'''. They are listed on allmusic.com but have no written entry. ] 22:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**For the record, this reason may be invalid, since it treats this like another VFD on the subject. The main issue here is whether the recent speedy was valid. According to the nominator, it was not the same article; ] is the only thing to go by here, until we have some other evidence either way. --] (]) 22:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*By the way, making my vote clear - '''undelete''' unless we have evidence that the two articles were the same. --] (]) 22:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*I have undeleted my original deletion. I sincerely apologize to Cookiemobsta for the confusion. I gave improper weight to the given speedy reason of VFD recreation and did a hasty and insufficient scan of the content without properly comparing the two versions. I will be more careful in the future. - ]]] 22:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**And I have redeleted it. It is '''''entirely''''' inappropriate to undelete an article and remove it from this page '''''one day''''' after it was listed here. Give it the complete five day treatment it is supposed to have. ]] 04:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''' - an article is only considered a reincarnation subject to speedy deletion if it is the same (or substantially so) to the article that was VFD'd. Since this article was different, according to several posters, it should have gone through the standard VFD process, not been speedied. ] 04:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**It's exactly the same article. The only difference has to do with how extensive the verbiage is. The original VfD had to do with notability, not about whether or not the article was skimpy. There were three delete votes, no keeps, and all three had to do with the band's notability, not about the size of the article. ]] 05:31, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
***I urge you to reread deletion policy, and stop second-guessing the policy when it doesn't jive with your view of things. --] (]) 11:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
****Please point to the deletion policy which allows an article to be recreated after VfD, to be listed for one day on VfU, to be recreated after being on VfU for one day, to have its listing be deleted from VfU after being here for one day, and not being listed on VfD after having been recreated, in violation of the policy on this very page? ]] 19:28, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
*****The article was not recreated. The listing was removed because the article was speedied in error, and the deleter fixed his error. --] (]) 21:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
******What do you mean, the article was not recreated? You mean that the VfD was for an article that never existed? Or that once the VfD had passed its time, it was never deleted? Sorry, the history proves otherwise. The article was not speedied in error, it is Misplaced Pages policy to delete recreations of articles which have been voted for deletion. ]] 23:12, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
*******The article was created anew, '''as a different article'''. It was not a recreation because it was not the same article. --] (]) 23:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. From looking at the old article and the new one, they're very clearly different. Additionally, BanyanTree has admitted it was a mistake to delete it. Unfortunately his attempt at rectifying the situation has been held up. Even if you wanted to look at the old VFD, the delete votes were because the article didn't establish notability and the new article does that. ] 23:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
**They are '''''not''''' clearly different. They are about the exact same band. The original VfD was about the band's notability, not about how well the article was written. ]] 04:11, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
***Please step back for one moment and read the policies. The articles are different. The band is not, but the deletion policy pertains to the '''article, not the subject'''. --] (]) 04:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
***The content of the article is different, period. What the article refers to is the same thing, but the content is different. "Notability not established" seems to me as if it refers to the article itself. If they had said "not notable" then I would have taken it to refer to the band itself. Anyway, I've asked Radiant just to be sure. ] 04:46, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
****Yes, thanks for that. Whenever I vote "notability not established", I would be willing to reconsider it if/when additional facts come up. ] comes to mind. Given that it is under heavy debate here whether the new and old articles are different, I'd be willing to take it on good faith and take the new article to VfD for re-evaluation. Thus, '''undelete'''. ]]] 08:04, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

*Just a note - I have posted an ] about these and other similar actions. --] (]) 00:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**RfC because you don't know how to follow policy? I refuse to participate. ]] 04:11, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''', while the author may argue it is a different article, it is still the same band and the same reasons to delete it remain the same. I was the person responsible for the original nomination - the band is not notable, they have produced only one album on an independent label. The consensus was to delete. ] 04:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete'''. I have read Radiant's comment, and the VfD debate. I agree that "Notability not established" is different from "not notable". If the rewritten article establishes notability, it should not be speedy deleted as a recreation, and deserves a second go on VfD. ] 13:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
<strike>*'''Undelete'''. Based upon what I have read, this article has significantly changed and improved, enough so that it should be undeleted to have a second chance to experience further organic growth and expansion. (This is a vote in support for undeletion on an undeletion-related page.) --]\<sup>]</sup> 23:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)</strike> GRider is forbidden to vote on deletion matters as a result of an arbcomm ruling. ]] 23:41, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

*'''Speedy Undeleted'''. It was improperly speedied, so I have undone the error. Take it to VfD if you want it gone, this isn't the same article as before. --] | ] 23:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
**And '''''speedy deleted''''' once again. Quit undeleting articles out of process. The article can '''''only''''' be undeleted once this vote has been completed. ]] 23:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

*The old and new article are at ] for all to see. --] (]) 23:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete'''. RickK, is it that time of the month or something? Or did you forget that Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an '''encyclopedia''' ("A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically"), not a medium for you to show off your ability (and misplaced willingness) to follow rules to the letter. When it's convenient for you, of course... ]] 02:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete'''. Shouldn't have been deleted. The sooner this process ends, the better. What does it serve except to stir up hostility? Rick, please reconsider and just let it go.] 03:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
**I'll let it go on April 27, after the appropriate 5 day VfU vote time has passed. ]] 04:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
***Fine. No one can prevent you from creating and sustaining a focus of hostility, resentment and flaming. I'm just really disappointed that a user of such good standing feels that any of that helps build an encyclopaedia.] 06:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
****I'm not the one throwing RfC's and nasty personal attacks around. ]] 06:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

*]. We can all see its contents in its last two incarnations at RickK's RFC, we can all see that they're about the same band, and we can all see that the most recent one still wouldn't have a snowflake's chance in a frying pan of surviving VFD, since it doesn't come within miles of satisfying ]. We can leave it on VFD and/or VFU for months in various slightly differing incarnations recreated by various slightly differing sockpuppets if you like, which would, I'm sure, please the band members, both of their fans, and maybe even the radical inclusionists. I submit, however, that this article is ''precisely the reason'' why we have ]. '''Keep deleted'''. ] (]) 04:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
**It is absolutely insane, the only difference between the old article and the new article is that the author has bothered to write their names out on full and the albums tracks in full. It does not change the notability of the band. This is going to set a bad precedent in future if it passes - any article that is speedied can simply be resucitated by just changing the length of a person's or object's name and the author argue that it is a new article. ] 06:31, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
***'''What the motherfucking hell are you talking about?''' Go to ]. The old one was just a single line and a list of names. The new one has a paragraph at the beginning about the band and a track listing. Stop trolling and choke on autofellatio. --] (]) 06:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
****Damn, SPUI, are you off your meds? You have gone completely over the edge. ]] 06:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
*****Hah, I bet you thought that was a personal attack too when you typed it. --] (]) 07:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
******Well I consider calling someone a troll and telling someone to choke on autofellatio a personal attack. You need to read ]. It still doesnt detract from the argument that it is exactly the same band - the argument for its deletion hasnt changed at all. ] 04:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' - Come on guys, this is getting beyond the point of being simply sad. I worry that this kind of silliness is going to embarass all concerned in the future. If Falling Up aren't notable enough to engage your interest - please feel free to abstain from all of the following actions:
:* Reading the article
:* Editing the article
:* Recommending the article to friends
:* Using the article as an indicator of the general quality of Misplaced Pages
: and most importantly
:* caring whether or not the article exists.
] 06:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

*'''Undelete''' because (a) the article is entirely unrelated to the old one and therefore not a re-creation, (b) the new version of the article establishes notability, (c) I've heard of Falling Up and (d) hey -- two people wrote articles on the band independently -- this sure isn't your typical article on a one-week-old vanity band that no one has heard of. ] 07:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted'''. The article is almost identical, VfD procedure was followed, no irregularities have been shown. It was listed for the correct period, there were no keep votes and it was properly deleted. In my opinion this article was properly deleted and attempt to recreate this article should be summarily deleted. No evidence has been presented to suggest that undeleting this article would make Misplaced Pages better. On Dante's recreations, I cite ] and will now redelete. I consider what has gone on here to be a serious abuse of process. --]|] 15:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*:On Tony's "citation" above, I cite ] and await an apology. --] | ] 17:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
*:: I freely apologise for any offence given (See ] and, for what provoked it, ]) but still contend that the deliberate recreation of an article already speedied by an administrator as a recreation, is an abuse of process. We can legitimately disagree on whether this is the case without attacking one another. I contend that it is essential to the deletion process that no administrator should ever feel comfortable about recreating an article in these circumstances when we all know that the right place for recreations is VfU, where we all get to discuss things out in the open. --]|] 21:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*::: I apologize for misunderstanding Tony's previous statement. I took offense to what I believed was being said, not what Tony meant. My position is that the VfU process is not being circumvented, but is inappropriate in this situation, seeing as how the article in question was improperly speedy deleted. It is standard procedure when an article is improperly speedy deleted to recreate the article so that it can go through the proper VfD procedure. --] | ] 22:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Undelete''', notable band, valid article. ] 17:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep Deleted''', not noteworthy. Not valid article for a VfU, imho. -- ] ] 17:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' It has been claimed that the current article gives information that makes the band more notable. I think it's a reasonable assumption--why else would anyone add the information? But the earlier article claimed that they'd made a CD, whereas the current article makes it plain that it was a demo CD. On the other hand, the current article says they signed to a record label., and yes, they did sign to a record label, the one that also signed ]. Does this make them as notable as Kutless? Their website contains messages such as "2.18.05 hey the Xtour has begun and it is going good!" and "4.06.05 if you have missed us at shows lately, it's because we have not been playing any." What happened in the intervening six weeks? The only other tour on their website apparently involved quite a few church gigs alongside a number of other bands. How would these guys fare under the ] of ]? On the other hand, I don't want to go overboard. The Beatles played in Hamburg for months on end and didn't really get anywhere. I suppose mostly I'm annoyed that , in my opinion, this article was recreated after it was deleted, and while the VfU process was in progress. It looks to me as if there is not sufficient respect for the deletion process and the undeletion process, and this has produced an unwanted deletion war. We don't need that kind of thing if we can all agree to use VfD and VfU, and abide by policy on speedying of recreations, without quibbles. --]|] 22:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* '''Comment'''. The individual who "recreated" the article is not the same person who wrote the initial article. This should quiet the assertions that somehow the "same" user recreated the "same" article in order to circumvent the previous deletion vote. (see ] for details). --] | ] 22:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' Agreed. This is about an article on the same group, with the same name, but created by a different person. The author of the initial article has changed. Do we have consensus for restoration of the article in this form? --]|] 23:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
** Well... if the SD was legit, we can't undelete it until tomorrow anyway and we don't need consensus, just a majority. If the SD wasn't legit, the article should be undeleted immediately and consensus ''here'' is irrelevant. IMO, what we should be discussing is whether or not the SD was in line with policy. There is such a discussion taking place if people care to be involved. --] | ] 00:05, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

*'''UNDELETE''' -Deserves a rewrite by Cookiemobster.--] 04:36, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

===], ]===

====]====

A new article was submitted so saying that it should remain undeleted due to the history and votes should not be enough I think the people giving their opinions should have a chance to see the fully revised article that was posted in April 2005 and not judge on the discussion of a different article posted over a year ago.

I still think it's a vanity page, originally by Mr Bouche himself, though this anon may or may not be Mr Bouche, but he doesn't seem notable, but I'd like someone else to have a look. see ]; also anon comment that follows ]|] 20:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:'' \Did u see? the links that are enclosed in his article? I am familiar with Paul Bouche. How many of your listings have won an Emmy award? As a matter of fact I was searching for him after Discussion and presentation by him @ Miami International University of Art and Design.

:''He has been arround for many years and has been an inspiration for many young hispanics as myself. I guess you are not familiar with the field of spanish media. That is ok. But know I also searched The Miami Herald, El Nuevo Herald, La Opinion (Los Angeles Main Hispanic Paper), Even Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Hispanic Business magazine have featured articles about him. Perhaps you should too. I don't see anyone on the list of comments that strike me as Hispanic or Latino. Ask arround. Even though you probably know no hispanic americans.

:''Just because you dont know someone doesn't mean they are not relevant for our community 35 million in the US and 400,000,000 arround the world. (end anon comment)
*'''Keep deleted'''. VfU is not a place to try to rerun votes already cast on VfD. ]] 21:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
*'''Keep deleted''', valid VfD process. ]]] 07:55, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

*''Undelete'' Hispanically notable--] 04:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:29, 10 January 2025

This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion "WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Skip to current nominationsSkip to:
Shortcut
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes

For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:

Discussion about closes prior to closing:

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

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. 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);
  2. (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.)
  3. 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);
  4. 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
  10. 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

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. 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.
  2. 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

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion instead.
 
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=Misplaced Pages: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 January 24}}</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 January 24}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 24|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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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

24 January 2025

Tyson Apostol

Tyson Apostol (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Afd was attended by only the nominater who aruged that it failed BLP1E however on examing the article i find it had 17 sources which covered not only his win but his other 3 appearences as well furthmore they are both primariy and secondary sources so the article not only doesnt meet the 3 requirements for BLP1E but it passes GNG as there is significant Coverage with secondary sources on more then 1 event — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talkcontribs) 14:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

22 January 2025

Fartcoin (closed)

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

This page was chosen to be merged for lack of noteworthiness, however the consensus was reached before multiple knowledgeable editors updated the page with over 40 references. Deletion discussion centers around lack of noteworthy sources, where users are not willing to accept sources that are not major media companies. This coin is an example of the ability of AI to relate to humans in an infectious and viral way. The name Fartcoin was conceived by a jailbroken Large Language Model as the ideal meme coin to relate to humans. It plays a major role in the creation of the first ever AI crypto millionaire, in which 2% of the token supply was sent to the crypto wallet of the Truth Terminal AI agent that named the coin. It also has connections to Marc Andreesen as one of the most prolific Venture Capitalists, when Marc sent $50k to the Truth Terminal agent's wallet after seeing it reach viral status on X.com social media site. I request that moderators review the sources shown in the article as there are dozens of mentions in the media landscape about Fartcoin and its encapsulation of the absurd and hyper-speculative nature of crypto. The connection to AI as the ideal meme coin name, followed by its successful capture of human attention and creation of an AI millionare, is noteworthy enough to have its own page. In less than a month it garnered 27,000 pageviews. EveSturwin (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Endorse. The term notability, as we use it here, carries a very specific meaning that has little to do with noteworthiness. In the AfD, none of the Keep !votes carried any weight in terms of guidelines, other than that of WeirdNAnnoyed, who also advocated for a merge. That's also the case for the appellant's petition here. Owen× 22:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok I understand. The definition here is different.
    In the original deletion discussion the Fast Company article is recognized as a reliable source.
    Here is another piece of significant coverage independent of the subject:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/21/david-einhorn-says-we-have-reached-the-fartcoin-stage-of-the-market-cycle.html
    In reference to @WeirdNAnnoyed reference to WP:TOOSOON AND @Cinadon36 ask for articles over a period of time, this second article of note may satisfy that requirement given these 2 articles are more than 1 month apart, and therefore may be more than just a flash in the pan. Beyond this there have been several mentions by media and traditional finance professionals outside of the crypto industry, as required by coverage independent of the subject. EveSturwin (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse own close. The closer's job is to evaluate consensus, and DRV is for challenging that evaluation and nothing else. It is not "AFD round two". It is not the closing admin's job to evaluate the sources for themselves or to otherwise have an opinion at all in the debate. Beeblebrox 23:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. I’m a little confused, you’re saying the DRV process only re-evaluates the deletion discussion itself and doesn’t take into account sources shown in the article? How can you make a determination of rejection based on notability guidelines without referencing any of the 40+ sources? EveSturwin (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse nothing in the discussion indicates this should have been a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you. As noted in the discussion the article can be improved by reliable truthful sources. We have Fast Company, Fortune, and now a recent CNBC article showing significant coverage over a period greater than 30 days. EveSturwin (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, replying to everyone can be seen as WP:BLUDGEONING. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’m sorry, I’m new here if you can’t tell. I’m trying to learn how Misplaced Pages works. I’m not meaning to badger anyone EveSturwin (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I guess I assumed this was a healthy discussion and debate about the path forward. EveSturwin (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse Sorry, User:EveSturwin, your attempt to spam crypto relies on an insufficiency of sourcing. Non-notability is inherent here. And who the hell is "a knowledgeable person like myself"? Serial (speculates here) 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I have worked in the industry for several years as an honest contributor to blockchain technology, and I unfortunately know how a lot of these memecoins work. Part of my job at my salaried place of employment is to perform market search in the budding Crypto x AI vertical. And sadly there are many founders that have seen Fartcoin take hold of the market in a way their utility-based products are unable to do. I’ve been following the project since Marc Andreessen sent $50k to an AI this summer. The fact that a token named Fartcoin reached this market cap is both ridiculous and a snapshot of a moment in time. I’m not spamming anything, I’m providing the true context and backstory of an incredible phenomenon that enrages so many people.
    But the most noteworthy pieces are that
    1) A viral AI agent identified this as the ideal meme coin and it somehow took hold in human society. It’s quite incredible. Hedge fund manager Raoul Pal likened it to a virus jumping from birds to humans. That in itself is a snapshot in time.
    2) The donation of this token to an AI agent crypto wallet created the first ever AI that had a net worth over $1M. This in itself is a noteworthy event and there are TechCrunch articles about it, with Fartcoin as the driving factor behind this historical point in time.
    I understand the negative sentiment towards it, but the amount of media attention it has received is larger than any other memecoin this cycle. It is larger than true products with underlying value. It is larger than the company AMC. It is frequently quoted by traditional finance professionals as a sign of outlandish crypto market sentiment. In the time since the article was deleted a large hedge fund manager used it as a headline “we are at the Fartcoin part of the cycle”. The Stocktwits founder coined the term Fear of Missing Fartcoins due to the fact that it outperformed the returns of past 50 years of the stock market in 2 months. High school kids are making their teacher’s salaries in one week from this coin in particular. It is a perfect encapsulation of financial nihilism and hyper-speculative behavior that can be tied to the runaway costs of living in America. It’s a direct result of young Americans not feeling as though they can achieve success in life through traditional methods like obtaining a degree and a job. It is possibly the most fascinating thing I’ve ever seen, and I’ve watched it from day 1.
    I think it’s important for curious individuals to see the full backstory and context which makes it even more intriguing. Otherwise I feel this is a case of citizen censorship based on personal attitudes towards the subject of crypto. Just because you’re personally enraged by a phenomenon doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You can’t delete something from the history books because you don’t agree with it. I’ve been shocked to see that even the memecoin launched by President Trump was nominated for deletion. That also is a clear demarcation in history of human’s relationship to digital currency and there are people who don’t like it so they nominate it for deletion immediately? I fear Misplaced Pages has lost my respect and I will no longer spend hours reading up on worldly topics here, for I now know that keyboard warriors can paint history in their own viewpoint. I’m quite disappointed.
    And for the record I never used AI, which someone tried to highlight as a reason to denigrate the validity of this page. EveSturwin (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yeah, we don't do the subject-matter expert thing here. Owen× 01:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I’m directly replying to the “who the hell is a knowledgeable person like myself” comment above, that’s all. EveSturwin (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse based on "updated the page with over 40 references". It is not reasonable to ask reviewers to review 40 references. Read WP:Reference bomb. Read WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for pointing me to this. I didn’t realize there was such a thing. My goal was to present the external sources to show the information is portrayed in an unbiased manner. EveSturwin (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse close as merge, as the right reading of consensus and of guidelines. DRV is not AFD Round 2. Appellant is bludgeoning the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Question - Are community general sanctions still in place for cryptocurrencies? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Just noting I have p-blocked the OP from this page and Fartcoin for the continued bludgeoning, and I question whether they should be allowed to edit in this area at all given the Sanctions Star Mississippi 20:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I feel like this could probably just be closed up now.
I am also increasingly of the opinion that DRVs that are set up from the getgo as a re-argument of the AFD should be speedily closed as that is not what DRV is for. Beeblebrox 00:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Gulf of America (closed)

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

Discussion with closer. This is unfortunate timing for an RfD as the status quo kept shifting about all over the place. First there was no mention of the Gulf of America at Gulf of Mexico, then there was a mention in the lede and body and a hatnote to Nakhodka Bay, then that mention was removed from the lede and took an amble through various parts of the article at some point resulting in the hatnote being removed, and now Gulf of Mexico#Name actually directs readers to Nakhodka Bay in its text.

The point is – it's not the easiest discussion to evaluate consensus for, but the disambiguate result appears to be a supervote or based about the drafting of a disambiguation page, which in RfDs is standard procedure and is meant to further discussion rather than prejudice the RfD's result. Overturn to keep or no consensus, and refine the redirect to Gulf of Mexico#Name as the vast majority of (later) participants did not express support for disambiguation, instead preferring a conflicting action. J94720:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Endorse. I commend the closer for successfully tackling this politically-charged, highly contentious debate. I see no evidence of a supervote here. You may call the timing for this RfD "unfortunate", but it was also inevitable. We wouldn't be having this debate if it weren't for the recent executive order. The calls for deleting the redirect were without P&G basis, and reek of slactivism. The page has received over 40,000 pageviews yesterday alone, and will continue to be one of the most popular search terms in the coming weeks. Sending all those who look for it to a search results page smacks of political spite, rather than encyclopedic integrity and a genuine desire to provide knowledge. Picking one of the two targets and placing a hatnote on the other will likely become an edit battleground for the next while, especially if the primary target is a little-known bay in eastern Russia, rather than the page 40,000 people a day are looking for. By picking WP:NOPRIMARY, Why? I Ask steered clear of the political minefield, and closed the RfD in the only way that avoids any colour of bias. In time, the political dust will settle, and NOPRIMARY will turn into WP:ONEOTHER, but that time is not today. Owen× 21:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Apologies if this was unclear, but after the addition of a mention to the Gulf of Mexico article, only 1 out of over 30 participants suggested targetting Nakhodka Bay. J94722:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak Overturn to Relist - In my opinion, the disambiguation page is the right answer, but it had been suggested late in the second listing, and cannot really have been said to have had consensus. (If it is relisted, it is likely to close as No Consensus, in which case someone should boldly change the redirect to a disambiguation page.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    That sounds like a rather laborious, roundabout way to do exactly nothing. Why not just jump to the same endpoint, and leave things as they are? Owen× 21:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I respect you, but I truthfully have no idea why you support this option. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn BADNAC for an admin reclose. Politically contentious areas are not for non-admins, no matter how well intentioned and articulate. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree that "may not always be appropriate" means "should never". Why? I Ask (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Would you care to strike this and indicate you now understand, or should I start an ANI discussion to topic ban you from NACs? Your call. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I just looked at their contribs going back to 2023. I'm only seeing 2 RfD closes, including this one. Normally I don't sweat too much if a newbie closer closes something, due to the other things we have in place (like wp:adminacct), but I think in this case, it might not be a bad idea to gain some more experience before jumping into the more contentious closes. - jc37 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Everytime I interact with you, you always try to go the nuclear option. It is tiring. I said I disagree with you. Not that I would not respect the outcome of this decision. You are welcome to try. But you are also welcome to assume good faith. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn per BADNAC. There is no way a non-admin should be closing this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist obvious WP:BADNAC. This discussion falls under the first bulletpoint of BADNAC as it falls within a Contentious Topic. I can think of no topic more contentious than American politics. However, I would question this close even if made by an administrator as there is not consensus to do anything at this point. If anything, consensus to keep was starting to form toward the end, but wasn’t there yet.Frank Anchor 23:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: yes, we all know what NACD and BADNAC say. The question in my mind is, what is to be gained by re-closing or relisting it? Some 60 editors participated in this; no clearer consensus would magically materialize if we gave this another week, and closing it as "no consensus" would just leave the page as a battleground before it comes right back to XfD. This is one of those XfDs that was bound to come to DRV no matter who closed it or how they closed it. Rather than blindly follow policy that would, at best, circuitously lead us to the same result, we should examine the outcome to see if it (a) reflects consensus among P&G-based participants, and (b) is the outcome that best serves the project. Everything else is red tape. Owen× 23:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    In my mind, just because a non-admin gets it right doesn't mean we should let someone who hasn't gained the confidence of the community through a discussion or vote to close contentious topics. I didn't even try to "close" this one to figure out if it needed to be overturned (in the sense of gauging the consensus to see if the decision was correct), it's just obvious that it needs to be left to a trusted member of the community in my mind, and I won't change my mind on that. SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It seems we're stuck in what may soon be called an American standoff... Owen× 00:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    The thing about the "60 editors" is that most of them participated before the executive order was signed, which did rather change things. So it does, in fact, need more time. StAnselm (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Things changed over the course of the discussion. This is a good reason to not relist. A fresh discussion would be preferable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn per improper close. There was no consensus for a disambiguation page. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Overturn per BADNAC. The revision which created the DAB indicates it was WP:BOLD, not based on consensus—"Why? I Asked"'s closure says that the DAB "stands", when the DAB should not be considered in the first place. I also honestly do not see how "Why?" could have concluded that the consensus was to disambiguate at all (although I am also not an admin). — gabldotink 00:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist/Re-Open, per above - Though, "Start Over", might not be a bad idea either, as the "facts on the ground" are apparently shifting as we speak. - jc37 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would support a full start-over as opposed to a relist. Things have changed dramatically over the past two weeks. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn BADNAC. Contentious. An inexperienced RfD closer should not be closing something required respected leadership. Also, the closing statement itself is very poor, reading as a supervote, and very far from commanding respect. The discussion contains a lot of unjustified terse "Retarget to Nakhodka Bay", which are ridiculous as no one knowing the obscure fact that part of Nakhodka Bay was once in 1859 labelled Gulf of America would need the redirect to find what they want. This is clearly a bit of Trumpism excitement, and non-experienced non admins should not be jumping in. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Please tell me how you would word a closing. This is me genuinely asking to learn. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    For a discussion with so many !voting participants, while noting that consensus is not about counting, I would count and classify the main differing camps: Keep, Delete, Disambiguate, Redirect to Nakhodka Bay. I would comment on the validity of !votes in each camp. I would try hard to do this by quoting or paraphrasing recurring statements in the discussion, mainly to avoid possible reading of a Supervote. I would note what proportion of each of the camps gave no or negligible rationale for their !vote.
    I would not personally have closed this because I hold some opinions that I haven’t found in the discussion. Eg that the justification for “delete” includes that is new, and that the Misplaced Pages search engine works (don’t confuse with “Go”), and that the search reveals no significant coverage on Misplaced Pages. That last point also speaks against validity of “redirect” !votes. I would also have the urge to point out that the term is a mere mention at the two articles and not justifying a redirect. I find myself leaning to disambiguate.
    I would balk at the red flag term “Budding consensus”. This implies a lack of actual consensus. It suggests “rough consensus”, which is a privilege of admins to call, to stop a nonproductive discussion and impose a somewhat arbitrary result.
    I would avoid writing “the Gulf of America is a reasonable search term for those seeking information on the controversial potential name change” because this requires evidence and I don’t see it being citeable to the discussion.
    On checking Nakhodka Bay, I do not find that the statement “Nakhodka Bay was also known as the Gulf of America for over a hundred years” is a fact.
    I would avoid the wording “This means that the current disambiguation page stands” because it reads an an autocrat’s decree, due to the preceding logic not being strong, and the lack of acknowledgment of many contrary !votes. Maybe the many !votes for “keep”/“delete”/“redirect” we’re not incompatible with “disambiguate”, but you would have to explain that well, noting that the !voters did not.
    I probably would most respect an admin who closed it “no consensus”, because it is not a consensus, and because this is a suitable close for a topic that is in development. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Just a point of clarification: Nakhodka Bay states that the body of water was named Gulf of America in 1859 and kept that name officially until 1972, which is over a hundred years. I tried to make that clear when rewriting and expanding the article yesterday; apologies if that didn't come through clearly enough. Minh Nguyễn  05:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Was kept, or was ignored until being changed? I suspect dubious transliteration. What is the difference between Amerika and Amerikanka? I think this needs a local, or at least a native Russian speaker, to read over the references. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    "залив Америка" literally means "Gulf of America". You can read about it in Пароходо-корвет «Америка» и его командир А. А. Болтин (ISBN 9785041049713). Why? I Ask (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Most of the references in the article are in English. See wikt:Citations:Gulf of America, wikt:Citations:Gulf of Amerika, and wikt:Amerika Bay for more attestations in English spanning this time period. Whether the transliteration was accurate or not, that was the name in English too.
    The name of Американка means "American" (using the suffix -анка).
    I don't know the difference between ignored or kept in this case. It's not like the authorities issued a proclamation each year to affirm the name.
     – Minh Nguyễn  06:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn. This is a pretty clear example of WP:BADNAC #1. I spoke to Why? I Ask on their talk page and they said "equally as many people that opposed the redirect or supported a disambiguation page". The big problem that they failed to take into account was that the discussion radically changed after the publication of the executive order. It is simply not the case that the consensus was that Nakhodka Bay was an "equally valid search term": at least, not the consensus among commenters after January 20. Also, the closer's argument about the "current" disambiguation page was extremely weak. StAnselm (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 January 2025

Shivkrupanand Swami (closed)

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

WP:BADNAC by a disruptive IP editor closing discussion as "keep" when that was not consensus. Same editor also did WP:BADNACs on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/P. Shanmugam (CPIM) and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lobo Church. Requesting an admin to use their discretion to reopen these discussions or to reclose them (if eligible) in accordance with appropriate consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Silvia Dimitrov

Silvia Dimitrov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As no arguments were made for keeping this article which cited any evidence of notablity or provided any sources, this should have been closed as a soft delete, as it had never been PROD-ded in the past. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Endorse. This was a lazy nomination, followed by lazy rebuttals. Doczilla prompted the nom and participants to put in a modicum of effort, but as Vanderwaalforces correctly noted, that was not heeded by anyone. We ended up with a content-free AfD, in terms of policy and guidelines. It could not have been soft-deleted, as the nomination was clearly, if not meaningfully, contested. It could, however, have been speedy-kept, as no valid argument for deletion was brought up. Owen× 16:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse - As OwenX says, this was a content-free AFD, one of the sloppiest AFDs I have seen in along time. The nominator did not provide any policy-based arguments, and the Keep voters did not provide any policy-based arguments. The appellant-nominator's request to treat this as a Soft Delete is vexatious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist: Although it wasn't a WP:BADNAC, but a second relisting would have been better than "no consensus". I also opposed strongly the option of "soft delete" as raised by the nomination. Safari Scribe 20:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Without a valid nomination, there is nothing to relist. If relisted, it can be immediately re-closed as speedy-keep under our policy anyway. Any editor is welcome to renominate, of course. Owen× 20:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • weak endorse Just wait whatever time we now suggest for a renom and renom. I'm also fine with a relist given there was no consensus yet and it was "only" relisted once. Hobit (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I appreciate everyone's feedback. I will re-nominate this article at some point, but will do a better job of it. OwenX is correct in that it was a lazy nomination. Anyone should feel free to close this complaint as nominator withdrawn so as to not waste anyone else's time. I also apologize to Vanderwaalforces, as their close was a proper one. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you for saying that. You do bring attention to many articles worth considering for AfD, and your enthusiasm in doing that is truly important. I've just been concerned, repeatedly, that each individual AfD needs to show more preparation and investigation (mainly to demonstrate WP:BEFORE here) and to offer more detailed explanation for the reasoning behind each nom. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Hitchens's razor. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

19 January 2025

Raegan Revord

Raegan Revord (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Admin did a "Procedural close", stating that it was because the page was swapped out with one from draft space during the discussion. However,

  1. That's not what happened; the discussion was closed, then the page was swapped with clear consensus from both Keep and Delete !voters, then the discussion was reopened following a January 3 deletion review.
  2. That shouldn't matter because both articles were on the same subject (a specific TV cast member) and the discussion was all about notability (i.e., the subject) and not content (the article.)

Discussion on this has been extensive and should be allowed a proper close. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Agree. In this case, a closing admin should be able to make a whatever closing outcome they find reasonable based on the comments at hand. I don't think we need another week of discussion, 2 relists are enough, but an "actual" close, either by last closer @Liz herself or another willing admin. The post-close "swapping" can be seen as encouraged during-afd improvement. Ping "swapper" @PrimeHunter and afd-starter @Pppery if they wish to comment.
This subject has been in a kind of "development hell" for quite awhile. The draft was pending for review (again), and someone decided during that pending to make a new version and put it in main-space, and that version was taken to afd. Then the afd closed, the "swapping" happened, there was a DRV, and the afd was reopened, then closed by Liz. So IMO, the closer should also consider if a no consensus close here means
no consensus = back to draft
or
no consensus = stays in main-space. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse the procedural close as a procedural close. I agree with the appellant that the discussion was extensive and deserved a proper close, but the discussion had been about two versions of the article, and I agree with the closer that this made a consistent close impossible. The closer said that a new AFD would be the way to resolve the biographical notability issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - The MFD notice on a draft or project page says not to blank, merge, or move the page, or remove the notice. The AFD notice on an article says not to remove the notice. I have been saying for several years that the AFD notice should say not to blank, merge, or move the page, or remove the notice. An editor moved the page by replacing it with another page, and that confused things. I have mostly been concerned about bad-faith moves of nominated articles, but this was a misguided good-faith move that should not have been done because it made a consistent closure impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not invested in this closure and I came to the decision of a procedural close after reviewing the discussion again. The AFD was started with one version of the article on this subject and, after several relistings of the discussion, it came time to close the discussion but it was now about a different version of the article than when it started. I looked at the possible options for closure and none of them seemed appropriate as they would all be ignoring the fact that the AFD had covered two different versions of an article on the same subject.
I realize that the AFD is about the subject but this still seemed like a highly unusual situation so a procedural close was done and, if editors wished to do so, a fresh AFD could be started if there were those who still sought deletion. This seemed like the only resolution that would abide by the spirit of our guidelines. I review most open AFDs on a regular basis and if I had noticed that the articles had been switched out (main space>draft, draft>main space) earlier in the process, I would have closed this discussion sooner before it had gone on so long. I have closed hundreds (thousands?) of AFD discussions over the past four and a half years and this is the first time I've seen a situation like this happen. I'm glad this review is happening, not to second guess myself but because I'm curious what other solutions DRV regulars think might have been suitable for an AFD where the article that has been nominated is switched midway through the discussion with a different draft version. If the consensus is that my closure was incorrect, I accept that determination and welcome the community's guidance on how to handle situations like this should they ever come up again in the future. Liz 21:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I personally think that if an article is re-written during an AFD, that does not invalidate the !votes, since AFD arguments usually address the subject's notability rather than the state of the wikitext. I was expecting a keep close for this particular AFD. Not sure how much more editor time we should spend on this though. It's been to deletion review twice now. I would not have personally taken this to deletion review. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • This is the second time this user insists on starting a deletion review on this article in a short time. He asked the closer but gave very little time for a reply before starting this second deletion review. Why this painful rush? Why force the community to spend all this time? Is it really a life or death situation to achieve just the exact and precise sort of close? I wholeheartedly agree with the above endorse (=leave the close as "good enough") in that in the bigger picture some sort of status quo close was realistically all that would be had from that discussion, so "procedural" is just fine. I strongly advise against a backdoor delete; it is not appropriate to reinterpret "no consensus" to mean back to draft; that is explicitly against what both keep and delete !voters meant and intended when they made their comments. If "keep" starts to mean "keep or possibly back to draft" then every Wikipedian needs to be made aware of that and we need a new term for "keep and only keep". To me, "no consensus" needs to keep having the meaning "we could not agree to make a change, so we keep the status quo" Regards CapnZapp (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Please note that the above poster who is criticizing me is a very involved editor who "insists" on dealing with this matter by insisting that those questioning specific claims inconvenient to his stance remain silent. The appropriateness of the first deletion review should be apparent in its success. As for rushing, I waited approximately a day and saw that the admin involved had responded to a number of other matters without responding to concerns posted by multiple people on their Talk page... and that admin has now expressed that she is "glad this review is happening". If this is found to be an appropriate close, I'd be interested in seeing where the limits are (WP:AFD says "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article", and that is largely what the swap was, as the draft article was basically a superset of the information in the article-space article, with better sourcing; cutting and pasting the entire draft article would seem within the letter of that, but the swap maintained edit history better than such pasting would've.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Stop mischaracterizing my comment as "insisting" you "remain silent", User:NatGertler. I asked you to not shade Vanamonde's comment by pretending he was in the business of creating exceptions when good faith would assume he was not. I think if Vanamonde93 wants to define an exception, it's up to them where the line is they are arguing for. is a strong case of gaslighting and I wasn't letting you get away with it - to me he was definitely not trying to create exceptions and your demand that they draw lines is unreasonable. Telling you to stop diminishing another user's comment is very clearly not the same thing as "insisting" you "remain silent" - you are free to express yourself in a million ways; including ways where you put your thumb in the eye of a user that might not meet your stringent precision requirements. If, that is, you accept you might receive push-back from random users like me. Also, your comparison with Friends (each of the six Friends actors deserves equal notability while apparently there's this invisible line between the fifth and sixth main actor of Young Sheldon, which only excludes Revord). You somehow think it's okay to arbitrarily downplay actors (she is probably 6th in quantity of screen presence, She's a regular, yes, but she's supporting cast.) - no, Nat, there's zero weight in arguing her screen credit is less valuable than, say, Jordan's or Pott's. Finally, the context for what Nat is accusing me: Another user tried to defuse the situation by the very reasonable interpretation of Vanamonde's comment (Perhaps we can agree on "a main actor"?) but no, you doubled down - and when I didn't fold, that's how you end up in situations where your only recourse, apparently, is to think people "insist" you "remain silent" when in reality, they are merely asking you assume good faith. CapnZapp (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I see a lot of electrons have been sacrificed arguing over my intended meaning - I wish I had been pinged! For clarity, I am aware that Missy Cooper isn't the main character of the show, and "a main character" is what I intended to write. Also, for the record, I have not watched the show, would not describe myself as a fan, and am only aware of it because of how often it is mentioned in articles on the internet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse This is a unique but excellent close. I agree above that AfDs are about notability, not about what should happen to a specific article, but I think "no consensus" is the strongest close here, it's been at AfD for awhile, and a "no consensus" creates possible issues with draft space, so a procedural close both allows it to be kept in main space, at least temporarily, and allows for a new conversation. I would give it a couple weeks and then start a fresh AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn I would still have nominated regardless of what the text of the article said, as I would not have allowed an article created in open contempt of process to survive without an AfD. And I still won't allow it, and will renominate this version for AfD as well as soon as practical. Hence nothing has addressed the actual reason for my nomination, and the procedural close was improper. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's why I'm hoping for an "actual" close instead of the procedural, it would hopefully spare us that new afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would suggest a little casualness in starting a new AFD, for the simple reason that there is currently material bubbling up through tabloid sources regarding an online persona that, should it reach the level of better coverage in the next few days, could push the subject past the WP:NACTOR concern, at least for me, and would leave the article in a state that would likely have been accepted if submitted from Draft. See Talk:Raegan Revord for details. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse closing, including the SuperTrout ({{Whale}}) for User:PrimeHunter for disrupting the AfD. Ask User:Pppery to wait at least two weeks after the close of this DRV to renominate. While some have a sense of outrage, there is no reason to rush. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe, look at the timeline again. When PrimeHunter did their thing, the afd was closed as keep, then it was re-opened, and then Liz closed it again. This trouting thing is quite unfair, and disappointing from an 18 year + Wikipedian. Not to mention an admin/arb. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I withdraw endorsement of the SuperTrout, it does appear unfair. Is he an Arb, didn’t know, but that’s irrelevant. Looking at the state of things around 10am 3 January 2025, the AfD was closed, and looked reasonably closed on my pass, and explicitly raised the possibility of a page swap of the article for the better older draft, which User:PrimeHunter carried out. That was ostensibly the perfect thing to do, so apologies to PrimeHunter. I’m tempted now to criticise User:OwenX for relisting. OwenX did not reverse the pageswap, and from then onwards, the process had failed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe Thanks! "admin/arb" referred to Liz, maybe I should have said "from an admin/arb". When she says stuff, people are likely to listen, for good reason, but IMO she should correct her closing statement. Agree with "ostensibly the perfect thing to do".
    On reverting the swap, I see your point, but I also think that would have been a bad idea from the BLP-perspective, changing back to . Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    The pageswap should not have reversed, meaning that the AfD should not have been relisted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    You're absolutely right to criticize me, SmokeyJoe. I noticed something was fishy when I reverted the NAC, since the linked page under review didn't have the AfD template in its history. But I figured I'd leave things for the WP:GNOMES and bots to clean up, and thought things were fine once I saw user:cyberbot I attach the missing template. I routinely un-move pages that are moved during AfD, and should have dug deeper and unswapped in this case as well. Mea culpa, and a well deserved self-trout. Owen× 12:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is a strange case, and you’re a pleasure to work with. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    It is a strange case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have raised the question of forbidding the moving, merging, or blanking of an article during AFD at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Forbid_Moving_an_Article_During_AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon: sure, as long as we agree that doesn't apply to this particular article - as stated above it was only moved after the AFD was closed (and before it was reopened). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't particularly see a issue with the swap, especially since it technically happened while the AFD was closed? More generally, significant rewires, including total replacements, do not totally void an AFD discussion, and therefore page swaps shouldn't either. On the other hand, the close is essentially a no consensus without prejudice closure, and the AFD is enough of a confusing trainwreck to justify that (the bludgeoning does not help, though I suppose this is not a conduct forum). I would endorse the close in this specific case, and unusual closes that creatively get around issues (the trainwreck) more generally, though absent the trainwreck I would recommend that a page swap not be considered to preclude substantive closes.
As an retrospective on earlier administrative actions, the WP:REOPEN statement could possibly have been a bit more detailed, though of course I do not know if an exhortation to be more focused and provide analysis would actually have been effective. I agree with Robert McClenon, Liz, SportingFlyer and Pppery that a new AFD would be appropriate (in a couple of weeks). I would encourage participants of said new AFD to clearly link their arguments to the relevant guidelines, and if making an argument to IAR, clearly explain why the exception would make for a suitable article in this case. Alpha3031 (tc) 07:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Liz is completely correct that you can't understand and parse a discussion when two separate iterations of an article are being discussed. Really, I don't think you can effectively hit a moving target when making changes during an AfD, which is why I rarely do. However, while Novem Linguae may be correct in theory, too many editors only look at and comment on the current state of the article--they don't do any research themselves nor engage with additional sourcing brought up by others in the course of an AfD. This is yet another topic that could stand to be clarified. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    In this particular case, I think you can understand and parse. It's a bit complex, though.
    In the first part of the afd, you have a bunch of keep, and they are saying keep to this version. 2 editors, me and @NatGertler, are indicating doubt, Nat Gertler with an !vote.
    In the later part of the afd, after the first relist that came after the close-swapwithmuchbetterandmucholderdraft-DRV-reopen sequence of events, editors are now commenting on this version. Now, consider this speculation on my part if you will, but that change would not have made the keeps do a 180, the improvement is quite obvious.
    Nat Gertler commented extensively in the later part of the afd, if he had changed his mind he would have said so. As for myself, I wrote an !vote, so readers will know what I thought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe it would be uncontroversial to say there was universal consensus for "the second version is superior to the first" in both !keep and !delete camps. Everybody seemed to think PrimeHunter's "swapwithmuchbetterandmucholderdraft" was a good idea, which makes his current supertrouted (whalesquished, even) status all the more poignant. CapnZapp (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
And to be clear, much of my argument in the pre-original-closure made it clear that even then I was looking at the draft version, because I repeatedly argued that the draft version is the one that should be kept if there was a keep result. My delete concerns were based on notability, not on the content of a specific version of the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
So, my cautionary advice stands: Just because one can follow what's happened, doesn't mean we should expect the average participant and closer to do so. The contrarian in me notes that if we made AfDs more confusing we might get fewer drive-by !votes, but reducing participation is almost never a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Average closer? Perhaps no. Called-in-for-re-close-after-first-DRV-admin Liz? Perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse (involved, voted keep). Very difficult close by a very skilled closing admin. There were two different versions of the same article that were being discussed. While a no consensus close would have been fine, this probably works better as some may have considered a NC close to mean to send the article back to draft space for improvement. As the keep close is on procedural grounds, anyone is free to renominate it. I would recommend waiting at least a month after this DRV closes, in an attempt for tempers to cool down and to possibly allow for perspective from different users. Frank Anchor 13:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn closure (mostly to undo the Liz's incorrect WP:TROUT of PrimeHunter). Should probably be re-closed as a simple keep and the WP:TROUT should be applied to Liz and to OwenX who reopened the AFD without saying so and without noticing that the page had been moved . —Kusma (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Doesn't count as saying so? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    ok, yes, it is in the relisting bit that I never look at. Trout for me too I guess (tasty!) —Kusma (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • With all due respect to Liz, who does excellent work at AfD, I don't believe a procedural close was needed here, and a lot of the procedural argument is quite unnecessary. If this is kept - and it seems it will be - the material in draftspace should just be merged to mainspace, and the draftspace title redirected to preserve history. If "credit" becomes important (why would it? DYK? GAN?) anyone who contributed substantively is logically entitled to credit in the same they would normally be if something were drafted in talk- or user-space. I !voted "weak keep", but either a "keep" or a "no consensus" could be justified here: there are substantive arguments for both outcomes, and many "keep"s acknowledge that notability is borderline/somewhat based on IAR. I would be fine with striking the trout to PrimeHunter - if I am reading the sequence of events correctly they acted while the AfD was closed, and as such their actions were reasonable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    Tangential comment The reason "credit is important" is that editors (technically) retain copyright to their contributions, but license them under CC BY-SA, which requires attribution. If you can't figure out who wrote what, then we're in violation of the license terms. It's a little hard to imagine such a thing coming to trial, but it's a point of hygiene that the community takes seriously. --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Trovatore: Our copyright and licensing choices require us to preserve the history of content we host. They do not in any way require us to preserve it at the same title, otherwise merges from draftspace/userspace to mainspace would not be possibly (they are in fact routine). If the page is kept, we need to preserve the history of both versions - but we do not need to waste more time over which title which version exists at. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Meh. Liz is correct that the AfD should be restarted because it is a mess, but wrong to blame PrimeHunter. There is clearly no consensus to delete in the closed discussion and I doubt that one would develop in a fresh one so perhaps it's best to wait a while before renominating. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

18 January 2025

Jarosław Bako

Jarosław Bako (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello, I am the user who nominated Jarosław Bako article for deletion. I want to clarify the situation in this deletion review as I think the nomination was not discussed further enough. JuniperChill closed it as Keep per WP:SNOW as there were more Keep votes than Delete or Redirect, the latter where his name is mentioned on "Most clean sheets" section of Poland national football team. This article is not meeting the current notability guidelines for sportspeople (after NSPORTS2022) on English Misplaced Pages.

Even after the AfD was closed, no significant, major updates of the article had been made. As JoelleJay and Mims Mentor stated in the deletion, their comments indicate nothing that shows particular notability, along with excellent source analysis provided by the former user. At best, this AfD should pull a Stanislav Moravec one that I nominated one month before Bako.

⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 14:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Endorse the “keep” result but I disagree with the “snow” characterization since there were legitimate arguments made questioning the subject’s notability. Nonetheless, there was clear consensus to keep and a general rejection of JoelleJay’s source analysis which argued the subject failed GNG. This was probably not the best NAC but certainly not a WP:BADNAC either since the end result is clearly correct. The fact that an AFD on a similar subject closed as “redirect” is not relevant. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. Frank Anchor 16:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse the Keep close. The 'snow' characterization was silly after the AFD had already run for 162 hours. DRV is not AFD round 2. As Frank Anchor says, we shouldn't use an other stuff exists argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I participated so won't endorse, but just to note the Stanislav Moravec outcome seems wrong as well given he was covered in the book Najlepší v kopačkách SR. It's hard to find online sources about him - he is a reserves team manager now and came down with coronavirus before an European match - but we've probably overcorrected on sports to the point where people who should be notable are getting deleted because they're pre-internet or don't live in an English speaking part of the world. SportingFlyer T·C 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you want to add that comment, you should go to my User Talk or Talk:List of Slovakia international footballers instead... ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 14:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
    Why? It was specifically mentioned in this context. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. There were strong arguments to delete or redirect, and JoelleJay's source analysis was spot-on, as usual. But in the end, there was simply nothing close to a consensus to delete the page or redirect it. I can understand the appellant's frustration. Between NSPORT, NSPORTS2022, and the various other attempts at an SNG for this topic, the community simply cannot settle on consistent notability criteria for sports figures. When we do end up deleting an article, it will often be restored or recreated in draftspace by well intentioned editors, and eventually find its way back to mainspace, in hope of a more favourable AfD outcome, or at least of flying under the radar. While ARBCOM's attention is focused on political influence here, far more effort is directed by fans towards retaining the pages of their favourite footballers and teams, with the more experienced editors proficient at guideline-shopping to make their point. Little by little, over the years, WP turned into a hybrid encyclopedia-and-sports-almanac. This isn't criticism of any particular editor, but a reflection on our inability to set and enforce a consistent, clear set of notability guidelines for this subject. My hat is off to any AfD closer, admin or not, who tries to adjudicate these discussions fairly. But in the end, I wonder if such attempts are worth the time and effort we put into them. Owen× 14:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. This could not have possibly been closed any different. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment as Discussion Starter: I would be fine with a redirect endorse. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 11:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
A “redirect endorse” is not a realistic option, as there was clearly not consensus to do anything but keep. Frank Anchor 12:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

17 January 2025

Thajuddin

Thajuddin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This has a place in the history of Kerala, it is a biography of a man who lived in AD 600, known as Chera King Cheraman Perumal (Thajuddin), but he went to Mecca and met Prophet Muhammad in person, converted to Islam and took the name Thajuddin. There are many sources that prove this, books, articles, historical documents, and the mosque (Cheraman Juma Mosque) built under his instructions is recorded in history as one of the first mosques built in India.

The article important role in the entry of Islam into India and Kerala

:Reference

  1. Books:-
  2. News articles :-
  3. JSTOR :-
  4. Other articles:-
  1. External links:-

Notable Acknowledgements of this Biography

The location where he was buried after his death : (GPS

This historical biography was deleted for being hoax and Sources cited are poor in quality This page can be brought back to life with good editing based on sources, for which I request you to restore this page.

AFD's Quotes:-

kept in the first AFD, rejected and deleted in the second AFD
The result was no consensus. I don't see a consensus here. If it was up to me, I'd suggest considering a merger or draftification but that is not an AFD closure decision
_ Liz (First AFD Closed admin)
Keep. Kings are automatically notable......
_ Eastmain


Admin who participated in second AFD Relisting comment:
I'd like to see an evaluation of sources brought into the discussion before closing this discuasion. And from what I can see, this is not a "hoax" but falls into the realm of legendary. We have plenty of articles on legendary figures from different cultures so that shouldn't be a pivotal reason to delete.
_ Liz (2nd AfD Relisting admin)
~~Spworld2 (talk) 4:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse the almost-unanimous result. The appellant's claim that the article was "kept" in the first AfD is false. The result of that AfD was no consensus. The appellant already brought up all these arguments at the AfD, and they were soundly rejected. This extra kick at the can is a blatant waste of DRV's time. Owen× 12:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    In the first AfD, "no consensus" meant "do not eliminate", which was later retained.
    Sock puppet account were shared in the discussion and the discussion was not discussed further Spworld2 (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist I'm not 100% sure but feel that we probably need to discuss this a bit more. It feels like there was an overemphasis on the word Thajuddin in the discussion rather than Cheraman Perumal. I'm not any kind of expert but it looks like that's another name for the same person. If that's correct then there are peer reviewed papers and books about them. I've found others in addition to those mentioned above. To me the suggestion that the character is mythical or a hoax is irrelevant if we assess that the sources are sound. I don't think there is sufficient discussion of the sources (for good reasons including problems with socks) in the discussion. JMWt (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse overwhelming consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. There was only one non-sock account supporting keep. The overwhelming, policy-based consensus was correctly interpreted and the appellant's views were debated extensively and did not convince other participants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Closer's note: I was suprised there wasn't more disucussion about the sources because it's my experience is that is typical when the type of sources given here are presented. But there wasn't and my job as closer is to just reflect the consensus. I think Liz correctly relisted to give more time but it ultimately didnt convince and I felt it important to act on the consensus present before and after the relist. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I completely understand the frustration and why this is at DRV. Every single delete !vote appears mistaken - either that this is a hoax or that GNG isn't passed. The possibly incorrect name of the person in the title doesn't help. Looking through the sources, it definitely seems at least possible to have an article on this person, even if it's not immediately clear from some of the sources presented, and I haven't looked into reliability of the ones which I have seen. But there was almost no source analysis in the AfD. I'm really not sure what course of action to propose here. I'm not sure anything AfD related will be helpful, so probably draftify to allow sources to be added back into the article and then allow it to be moved into mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 17:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse AfD. Reject this DRV nomination without reading through due to it throwing up irrelevant information. Read advice at WP:THREE. Choose the three best sources, no more. Write a draft, featuring those three best sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse the closure of Delete as the right conclusion after a consensus to Delete. The AFD was a mess, and the closer did the best that they could from a an AFD that wasn't a train wreck but was a wreck.
    • The AFD was corrupted by sockpuppetry.
    • Both the Delete arguments and the Keep arguments were misguided.
      • There were Delete arguments claiming that the article was a hoax, when the question should have been whether the subject was legendary rather than a real person (and legends reported by reliable sources may be notable as legends).
      • A Keep argument cited royalty noability to say that kings are always notable, but royalty notability is a failed proposal, not a guideline.
    • There was no source analysis, although the relisting admin asked for source analysis.
    • Sometimes a closer really should count votes. In the absence of plausible arguments to assess the strength of, the closer counted votes rather than supervoting.
    • Allow Submission of Draft for review. The submitter should be aware that citing royalty notability insults the reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    Respectfully, I don’t see how anyone can !vote endorse when the arguments given were not policy based and there was no effort to engage with the sources offered on the page or elsewhere.
    Counting votes is never acceptable, this is not a beauty contest we are trying to reach consensus.
    I accept that points made by !keep and !delete were both spurious. But it’s a ridiculous position to then make that it was correct to delete the page. We literally do this stuff thousands of times a week - we tell new people it isn’t about majority !voting and it is about following the policy. And usually that’s the GNG, which can only be determined by assessing the sources.
    Furthermore I don’t see how we can say that we “allow submission of a draft” as a remedial step. If we do that, the page remains deleted, which in turn is likely to affect AfC reviewers because the new draft would closely resemble the deleted page. I mean how can it not? The page has been deleted for bad reasons, a good faith editor could start from scratch and write a page using the same sources and see it deleted (or not moved from draft) for the same reasons.
    In my view the only real options available a) are to strike the delete and reopen the AfD for further discussion or b) send to draft as it is. Anything else makes a nonsense of these processes and the time we all spend trying to make judgements on topics against the notability criteria, policies and guidelines. JMWt (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse (involved) : Closer was correct in their assessment of the consensus. Although many bare urls were posted , most of these "sources" were unreliable, WP:UGC, WP:SPS, or WP:RAJ, and nobody explained how they provided the required significant coverage or any coverage at all about the topic. No source assessment was provided by the keep voters either. In the end consensus was not favour of keeping the article. Nxcrypto Message 14:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)


Recent discussions

16 January 2025

Chakobsa (Dune)

Chakobsa (Dune) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not think the process was fair. Some of the votes were cast when the article was still a stub and before I had had a chance to expand it. Other votes relied on arguments that are in my view questionable. Khiikiat (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Relist (involved) because 1) contested NAC, and 2) the close turns in part on a subtle question: does the article in The New Yorker (and, to a lesser extent, Al Jazeera) constitute RS coverage even though it doesn't mention the word "Chakobsa", and 3) is a NOPAGE argument sufficiently policy based to overcome a topic with adequate reliable sourcing (NYT, New Yorker, Variety, etc.) Jclemens (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The content of the page is irrelevant. What the AfD examined is the notability of its subject, which is the same whether the article is fleshed out or empty. It was closed correctly by an experienced and capable non-admin. Owen× 19:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist The content of the page which was based on secondary sources at the time of the closure had grown just above the level of a stub (taking 250 words as a vague threshold), which in turn demonstrated that the subject had received just enough coverage to fullfill the notability requirements. I feel that the WP:HEY argument has not received enough weight in the closure decision, seeing that all Redirect !votes were made when the content based on secondary sources was just below this stub threshold. Daranios (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist - The substantial expansion of the article during the seven days that the AFD was running warrants allowing the previous Redirect !voters to consider whether to change to Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment To be honest, save for the fact that I am the closer of this discussion, as an active participant at articles for deletion, I do not see a WP:GNG pass here at all. I mean, I would nominate an article like this for deletion discussion. I went through every cited source, I do not see any of them that satisfy the three required criteria for GNG, they're mostly satisfying only one or two, it's either a source is not reliable, but is independent, or the source is reliable but does not provide substantial coverage of the subject (mostly citation #1 to #8). Relisting this would be unnecessary, why? Well, because even the reworked version is still evidently not passing GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus at the discussion, which is what DRV is here to determine. Three additional redirect !votes were made after the WP:HEY argument was made and after the additional material was added. It is incorrect to suggest the redirect !voters had not considered the additions. They were just not convinced that the sources were significant coverage in secondary sources, independent of the subject. I note that one of the three additional !voters was a new user but two were well established and experienced, and the consensus of that discussion was clear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. It was not a WP:BADNAC; an experienced AfD participant conducted a NAC with a clear consensus, so this is a bit of a red herring as a ground for appealing. Several !voters supported redirection even after the improvements to the article. GNG is not merely a matter of sourcing; it's a two-part test and participants clearly did not believe this topic met the second test of WP:NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist The closer's statement above makes me think this was indeed a WP:BADNAC, even if consensus was correct. Closing a discussion is about evaluating what others have said, not inserting your own judgment. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    @SportingFlyer You entirely misunderstood my comment then. My closure and assessment of the discussion has nothing to do with what I just said, that was why I said save for the fact that I am the closer of this discussion. This is not the first time I’m assessing the consensus in a discussion and it would not be different. I am fully aware that closing a discussion is assessing the consensus from it and not your own opinion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Whether you meant it or not, there is nothing more frustrating than a closer saying "I think this should have been the outcome." SportingFlyer T·C 17:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I guess you do not quite understand my well-intended comment, and that is perfectly normal. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Also, I think it is worth it to mention that on 12 November 2024, I mentioned to an editor that my role as the closer is not to evaluate the sources myself, as doing so would constitute a supervote. My responsibility is to close the discussion based on the consensus established by the participants, not my personal judgment, so, the source analysis I just did had nothing to do with my initial closure. I hope this helps and also gives you context. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    I simply do not remember the last time a closer brought a source analysis to DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse clear consensus to redirect. This was not a WP:BADNAC and there is no requirement that the discussion be unanimous for a non-admin to close. The WP:HEY argument was rejected by three subsequent redirect voters as well. Frank Anchor 19:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The closer correctly assessed the consensus at the discussion. That said, it is not the role of the closer to evaluate the sources cited in the article or the sources in the discussion. It is the role of the closer to summarize how the participants viewed the sources and the strength of the policy arguments. --Enos733 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    So I'm going to push back on this. When Sandstein did his own incorrect source analysis on Principal Snyder (Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 27), we endorsed his conclusion. Now, you're saying we should forbid the closer from doing their own source analysis in this case that would have shown the redirect !voters to have been incorrect. Which is it? This is not a WAX argument, just a plea for consistency in whether closers are expected to do, or not do, their own source assessments as part of assessing rough consensus, by assigning less weight to incorrect assertions. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
    This is the same position I took with Sandstein's close, and just as here, I criticized Sandstein's characterization of the sources. I do not believe that a closer should evaluate the underlying source(s) brought up during the discussion. However, a closer can, and probably shoud, especially with a contentious nomination, characterize how participants discussed the sources. - Enos733 (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

EV Group

EV Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The editors seem to have shown undue hurry to close the issue. Please see given link which mentions that the said company alongwith one more (from same country Austria) - they both together hold 82% of world's GLOBAL SHARE of wafer bonding for chipmaking using silicon wafers (https://www.ft.com/content/1c4fe3f0-7d44-4346-833b-e1beca9298c9) - is there anything more needed for NOTABILITY - apart from another internet find earlier given in the deletion discussion already. Another user @Cameremote had tried to burnish the article - but no editor seems to be willing to listen and just reverted. I have nothing to do with this company or their product - and I simply came across this article - because probably what caught my eye was the text "2nd nomination for deletion". Jn.mdel (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I'd have just reverted Cameremote's edits too. They took a neutrally-written article and turned it into something I'd have speedied as spam if not for its history (choice sentence: "With a global presence, EVG is recognized for contributing to the semiconductor industry and delivering cutting-edge equipment to fabs worldwide.") —Cryptic 10:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • Also, I think you may be confused about the term "notability" - it's Misplaced Pages-specific jargon in this context, and doesn't have its usual meaning of "worthy of note". The short version is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Nearly every word of that is jargon too: see WP:Notability for the long version, and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) for how we specifically apply it to companies (short version: more strictly than for most subjects). —Cryptic 11:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
      Thanks for replying - I cannot now see /access what Cameremote may have specifically updated - but if as per you the article was neutrally-worded before those updates (which were later reverted) - then so be it.
      My limited point for this review request is that the company seems "notable". Jn.mdel (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus. The AFD fell into error in failing to consider the historical versions of the article before the rewrite; I think between it all there is sufficient evidence of notability. Accordingly the deletion process has not been properly followed. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Stifle Incorrect; the nomination statement was based on the original version of the article and included an analysis of every source in the original version. My comment below includes my analysis of every added source in the rewrite. I agree with @Cryptic that Cameremote's rewrite did not really improve things but the original did not have any qualifying sources either. It would perhaps be helpful for an admin to undelete the revision history so DRV participants can review it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    (And when I say "original version," I mean the version that existed after it had been recreated on 5 January 2025 in a series of several edits that day; not the version that preceded the 2015 "delete" AfD.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse (involved, as nominator). I confess I am not sure what grounds this is being brought on? If undue hurry is the objection, well, it ran for a full week and attracted several !votes and comments. It seems like there's a nod to DRV#3 by bringing up the FT article, I can't view it because I don't have a subscription. From the limited view I have it seems to call the company "EVG", which is perhaps why it didn't come up in a search.) However, in the discussion, no sources were deemed to contribute to WP:NCORP, so bringing up a single source on appeal would not alone be able to get an article to NCORP even if it were WP:SIGCOV, which I can't tell either way. I also sincerely question the appellant's ability to evaluate whether it is a qualifying source, considering they argued in the AfD that a primary source press release from a competitor counted toward notability, and indeed in the discussion above the appellant is coming back to the company seems "notable", which is not grounds for appeal or for keeping. As for the consensus, during the discussion, there were three in favor of deletion and two in favor of keeping. But Owen correctly weighed the contributions. Cameremote tried to improve the article but did not convince the other editors with the new sources. They did not cast a !vote, and seemed OK with deletion in the end. The appellant cast the only true keep !vote, but did not rebut the source analysis I provided and offered only a single defective source as discussed above; I and another editor discussed why this source was unconvincing. Owen could have relisted to generate a stronger consensus, but I think a sufficient delete consensus existed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    My grounds for review request were mainly two:
    1. An independent business magazine reference was required - I found : https://www.adhesivesmag.com/articles/87890-3m-and-ev-group-settle-patent-infringement-suit
    But meantime did not get a chance to post it
    2. The FT article is visible and clear about the global share of said company - if some of you cannot read on the link - I can upload a pdf print of that webpage also - but i am sure some of you can read it too - 82% global share between two companies from Austria of wafer bonding for chips which power almost everything in our today's world is not a joke
    But all said and done - from my completely neutral point of view of someone who has nothing to do with that company or that product or that country - my submissions highlight that we need to be more open to giving a chance to a submission Jn.mdel (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Adhesives Magazine is a WP:TRADES publication and thus generally not considered independent. Please do not upload the FT article text as that would be a copyright violation. As for your final point, this article has been created twice and now deleted twice. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We have standards, you may disagree, but coming here without a valid reason to overturn the deletion decision is wasting the time of the community. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I believe let the community decide on the validity of the reasons given in my replies Jn.mdel (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    You seem to be treating Deletion Review as a second shot at having an AfD discussion. That's not what it is. It's for if there was an error by the closer or one of the specific grounds identified at WP:DRV. OK, that's my last response here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I could not help but respond to the nominator's last post - so as to clarify the original nominator's post and the statement - "They did not cast a !vote, and seemed OK with deletion in the end" - i guess you all are way too senior to be argued with :
    1. In the AFD you asked for an independent business magazine source - I got it here as didn't get time to post in AFD before it was closed - to that you now say this is "generally not considered independent"
    2. I then give you the FT article which names the company as part of two having 82% global share - you say - ”would not alone be able to get an article to NCORP even if it were WP:SIGCOV"
    3. I bring out the fact that same company is covered on German wiki since 2010 - then someone chips in "will still have to pass our notability guideline" - implying German wiki is non-judicious.
    4. And last but not the least from where it all started - that a competitor like 3M is publicly settling their patent infringement with this company way back in 2008 (for which not only 3M's PR but even US court link was probably provided by camerote) which surely implies distinct specialisation of the company - and which then also seems in sync with the more recent FT article of 2022 too.
    I am not sure whether we appreciate that knowledge-driven companies may not be given to press or publicizing about their intellectual property/ patents etc.
    Do give it a thought - and maybe cross-referencing / cross-validation from other language wikis too may not be a bad idea - unless the statement made by someone about "our notability guidelines" means that you are separate from others wikis - although I thought we all are editors on the same platform - but offcourse you people have much, much more responsibility, experience and duties as administrators to fulfill & decide (because sanctity of information and validation of correctness is indeed of utmost importance). Jn.mdel (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse, the AfD did run for a full week, and, while low participation could have warranted a relist, closing it was also reasonable. The nominator's original statement did address the version prior to the rewrite. Seconding Cryptic's comment that the rewrite itself was also far from an improvement. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse I finally settled on endorse after considering relisting or overturning to no consensus, which would also be good options here - the keep !voters (yes, HEYing an article, even promotionally, should be treated as a keep in my book if you don't specifically bold your !vote) had their sources dissected enough that I think the close is reasonable, but I have absolutely no objection if this is relisted or overturned. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I want to commend the nominator for a very thorough review of extant sources. Whatever the outcome, this is anything but a lazy nomination. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I am not sure whether as an earlier participant in afd discussion, I can vote here or not - otherwise it would be "OVERTURN" in my view.
    Anyways, one last bit of addition from my end - this same / similar article has been on German wiki since 2010 (https://de.m.wikipedia.org/EV_Group) - hope this helps alongwith links given earlier in my replies and original afd discussion. Jn.mdel (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Simply having an article on another Misplaced Pages project does not establish notability by itself; the subject of the article will still have to pass our notability guidelines. Lectonar (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks - as you all wish. Jn.mdel (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a reasonable conclusion from three Deletes including the nomination and one Keep. A Relist would have been reasonable also, but was not required. It may not be directly relevant that the rewrite of the article that was in progress was introducing marketing buzzspeak, which is not appropriate in an encyclopedia, but no progress was being made to bring the article closer to corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy endorse. No real challenge to the deletion has been made. There was a consensus regarding the lack of notability. Everything was done correctly. I am separately noting that Stifle wrote that the AFD fell into error in failing to consider the historical versions of the article before the rewrite, which would have been a serious challenge, but that is not what happened. —Alalch E. 18:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Aria (Indian singer)

Aria (Indian singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This biography needs an independent page (Article), opposes being merged into another, requests to restore this page to its current state

reason :- The deletion discussion of this page ended quickly, could not participate in the discussion,

another one did not participate in this more editors, the editor who raised the redirect argument did not say the reason. the editor who raised the keep argument brought references but the closing editor did not consider it.

This living biography was born and raised in India, acted in Malayalam cinema in India, and has references.

Another, biography is a notable K-pop (X:IN) singer , dancer and Idol in Korea (WP:SINGER WP:NACTOR) - -

reference:-

~ ~ Spworld2 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Endorse redirect. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow deletion process. It does not consider requests that merely constitute an assertion that the AFD was wrong and seek to re-argue it. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would also endorse what Jclemens said below about spinning back out the redirect as a normal editorial action if sufficient sourcing is added. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    AfD was a mistake, doesn't mean. It was mentioned as a fact, this is not a reason,
    I could not attend it, so I could not argue, the editor who voted to 'redirect' on AFD did not give a reason for it,
    It is a fact.
    I request to restore this, this should remain an independent article, X:IN is a music group (K-pop) in Korea , both are different, this is an Indian singer, dancer and Actress working in a Korean music group, and this biography is also about an Indian film Actress in (Malayalam cinema), the notable being WP:SINGER and WP:NACTOR Pass. Spworld2 (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Again, the fact that you do not agree with the AFD outcome or submissions that others made is irrelevant. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist Nom, and one each delete, keep, and redirect makes consensus rather iffy to call. Now, if that were after 2+ relists, I'd see the NC close as more reasonable, but the appellant here is asking for more time on an AfD closed without a relist. Alternatively, anyone can edit the redirected page, expand sourcing significantly--and I would warn against poor quality sources here, which seem to plague Asian pop culture--and undo the redirect without needing DRV consent. Again, this is to improve the encyclopedia, not a shortcut to get one's own way. Jclemens (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist. The nom and one delete vote assert there is no WP:SIGCOV. The keep vote provides a few references which I do not believe are adequately refuted. There is also a redirect vote that had no substance to it whatsoever that should be discounted. A relist will allow for better analysis of the sources brought up both at the AFD and here and for consensus to form. I currently do not see any consensus in the AFD. Frank Anchor 14:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Pinging AfD participants: @Paper9oll, Bakhtar40, Darkm777, and CNMall41. Owen× 14:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse redirect as stated by Stifle. I don't think a relist would changes anything given that the concern of WP:NEWSORGINDIA sourcing (some were included above) wasn't addressed and/or ignored (topic change) completely. Also noting that a Korean sourcing was included above, which, inadvertently strengthens my AfD's rationale on WP:PASSINGMENTION. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 14:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
NEWSORGINDIA is not a policy or guideline, but rather an information page. Frank Anchor 15:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
I know that however NEWSORGINDIA was added (diff) per an RfC on RSN (permalink) that coincidentally also derived from an AfD on Indian BLP hence I don't believe that doesn't carry certain weight compared to a typical information page. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 16:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse I think a relist would be fine here as well, but redirecting was a reasonable reading of that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist - I disagree with the closing statement that the redirect is A sensible, unopposed ATD. It was opposed by the editor who said to Keep. With a sloppy closing statement, it seems better to relist both to attract more opinions and to get a different closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Neutral- I don't think extending the discussion would result in a different outcome; however, not opposed to letting the discussion run just to see. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist - I am not convinced with the statement. The Relist of this article on X:IN is correct. Bakhtar40 (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Reasonable close, no corrective action needed. The article can be restored as a normal editorial action by saving a version with the changes made to it needed to overcome the reason why it was deleted. But when you do this, apply a wide margin so that the content speaks for itself and a new AfD seems clearly unjustified.—Alalch E. 18:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Relist - I was the sole Keep voter. I believe the subject has enough coverage to qualify. We need a relist to get more votes in.Darkm777 (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

14 January 2025

Peter Fiekowsky

Peter Fiekowsky (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article is still in the simple english version, what is the problem? On the search engine Bing, Peter Fiekowsky has more than 2 million views, and it is just about having this valuable scientist and author on wikipedia: the article started as follows: Peter Fiekowsky is an American author, physicist and founder of the field of climate restoration and author of "Climate Restoration: The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race" (Rivertown Books, 2022). He has founded the Foundation for Climate Restoration, Methane Action, Stable Planet Alliance, the Climate Restoration Safety & Governance Board, among others.'

I contacted the administrator who deleted the article, with no answer from him or her. Is it an action of hostility towards the climate policies? Thank you if you can help to restore this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adumoul (talkcontribs)

  • Procedural Close - The statement that there has been no answer from the deleting administrator is incorrect. User:Deb has replied, and says that the originator of the article was a sockpuppet, and the article read like a CV. We review G11 deletions, but we don't review G5 deletions when the opening statement is incorrect. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Deleting administrator not advised of this DRV by the applicant, as required by step 2 of Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Daniel (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Nothing to do here unless someone can make a convincing argument neither G5 nor G11 applied. The title isn't salted, so any user in good standing is welcome to write a non-infringing article on this person, which will be subject to future deletion processes normally. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I'll endorse the G11, but its author wasn't blocked until months after creating this. —Cryptic 07:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion because G11 applied, judging by the allegedly same article on the Simple English Misplaced Pages.—Alalch E. 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Request temporary undeletion. Both the G11 and G5 justifications are in doubt. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
    Overturn G5, but note that it is a discovered UPE product.
    Mild overturn G11 to Draftify. It is not obviously G11 eligible, only close, better to send to AfD, where I would be leaning “delete” or “Draftify”, but go straight to “Draftify” due to it being WP:UPE product, and like any COI it must use AfC. I have not examined every reference, but those I have are unimpressive with respect, particularly to independence, in meeting the GNG. Possibly all the defences are not good, as happens with WP:Reference bombed paid product. There are claims to notability, but WP:Notability is not clearly met. I considered “Redirect to Climate restoration” but the subject is a mere tangential mention there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    Possibly, this is a case for WP:TNT. Encourage User:Adumoul to start again. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Request temp undeletion per SmokeyJoe. Hobit (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    • overturn speedy, greatly truncate Clearly not a G5. And while spammy, it doesn't raise to the level of a G11 (This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles). We wouldn't (shouldn't) allow such an article to be forced into DRAFT, we shouldn't allow a wrong CSD to get there through the backdooor. The right answer is to clip it and let people fix that way rather than losing an mainspace article on a notable topic. If the closer is good with this option, ping me and I'll take care of it (it will be much shorter...). Hobit (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I've temporarily undeleted. This clearly isn't a G5, but for Cryptic's reason (created in October 2024, earliest sock blocked January 2025) and because Adumoul's edits are substantive enough to make G5 not apply. It does look very spammy, though, so inclined to endorse as G11 only. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
    User:Adumoul’s edits are moderate, and Abumoul should be invited to rescue the page in draftspace. It was written spammy, and would need work to rescue, probably throwing out most of the content. It’s possibly unsaveable, but determining that is work. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Endorse G11 speedy. The deleted article reads like a promotional brochure or a CV. Sandstein 09:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

1960s in history

1960s in history (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

i just want the page to please be added to my user space, so that i can edit it. i thought the deletion would be a redirect, so that i could stil edit the pages. this is also for 1970s in history, 1980s in history, 1990s in history, and 2000s in history. Sm8900 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

13 January 2025

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

The article was deleted twice over 6 and 15 years ago when the player didn't meet WP:NFOOTY requirements of the time (since outdated, but would pass now based on that criteria), and there were numerous repeated attempts to recreate the article by various different people which led to an admin protecting the namespace. Since then however, he has arguably met WP:GNG just as much as the articles of his teammates at Bromley as a recently created draft page has shown. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

OK, the AFCH script does not handle this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Raising this issue at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Accepting when the mainspace title is create-protected (SALTed) SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure what User:SmokeyJoe is saying is wrong with the script's handling of this case. The script says to request unprotection. It is true that it would be helpful for the script to provide more detailed instructions about unprotecting, but the script does handle it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 January 2025

DJ Hollygrove

DJ Hollygrove (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

DJ Hollygrove grammy winner https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/hollygrove-of-the-chopstars-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-news-photo/1463285516?adppopup=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/larry-jenkins-jr-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-aa-lockhart-news-photo/1463266133?adppopup=true 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is always the problem when an AfD is curtailed because the article is suitable for speedy deletion (which it was at that time). Whilst the processes were wrong, even the last (and best) version of this was sourced to four unreliable sources (IMDB, last.fm, MySpace and his own website) and wouldn't have survived an AfD. Still, I don't see a problem with Recreate as a redirect to The Chopstars and then see if anyone can create an article which shows notability. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Misplaced Pages 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
Contents and grading
WikiProjects
and collaborations
Awards and feedback
Maintenance tasks
Administrators
and noticeboards
Content dispute
resolution
Other noticeboards
and assistance
Deletion
discussions
Elections and voting
Directories, indexes,
and summaries
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Deletion review: Difference between revisions Add topic