Wikipedia:Deletion review

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 Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

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

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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

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

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 January 25}}</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 25}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 25|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Active discussions

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 on a side note I don't think it's fair to have to "make improvments" when there was 0 adequate discossion on whether the page shouldve been redirected or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy restore. With no contributions to the AFD from anyone other than AFD nominator, this is effectively the redirect equivalent of a WP:SOFTDELETE. As such, the page should be restored upon any good-faith request such as this DRV. A relist doesn't make sense for an AFD that closed over a year ago, however any user is free to start a second AFD if desired. Frank Anchor 14:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

On second thought, restore to draft space, improve it, and submit to AFC, largely for the same reasons I posted above, and per Vroots. The redirected version could use improvement but it is possible the subject has standalone notability. This course of action does not require DRV approval as the history is readily available. Frank Anchor 23:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse, and reject the deliberate misreading of WP:NOQUORUM of always requiring unilateral overturning of sparse deletion discussions upon any request - which practice it was added to deletion policy specifically to end. No coherent argument's been presented either to restore the article - certainly not to the version the nominator here repeatedly reverted to, apparently without even looking at it, what with the contentious topics template taking up fully half of the article's text - or to overturn Liz' policy-compliant result of closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. —Cryptic 15:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  I admit I didn't know how undeletihg the article works so I tried to restore it myself I learned I can't do that so now I'm trying to do it the correct way I've already stated tje lack of participation in the afd along with the fact that I disagree that the article fails BL1PE and GNG as I feel there is sufficient sourcing (and yes I did check the sources I was engaged in a conversation recently that required me to check up on what's a secondary and primary source according to winipedia) that covers more then one event regardless drv isn't for discussing the merits of the page it us about the deletion result It's nothing to do with the administrator I just feel like there wasn't really a proper discussion on whether or not to actually delete the page since no one attended the afd Wwew345t (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  I reject Cryptic's aspersion of a deliberate misreading of WP:NOQUORUM and request that it be stricken. Frank Anchor 15:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the close as Redirect. The appellant appears to be misreading the No Quorum guideline in good faith, because this is an edge case. The guideline provides that an article that was soft deleted may be restored on request, but that means restored to user space or draft space. It does not mean restored on request to mainspace. In this case, there is no need to restore the deleted article, because the deleted article is still in the history. If the appellant wants to copy it from the history and improve it and submit a draft for review, they may do so. The appellant is not deliberately misreading the guideline. The appellant is misreading the guideline in good faith. Cryptic should remember that biting a newbie occasionally results in tooth damage. The deleted article is still in the history, and there is no need to request that it be restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  The page was not deleted and its not fair to determine its fate on a afd that one one attended Wwew345t (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  I feel like the endorse votes are confused about the articles status it's not "soft deleted" it was redirected per a poorly attended afd Wwew345t (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am challenging the outcome of redirect on basis the lack of attendance in it and the flawed argument for the redirect Wwew345t (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  DRV is not AFD Round 2. The close as Redirect was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  How can you call it round 2 when no one showed up for round 1? Wwew345t (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Based on what? Literally no one attended the afd pages shouldnt have to be nearly impossible to restore based on one afd that no one attended Wwew345t (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• It would be a curious result indeed if a poorly-attended deletion would be easier to restore than a poorly-attended redirection. Has anyone asked Liz about this? Overall, I agree with Frank Anchor's assessment: unredirect it, improve it, and if someone wants to nominate it again, we're pretty much guaranteed to get better participation. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Jclemens and Frank Anchor: Any chance that restored version will be substantially different from the one before the redirection? I don't see how it does, despite his appearances in Survivor and The Challenge. Furthermore, his gameplay in the Heroes vs. Villains season is something to be careful writing about per WP:BLP. If it were to be restored, I'd rather see it go through the AFC process.

  Regarding notability, The Things is owned by Valnet, which also owns Screen Rant, a "marginally reliable" source (WP:RSP#Screen Rant). Valnet is criticized as a "clickbait/churnalism" company or something like that (RSN discussion). Interviews like this one are primary sources and shan't be used to verify his notability. Unsure about this one, which is more of some profile and bio; I'd be cautious about using it. Unsure about this opinionated piece either. George Ho (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry if you thought my description of process options meant I'd reviewed and formed an opinion on sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. This AfD was over a year ago. Just create a new article instead of trying to restore the old one and it won't be eligible for G4. Problem solved. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  So based on a poorly attended afd with poor rataniale made by a editor who has a histroy of putting pages like that up for deletion we should have to make a whole article from scratch rather then just restore an article that had 16k bites of editing in it Wwew345t (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  As I just said below, stop casting aspersions. If you continue to comment on George's motives, I will block you. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the "redirect"; do not restore. The appellant's DRV rationale is more superficially number-based and rushing into conclusions of how this Blood vs. Water winner complies with GNG and how BLP1E doesn't apply. Appearing in highly-watched TV series doesn't make this winner a high-profile person. He's still a "low-profile" person in my book, despite the essay's definition of a "low-profile" person. I appreciate Voorts's suggestion, but I can prove why even the "new" version wouldn't work. I'll explain more soon. George Ho (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is rhe user who started the deletion discussion aloowed to even vote in this? And he basically just revealed that he's hiding his reasoning for redirecting the article behind policy's and the real reason is Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT Wwew345t (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. Anyone can not !vote. Do not cast aspersions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Kinda hard when yoh take a look at the paged and find the same person having nomiated all of them sometimes more then once Wwew345t (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Further comment (from the 2nd AFD's nominator) The appellant's claim that the sources already verify his notability is more numbers-based than merit-based, IMO. The poker-related sources (this and the database) are kinda not high-quality to me. Also, an IGN interview and an EW interview are useful to verify info (about his HvV gameplay) but are primary sources and cannot be used for notability verification (see my indented reply above).

  This NBC article details how the subject is eliminated from Heroes vs. Villains, but even executing the info about it in the proposed Wikipedia article would be brief. We can include established (third-party) critics' reviews on the "stupid" move if we're willing to do so without violating the BLP policy. The ones verifying his Tocantis gameplay (this and that) aren't exactly high-quality as I hoped for. The Survivor Fever website just copies CBS's bio on Tyson. The Reality TV World website details the gameplay in his debut season well, but the source is primarily recapping the whole episode, IMO. Also, the sources verifying his Winners at War appearance were just previewing the season itself before airing. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Us Weekly was used to verify his Challenge appearance but is marginally reliable (WP:RSP). EW interview (primary source) still wouldn't count. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem is you discredit 4 of the sources because "it doesn't satisfy you" and that they arent "high quality" according too you which are both opinionated statments Wwew345t (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

"it doesn't satisfy you" That's not exactly what I meant. I was uncertain whether those four sources—the poker-related ones and the refs used for the Tocantins section—are reputable and qualified to verify notability (If not WP:GNG, how about WP:SPIP or WP:NEXIST or WP:FAILN?).

"high quality" It's used in the WP:RS guideline. George Ho (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - User:Wwew345t - There is nothing to be lost by taking the deleted article, making it into a draft, tweaking it, and submitting it to AFC. It might be accepted, and it might get helpful comments from a reviewer. If it is declined, you have lost nothing. There is also nothing to be lost by taking the deleted article, improving it, and moving it into article space. It may be nominated for deletion, in which case there will definitely be more participation than in December 2023, because we at DRV have seen the issue. It may be reverted to a redirect, in which case you can restore the article and request AFD as a contested blank and redirect. You might get your article, and you will get a better consensus than in 2023 if there is an AFD. There is nothing to be lost by taking the deleted article either into draft space or into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  He can also just unredirect the article and make substantial improvements to it, after which time someone who cares can take it to AfD again. Much simpler overall. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  User:Jclemens - Yes. That is what I meant by improving it and moving it into article space. I can see that it wasn't clear whether that was what I was saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  But there was no actual consensus about wheter or not the original page SHOULD be redirected it was just the nominater stating an argument thats more of a opinion about sourcing issues Wwew345t (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thats what i tried to do the first time but i was told not too Wwew345t (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• Un-redirect Nothing wrong with closure per se, but insufficient participation to be afforded any weight as if it were a closed discussion. Looking at News, there appears to be plenty of RS coverage. No prejudice against speedy renomination if someone wants to AfD it again. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well, you using list of news articles from Google News results isn't surprising, but... why doing this? plenty of RS coverage doesn't mean he meets GNG and NBASIC, right? Even some "reliable sources" are interviews (primary sources), like this interview and that interview and that interview. This article seems promising but may be summarizing what other sources, including interviews from publications (e.g. magazines), say. George Ho (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  You're the one who expected me to look, so I did. The appellant's argument that you have a specific agenda with respect to this and similar articles seems less implausible as you continue to bludgeon the DRV and read every source in the most negative possible light. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  You're the one who expected me to look, so I did. That's not exactly what I meant. I was gonna say, "Google results? That's enough to make this person notable without apparent thoroughness?" I fear it would've looked patronizing, nonetheless. read every source in the most negative possible light If I portrayed a source negatively, then that wasn't my intent. I'm kinda wary about sources, especially when it comes to reality TV contestants and winners and policies. I think myself as impartial about sources, but I can't stop you from thinking how I evaluate the sources. I'd love to say things further, but... I'm afraid that I'd continue to bludgeon the DRV. (Don't you think the appellant is bludgeoning more?) George Ho (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC); edited, 05:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

• The easiest and seemingly most correct thing to do here is to treat the AfD with one participant as a bold redirect and then send it straight back to AfD. I don't mind the endorses who wish to send this to draft, though. Looking at the last revision, I think if there had been further participation, I'd be very surprised if it had been kept, since the sourcing is rather bad for a BLP, so, yes, the onus is on those wishing to keep the article at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

22 January 2025

Fartcoin – Endorsed as the community is unpersuaded by the additional sourcing, and the appellant has been sanctioned from further participation. (non-admin closure) Jclemens (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
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 Beebletalks 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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) They are: WP:GS/Crypto (as quickly discovered by going to WP:General sanctions). The wording there isn't terribly accurate - I'd expect us to be protecting at extended-confirmed by default if it was - though to be honest, I wouldn't terribly object to that. The sanction that did pass is shown in full at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. —Cryptic 19:57, 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 Beebletalks 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 – There is consensus that this was a WP:BADNAC. Accordingly, in my individual capacity as an administrator, I'm reopening the RFD for an administrator to close. Sandstein 08:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
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. J947 ‡ edits 20:34, 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. J947 ‡ edits 22:25, 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 [ talk | contribs | global account ] 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 Wikipedia search engine works (don’t confuse with “Go”), and that the search reveals no significant coverage on Wikipedia. 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)

Shivkrupanand Swami – procedural close; the disruptive IP editors were blocked for one week by Widr, and all three AfD improper closes were reverted by CFA. Nothing more to do here, I believe. Owen× ☎ 20:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. Shanmugam (CPIM) and Wikipedia: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^{Edits! Talk!} 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 ^{Read! Talk!} 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 [cast] 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 [1] back to [2]. 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 Wikipedia: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 (t • c) 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 [3] 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)

• Consensus? My reading of the above comments is Anyone who think they should can open a new afd, but give it awhile. Which is, sort of, what Liz said in her close. I also think there is support above that @Liz should strike/rewrite her closing comment regarding PrimeHunter, since the "in the midst of this AFD discussion, User:PrimeHunter moved the main space article to Draft space and the Draft space version to main space" is incorrect and PrimeHunter didn't deserve any kind of trout, super or otherwise. On a sidenote, afaict the ongoing Talk:Raegan_Revord#They/Them_Pronouns discussion has so far not produced any more GNG-good sources for the Revord article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 24 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 Wikipedia.

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)

Recent discussions

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:- [4][5][6][7][8]
2. News articles :-[9][10][11][12][13]
3. JSTOR :-[14][15][16]
4. Other articles:- [17] [18][19] [20]

1. External links:- [21] [22] [23] [24][25][26][27]

Notable Acknowledgements of this Biography

• Chera dynasty [28]
• Rulers of the Chera
• Companions of the Prophet
• Part of Splitting of the Moon

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)

16 January 2025

Chakobsa (Dune) (closed)

Chakobsa (Dune) – Close narrowly endorsed. Daniel (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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 (Wikipedia: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) Endorse. The closure reflects consensus. That the article was expanded before the closure does not warrant a relist because the expansion was mentioned in the AfD, without convincing (most) subsequent AfD participants to support keeping the article. Sandstein 23:03, 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.

EV Group (closed)

EV Group – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 23:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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 Wikipedia-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. Wikipedia 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

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[29][30], and has references.

Another, biography is a notable K-pop (X:IN)[31] singer , dancer and Idol in Korea (WP:SINGER WP:NACTOR) - -

reference:-

[32][33][34][35] [36][37][38][39] [40] ~ ~ 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)
• Endorse. The redirection reflects the AfD's rough consensus that an article is unwarranted. Relisting is not very likely to lead to a clearer consensus because the sources evoked in the AfD are from Indian entertainment media, which can be and often are paid to provide favorable coverage to celebrities, see Paid news in India, and therefore are often unreliable. Recreation remains possible if somebody finds substantial coverage in non-Indian reliable sources. Sandstein 23:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse as a fair reading of consensus. Keep !vote was successfully refuted in my opinion. Leaves a consensus not retaining the article, and redirect was proposed and is a viable AtD. Daniel (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

14 January 2025

Peter Fiekowsky (closed)

Peter Fiekowsky – Consensus is that a G11 speedy deletion is endorsed, but it can be draftified to be worked on. I note and am sympathetic to Hobit's comments regarding draftification being the wrong result, but given consensus ended up endorsing a G11 deletion, the statement "we shouldn't allow a wrong CSD to get [draftified] through the backdooor" (something I agree with from a personal perspective) can be differentiated in this situation as the qualifying criteria of a 'wrong CSD' hasn't been met in this case. Daniel (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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 (talk • contribs) 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia.—Alalch E. 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC) The article here had very little in common with the one at simple:Peter Fiekowsky - the Education section of the first few revisions was sort of similar, but that's about it. Ours was much longer and much more promotional. —Cryptic 17:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks. Looking at the temp undeleted content, there is no basis for overturning G11.—Alalch E. 19:26, 16 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)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1960s in history (closed)

1960s in history – There is no consensus to userfy here. I note that Alalch E.'s question at 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) went unanswered for 8+ days. Daniel (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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) Question - Did the filer request refund to their user space? The titles have not been salted. The first stop in this case should be Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Yes, they did, and it was declined at RfU - permanent link. Daniel (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Deleting administrator not advised of this DRV by the applicant, as required by step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Daniel (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) @Daniel, understood; i have now notified the admin who deleted these. Sm8900 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) I'm fine with user spacing these. I think my issue is that the "(decade) in history" titles are redundant, though, so would prefer reworking to restoring. SportingFlyer T·C 05:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Closer's comment: I don't think my interpretation of consensus is being questioned here but having re-read the discussion I stand by it. If there are questions I'll answer. I have no opinion about whether or not to userspace refund and since SM8900 skipped that part of the instructions at REFUND, I don't need to come up with one and I can leave it to the editors here to find a consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Weak Refund to Userspace although I will again wonder why editors are so intent on getting deleted articles restored to diddle with. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC) There was some sense in the AfD that maybe they could be merged. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC) @Sm8900: Please elaborate on so that i can edit it. Namely: edit to make which changes and for what purpose.—Alalch E. 17:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC) i would like to take these articles, improve them, rework them, and then put them into draft space, to get communuty input on a new approach to these articles. Sm8900 (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) to elaborate further, i would like to accept and accomodate all of the concerns raised at the AfD discussion. and then make sure to present this intially only as a draft, in order to gain input from the community. Sm8900 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. So you have an idea about a new approach to the "X decade in history" articles and would like to present this idea to other editors using the drafts as a proof of concept? What's the new approach? Where would you present the idea, in which forum, on which talk page, or via which process?—Alalch E. 19:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Decline the request to undelete. It's time for Sm8900 to drop the stick and accept that consensus is against them. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Decline undeletion. It does not appear that the reason to seek undeletion was merging; instead, the reason was to facilititate future recreation. The reasons why these articles were deleted can not be overcome by working on them in draftspace or userspace. Editors were categorically against the articles as conceptually bad. This is due to being seen as redundant, on a conceptual level, not simply because of what they contained. Working on this content to prove that the articles are not in fact redundant does not seem like a productive endeavor.—Alalch E. 18:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Decline undeletion It is not clear which purpose undeletion would serve, other than restoring the articles, which it appears community consensus is against. Sandstein 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC) If we're concerned the article could be recreated if we userify... could we userify and salt the title? SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 January 2025

Callum Reynolds – Procedural close. Actions not coming from Deletion review have caused the article to be recreated. (The title was unprotected by Primefac and the draft was accepted by SmokeyJoe after a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Accepting when the mainspace title is create-protected (SALTed).) (non-admin closure)—Alalch E. 09:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
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) Unsalt and allow recreation. The appellant is an experienced page reviewer. I have no qualms about trusting his assessment of the current draft. If disputed, this can always be renominated to AfD. Owen× ☎ 21:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) Unsalt and allow recreation Lower league footballer, but has done enough and received enough coverage to merit a page. SportingFlyer T·C 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC) Unprotect and accept the draft immediately, and let’s see if we can improve the AfC script. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) User:Primefac unprotected the title, and I accepted the draft. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC) CSMention269 (talk · contribs) has been giving wrong information one the draft page was prevented from accepting the draft. This should not come to DRV until there is a dispute over unsalting. The draft needs first to be approved. Then, the mainspace title will be UNSALTed, by asking the protecting admin to unsalt, or by asking at WP:RFUP, or by asking at WT:AFC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC) OK, the AFCH script does not handle this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Raising this issue at Wikipedia 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) Downgrade Protection to ECP so that a reviewer can accept the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Comment - We (DRV) should not be accepting the draft when a reviewer has raised questions as to whether general notability is met. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Where do we see that a reviewer has raised such questions? Nevermind, I see it on the talk page of the AfC. Also, I note that per N either GNG or an SNG can be met to satisfy notability concerns. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 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 (closed)

DJ Hollygrove – No consensus to take any specific action here * Pppery * it has begun... 19:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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) Create as a redirect to The Chopstars (the page is salted), and we'll see what happens following that. About "grammy winner": This individual did not win a Grammy.—Alalch E. 02:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC) clearly it says "Grammy Winners" on that publication https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/larry-jenkins-jr-sir-the-baptist-aaron-dubba-aa-lockhart-news-photo/1463266133?adppopup=true <== does it not say this? 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC) The producers were there at the ceremony because the entire marching band can't fit in. They accepted the award on behalf of the band[41][42]. But some of the producers and the engineer have got a mention on the Grammy website: The official 65th Grammy awards page has the following: "Winner: 'The Urban Hymnal'; Tennessee State University Marching Band; Dr. Reginald McDonald, J. Ivy, Prof. Larry Jenkins & Aaron "Dubba -AA" Lockhart, producers; Audri Johnson, engineer/mixer". No mention of DJ Hollygrove. DJ Hollygrove is not a Grammy winner. —Alalch E. 12:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Actually this is FALSE, the grammy only listed to EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, they didn't list the over 100 instrumentalist that played on the album, non of the vocalist either. DJ Hollygrove was one of 10 producers whoh were apart of this project, that is why he is HOLDING the Grammy trophy is MEDIA area backstage at the awards. NO ONE is allowed to take photos with trophy unless they are winner. Should I reach out to DJ Hollygrove so that he can send me a copy of his certificate from recording academy? Would that help? 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC) Special:Contributions/2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE, no, this will not be helpful. To have a meaningful conversation with you, it would be helpful if you would WP:Register. Would would be helpful to adding coverage of Hollygrove is coverage of Hollygrove, meaning comment on Hollygrove not just facts, published in reliable sources. Wikipedia only covers what others have already covered. Find what others have already publish, and Wikipedia will cover it too. Wikipedia will not lead in the coverage of anything. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC) So IMDB isnt a reliable source for what films/tv programs he's been apart of? I just see too may of our texans legends not getting credit! Same with BeatKing! TexanTone (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Before asking if IMDb is a reliable source in the context of proving a topic's eligibility for a stand-alone article, we should consider whether IMDb even counts as coverage. IMDb is not coverage because it's a database and databases do not provide coverage, they provide data ("just facts"). And it's not a reliable source because its data is crowdsourced, and Wikipedia does not recognize such websites as reliable sources. About Texan legends getting credit, Wikipedia is not for making sure people get credit for their accomplishments, that is not its purpose and mission. —Alalch E. 13:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) IMDB hosts user-generated content, and as such is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. See WP:RSPSS for comments on lots of sources. Maybe you should be contributing to IMDb. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC) If this comment isn't clear about salting/protection, I am saying: no protection yes protection (create a redirect and protect it; changed my mind on this after seeing Draft:DJ Hollygrove and reading the DRV nom's comments here) —Alalch E. 11:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Endorse the 2008 AFD close, but this doesn't seem to be a request to overturn the 2008 result. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC) so how do I submit a RFPP for DJ Hollygrove 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I don't see a 2008--or any--AfD. Am I missing something? Owen× ☎ 12:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Here is the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Hollygrove —Alalch E. 12:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Thanks! I added the link to the DRV template above. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Allow Creation and Review of Draft - The album, The Urban Hymnal, won the Grammy, which went to the Tennessee State University Marching Band. The Chopstars were involved in the production of the album. If the draft shows that DJ Hollygrove satisfies any of the musical notability criteria or satisfies general notability, the reviewer can submit a request to RFPP to unprotect the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC) It can't be a red link in the meantime because of the need to at least have a redirect. And provided that the page exists as a redirect, since there is no ongoing basis for applying protection to the page, there shouldn't be a need to use RFPP. —Alalch E. 11:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Unsalt immediately There was never a finalized deletion discussion. There was one PROD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Hollygrove was closed A7, then once G4, twice as A7, and then almost 14 years ago FT2 deleted it as PROD again (out of process) and salted it. In that time, it doesn't look like anyone looked at the whole process and said "Wait, did we do this right?" because... we didn't. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 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) I don't have a formal opinion on what to do next after unsalting, but certainly no objection to the redirect. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Endorse the AfD and other deletions and the create protection. Create the redirect to The Chopstars, but protect the redirect. For anyone who might wish to recreate the article, use draftspace first, and follow advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC) Take no action. The DRV request is unintelligible; it consists of two words and a link. An actionable DRV request should indicate which action should be taken and why. This is lacking here. Sandstein 08:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC) This DJ is a well known DJ, works on Shade 45, was featured on Vice TV as well as a producer on Black Market with Michael K. Williams. Formerly a DJ on KQBT Houston, is a Grammy winning producer with Tennessee State University Marching Band. He more than meets musical notability criteria. 2600:1700:F991:9E50:F923:CBAA:724D:8AFE (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC) I suspect he may be notable. I can find no reliable source, however, to say he won a Grammy. He is not credited on the album as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC) No action per Sandstein. Unintelligible request. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 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.

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