Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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.


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); or
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.

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


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


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

Follow this link to today's log 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:

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2022 October 1}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


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=2022 October 1}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2022 October 1|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.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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. 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 finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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
  • 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 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

1 October 2022

28 September 2022

Plastique Tiara

Plastique Tiara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastique Tiara in March to April 2019, and the discussion resulted in an unambiguous consensus to redirect the title to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). The article was then recreated twice in May 2019, contrary to consensus, so I protected it. On 21 September 2022 an editor notified me that the article had been re-created, evading protection by changing the title to Plastique Tiara (Drag queen), so I deleted that page. I also deleted all of the history of the original article except the redirect, because in my experience in this situation the presence of the history from before the deletion discussion serves to encourage re-creation, as it's so easy to cut and paste. However, Another Believer asked me to restore the history, so I did so. Another Believer has now asked for the protection to be removed to allow re-creation of the article. Personally, I have no opinion one way or the other whether the page should exist: everything I have done has been has been done as an uninvolved administrator in response to requests from other editors. However, I am not willing to unilaterally overturn a clear consensus in a deletion discussion, so I am bringing it here for discussion. Another Believer's reasons for wanting to be allowed to re-create he article are set out at Talk:Plastique Tiara#Notability. I have omitted some other details of the history of my actions because I don't think they are particularly relevant, but they are visible in the article's logs if anyone is interested. JBW (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JBW Thanks for starting this discussion. I was not sure about the best path for seeking a notability re-assessment. I am now convinced the subject is notable and should have an article. I think the community should be given time to develop a page, building upon the current redirect. If this forces another deletion discussion, that's totally fine, but right now I don't know of any other way to give this a shot. Thanks again! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the problem with using protection on something where notability can change: the actions of enthusiastic newcomers are often indistinguishable from trolls, because neither will start a discussion or work through channels: well-meaning newbies don't know how to, trolls don't care to. I don't think deleting the history was the right thing to do for a question of notability, where it might have been if this was a copyvio, promotion, or attack issue. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. It looks like the article was only recreated three times, two times in quick succession by an IP editor shortly after the AfD (3 years ago), and then once recently by the editor who created an article under a different title (I'm guessing they simply weren't aware of the previous AfD - it looks like the content of the article they created doesn't really overlap with the old revisions?). I don't think that's enough to justify even semi-protection, much less full protection. (Though maybe there's more background that's not readily accessible from the revision history?) Colin M (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two recreations shortly after an afd are typically enough to justify salting a redlink. There's no defensible reason why a closure as redirect should be treated differently, so I endorse the protection wholeheartedly. No opinion whether recreation is now justified now that it's being discussed on talk rather than being attempted by simple reversion. —Cryptic 23:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two recreations by an IP editor in the span of two days might justify a couple weeks of semi-protection (though, since it was a single editor, I think it would have been better to deal with them directly, by issuing a warning and then a block if they continued to edit against consensus). But indefinite full-protection is a huge overreaction. Colin M (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since this is about a change in circumstances since the AfD, as the AfD closer, I have no opinion on this. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — JJMC89(T·C) 03:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You do get, right, that if somebody believes that the basis for notability is different today than it was three years ago, then it is not necessary for DRV to overturn the original deletion before a new article can be created? As I always point out, AFD is not a permanent ban on the subject ever being notable enough to have a standalone article — it's merely a judgement on the state of notability as of the time of the discussion, and circumstances can change to make people more notable in 2022 than they were in 2019. (Sometimes the candidate who didn't win election #1 actually does sometimes win election #2, eh?) Simply having competed on Drag Race without winning isn't enough for notability by itself, but people who didn't win Drag Race can still accrue notability for other reasons — and if a person becomes more notable in the now than they were in the back then, an article is allowed to be created again even if it was previously deleted. So DRV is an entirely unnecessary step here — I can't personally say whether Plastique Tiara has become more notable now or not, as she isn't a queen I've actively followed all that closely, but if somebody believes that Plastique Tiara has accrued sufficient notability for other reasons to override the fact that just being on Drag Race isn't enough in isolation, then they're free to write up a proposed new article in draft or sandbox. It can then be moved in place if it's good enough, and DRV doesn't need to weigh in first at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse the closure and the subsequent actions including locking of the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I respectfully disagree with User:Bearcat, who says that DRV is unnecessary. Some review is necessary to approve downgrading the protection of a locked fully protected redirect. A draft cannot be moved in place of the redirect until the redirect is unlocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except that absolutely any administrator can move a page overtop a protected redirect... Bearcat (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bearcat is right. DRV is not necessary. DRV is not even appropriate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Downgrade protection of redirect to ECP or semi, so that a reviewer or other experienced editor can move a new draft into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse protection. This is not obvious, so advise better process to make it easier to process:
1. Too many sources have been offered. Choose the best WP:THREE for evaluation.
2. Formally propose reversing the redirect AfD decision at the redirect target talk page, Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). Not the redirect talk page. The redirect target is the broader scope page, with more editors, more watchers. The redirect is an obscure page for a formal proposal.
3. This is not a DRV matter until #2 has a result and page deprotection is denied at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: I was not intending to comment here again following my opening of the review, but in light of various comments above, perhaps I should clarify the purpose of asking for a review. I did not intend this to be about whether either the closure of the deletion discussion or my subsequent actions should be endorsed or not. All that is water under the bridge. My sole purpose in inviting a review was to consider whether the situation has changed enough since the deletion discussion to make it now suitable for an article to be created. Probably the commonest purpose for a deletion review is to assess whether closure of a deletion request should be endorsed or overturned, but there are other purposes too, including "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" (quoted from Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose, and that is the purpose I had in mind. Of course editors are free to discuss other issues, such as whether the deletion discussion was correctly closed, if they wish to, but I suggest that there is no useful purpose to be served by doing so, and that it would be better to stick to considering whether "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". JBW (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure why so much discussion and work is required just to give editors a chance to re-expand a page which was previously redirected. I've shared sources on the article's talk page and suggested the subject is notable, so can we just get a bit of time to work on the entry in main space, please? This doesn't need to be so complicated... ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    JBW, understood. But Talk:Plastique Tiara#Notability lists nine sources asking others to review. The answer is WP:THREE. If they can’t pick the three best, chances are that all nine are weak, and the request is asking too much. Two good sources are enough. Is the editor seriously thinking that maybe the first seven are not but maybe the last two are?
    Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose Requires updating. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thomas Milo

Thomas Milo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello, I see that the Thomas Milo article was deleted after a discussion. This guy is a giant of Arabic typography. I was going to make an article about him, but I'm wondering if the article could be undeleted or if I could have access to the deleted text so I don't have to start from scratch.

I have plenty of sources. There's virtually an entire chapter about his work at DecoType in the book Nemeth, Titus (2017). Arabic type-making in the Machine Age. The influence of technology on the form of Arabic type, 1908-1993. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-30377-5. OCLC 993032900. and he's probably the most cited figure in the book as well. I will develop the article and provide reliable sources. إيان (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC) إيان (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No objection to restoring deleted article to draft or user space for further improvement to demonstrate that there is more evidence for notability than was brought up in the 2021 AfD. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely agree on Milo's stature - I tried to save the article at AfD and failed - I'd be glad to see a draft worked on based on that article text with more sources added. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support userfication without prejudice to a future AfD. Reasonable request by an editor in good standing to write an article on what now appears to be a notable topic. Seems great. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • To be clear, the original close was fine. This is a case of new information, not an error in the close. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No issue with the close, but support restoration to draft where إ can work on it and then move to mainspace. Star Mississippi 01:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse if the close is being appealed, but will note that editors commented that sources might be available. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Userfy or draftify delete article if that is being requested, and allow it either to be reviewed or moved to article space at risk of another AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was not aware this was at DRV and I had already offered draftification yesterday at the RfU. Jay 💬 17:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as correct close. No prejudice against recreation in draft space and eventually on main space with proper sources. Frank Anchor 20:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Go to WP:REFUND and request userfication or draftification if you want to see if you can overcome the reasons for deletion, whether immediately or sometime in the future. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Thomas_Milo already exists. While I already !voted, I also think this could possibly be closed without three more days of bureaucracy. Star Mississippi 17:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

26 September 2022

Raffiey Nasir

Raffiey Nasir (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The tone of the article was adequately neutral, there were references to the great majority of the biography info and there was no COI. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • If any admins are passing by, I'd appreciate a temp-undelete here. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks, Cryptic. I'm at weak overturn: I think this article is unlikely to be kept in the long term, but G11 applies only to pages that are "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements", which is a pretty high standard. WP:FIELD comments that "Blatant spam is not articles with a questionable tone", and I think that's what we're dealing with here: the article could use a cleanup tag, but that doesn't make it exclusively promotional. That said, I won't lose any sleep if the G11 is endorsed, and since the article would very likely be deleted at AfD I'd strongly encourage the author to find another article to work on instead. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse CSD G11 Undeleted and recreated while I was doing NPP, so found it via there. Obviously filled with puffery ("he showed a talent for the visual arts early on", "quickly became popular", "His brand took off internationally when", "had a significant boost" bla bla). Looks like the subject isn't notable anyway. ~StyyxTalk? 21:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Styyx,
    The puffery was unintentional, I try to always write in a positive manner that engages the reader. I'd be more than happy to remove these phrases, I already have a revised version in place.
    Kind regards, ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are evaluating the deleted version, not what it could have been. And again, I doubt that this is notable, so I'd advise against that. ~StyyxTalk? 10:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That content was moderately promotional. It reads like it came from the subject's own website or marketing material and I too would wonder if there was a conflict of interest somewhere if I saw that.—S Marshall T/C 23:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, send to AFD, essentially per Extraordinary Writ. Indeed, tone was overly promotional, but that can be addressed by editing rather than deleting. I am not persuaded of notability, but the sources provided (and potentially others) can better be evaluated at AFD. No criticism of the admin pushing the button on the speedy, which was not unreasonable given the tone and suspicion of COI. But given author's assurances of no COI, plausible claims of notabiity (even if unclear if valid), and local sources including in other languages than English, it warrants a closer look with more eyes. Martinp (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Struck my !vote above, now say Endorse deletion. Whatever the merits of the arguments, the author has now submitted a draft, and time will tell what will come of it (it seems it will need at the very least a rewrite to be accepted). That seems likes the approach most likely to eventually lead to a decent article, if one is warranted at all, so no reason to overturn this deletion remains. Martinp (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse G11. The prose was promotional to such an extent that the article would need a full rewrite by somebody without a promotional agenda; WP:TNT applies. Sandstein 12:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly written as an advertisement/promotion. Possible WP:COI too but there is enough to satisfy G11 even without COI. The subject is possibly notable and a more neutrally-written could be created (and challenged at AFD), but that is not the scope of this discussion. Frank Anchor 13:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure where ResearchedEditor100's revised version of this article is (as it isn't in Draft or User space) but I'd recommend submitting the non-promotional version of this article to AFC rather than trying to rewrite this one which was full of promotional language more suitable for a personal website. Liz Read! Talk! 16:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for the tip, Liz. I will submit to AFC. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Draft:Raffiey Nasir
    You can access the draft here, if you're interested. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Close call. I think it's fairly easy to fix, but it was certainly not neutral or even close to it. send to AfD seems like the best way forward but I can't really fault the admin here. Hobit (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Send to AfD as any contested-in-good-faith CSD should be. I can see arguments for and against G11 applying, so AfD should sort it out. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The attempt at a revised version convinces me that this really does need a fundamental rewrite, not just incremental tweaking. Endorse. —Cryptic 22:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse G11 - would need a fundamental rewrite, and page creator has already submitted Draft:Raffiey Nasir for review at AfC. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Endorse G11 because a fundamental rewrite is needed, and because there is now a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment to User:ResearchedEditor100 - You wrote: I try to always write in a positive manner that engages the reader.. DON'T DO THAT. That isn't how to write for Wikipedia. If you aren't being paid, writing "in a positive manner that engages the reader" has at least two disadvantages. First, it isn't neutral point of view. Second, it sets off the COI detectors of experienced reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - I will be declining the draft. It is still written "in a positive manner that engages the reader", and that isn't neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Robert,
    I tried to avoid anything positive. I guess I'm too positive a person. Do you have any lines in mind that are non-neutral? I'd appreciate any feedback. ResearchedEditor100 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment to User:ResearchedEditor100 - I suggest asking for advice on neutral writing at the Teahouse. I don't like to be asked what lines are non-neutral, because that question is too often asked by paid editors who are asking us, the unpaid editors, for help in writing for Wikipedia. In other words, you are both writing like a paid editor and asking a question that is asked by paid editors. You really need to find a different style. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak endorse. Not that blatant, but still reads like a resumé. Without accusing the nominator of any wrongdoing, I suggest they (and the article's author) read our guidelines on COI and NPOV. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adolph Mølsgaard

Adolph Mølsgaard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think that this AFD was closed prematurely. It was relisted by User:Liz (first relist) on September 23rd, when there was a single delete, and very recent comments tracking down what appeared to be potential, but inaccessible, sources. Less than 12 hours later it was closed by User:Explicit with no explanation, after one more delete vote (that didn't take into account the comments about chasing sources).I've been trying to engage the closer without much success. I'm asking that this AFD be relisted. Nfitz (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Relist - The closure by Explicit one day after the relist by Liz defeated the purpose of the relist of giving editors time to find sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist. Strictly speaking there's no requirement to wait any specific amount of time after a relist before closing (WP:RELIST is clear that "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days"), but I have a hard time seeing a consensus to delete here given that Nfitz's reasonable argument that sources may exist went unrebutted. Giving editors some additional time to engage with that argument seems wisest. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist there are only two delete votes. One asks for others to ping him if notable sources are found (and this user has a history of striking “delete” votes upon sufficient sources being presented). The other presents an opinion with no policy basis. With a legitimate possibility of further sources being available, I think resisting would be the best option. Frank Anchor 21:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We can't constantly keep relisting articles about 1-game sportspeople, though. AfD is poorly attended nowadays and it's not fair on the other articles that actually contain sources worth discussing. The delete outcome was appropriate given the atrocious sources present in the article after the full 168 hours. I'd endorse and permit a fresh creation of the article with decent sources when those are produced (and not before).—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If it was only a 1-game sportsperson, User:S Marshall, even I'd vote delete. The case made is that there are traces of long-term Danish coverage - presumably for the Danish League. The article indicates he only has 1 international game - which is 1 more than most players. Either way though - the discussion of further sources was very active and new when it was closed hours after being relisted. As for the 168-hours - the number of AFDs submitted recently makes it impossible for anything but the most committed editor to even read all the AFDs in detail - let alone do the research to comment. The comments that are germaine were all within a few hours of the relist, shortly before closure. This is a symptom of a bigger problem (as Liz has alluded to) best discussed elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But these further sources are entirely hypothetical. If you believe a further 168 hours would have enabled them to be found and linked, then why not find and link or cite them here, in this DRV, right now? That would make a convincing case to overturn.—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not about demanding the OP link to sources here. Reading the text of the AfD and checking the linked search as would be reasonable to expect to be done in any close, it's abundantly clear that there's four or five articles that cover this person, at least one is highly likely to be an obituary, given the date. Less than a minute is required to confirm that. Why the rush to delete here? Why was it unreasonable to wait a more than 24 hours to see whether access to the archive was possible? Obviously, rhetorical questions, best answered with a relist. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My understanding, User:S Marshall, (which may be wrong) is that DRV is used to review the validity of the close, not to argue, or further, the case for keeping. I thought trying to add further sources in DRVs was considered bad form; also, we were at the point in the discussion where we'd identified a database that would quite probably have such sources, but we needed to find someone who could access more than the index - and therefore we need a point of discussion. Nfitz (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Just some comments, as an admin who patrols the daily AFD log. Over the past few months, there has been a flood of articles about athletes being nominated that has exhausted those editors who actually care and work on these biographies. I've seen a decline in participation overall at AFD and those editors who use to regularly weigh in on the biographies of athletes in August no longer attend newer AFDs on these subjects because, honestly, it's felt like a tidal wave of article deletions. So, while as a closer, I wouldn't have closed this discussion when it was closed by this administrator, it is not unusual these days to close discussions with only 2 or 3 editors participating and, sometimes, with the only participant being the AFD nominator. This is far from ideal but the number of deletion discussions relative to those admins who will close them is high. And relisting discussions just so that more editors can participate in them is highly discouraged. There is more I could say about AFD and the pressure to close discussions with a decision other than "No consensus" (despite limited editor participation) but I'm already off on a tangent that will probably annoy the regular participants at Deletion review. But there's my 2 cents on the context for a closure like the one under review here. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist I'm mindful of the contributions of both Liz and S Marshall which are relevant in general, however, there are certain specifics to this AfD that indicate the closure was premature. There was an engaged discussion, the cascade of pings showed responses from interested editors. The final pinged editor, who has been active over last couple of days, was barely given 24 hours to respond. Absent any reasoning, there's no indication why the rapid closure so soon after the relist when there was a still open discussion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. This is an open-and-shut case: three well-founded "delete" opinion versus one person who believed that there might possibly be sources somewhere but did not express a definitive opinion. Functionally unanimous. As always, if sources are found, the article can be recreated. Sandstein 11:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Pinging @Bocanegra:, whether they have any comments on the sources in response to the question lobbed their way in the AfD. Given no other substantive comments at the AFD or here, and the context on participation above, pragmatically it's pretty clear this article will survive an eventual relist if and only if they or someone they suggest have access to the potential sources mentioned. That said, while Explicit's early close of Liz' relist was within policy, it's the sort of thing that comes across as caparicious (absent explanation) and seems inconsistent in this case with the views Explicit expresses on foreign sourcing on his own user page. However, I'm not going to advocate another relist absent some indication that someone would actually have something to add to the discussion. Martinp (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Can we have WP:PPDRV, please. The final !vote in the discussion does not make sense to me given my searches. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry for the late reply, @GiantSnowman:. I don't have access to the Danish Newspaper Archive, as you have to be enrolled at an institution for higher learning and can only access the archive at the some libraries. I have never heard of Mølsgaard despite having substantial knowledge on Danish football.--Bocanegra (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • relist One admin felt more time was needed. I think that was reasonable. There wasn't enough meaningful comments after that relist to justify the close so soon after the relist. I'll note that "delete" with the same discussion but a week after the relist would have my full support. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pragmatic weak endorse, with thanks to Bocanegra for the reply, and for the PPDRV. While the early close of the relist seems to have been unnecessary and unhelpful, the combination of the discussion at the AfD and here has failed to uncover enough meaningful coverage to write anything but the barest stub. Relisting now would be process-wonkery. If someone at some point does uncover meaningful enough sources, they can recreate. Martinp (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist or if that isn't a pragmatic choice, soft delete might be workable in light of Liz's comments about AfD closers and sportspeople AfD participants. That is, even with three deletes, none of them argue that they have definitive knowledge of the lack of sourcing that is the theory under which it's being sent for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist because of the closure soon after relisting. I don't know whether it helps that I have been able to establish that he played for Akademisk Boldklub at the time of his international appearance in 1937 ("AB" notation at [1] and [2], redlinked at the Danish Wikipedia article on the club); database listings for 1938–39, 1941–42, 1943–44. But no, I don't have access to the newspaper archive. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    According to this he was a member of the Danish league champions team in 1937. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good find, User:Goldsztajn! With that we know that he must have played for Akademisk Boldklub. the top league, in the top tier of Danish Football at the same time as his national team appearance. Which would make further research easier. Not that further sources really have any bearing on the close being correct - but that we are still having such quite preliminary research going on, it does go to that the close was premature. Nfitz (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. As per WP:RELIST, it is open to admins to close a relisted debate if they feel a consensus has been formed; it is not mandatory to wait for another 7 days. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as a fair reading of consensus. Article should be able to be re-created if sources can be found which demonstrate the GNG is met. Jogurney (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent discussions

17 September 2022

  • The Upstairs Downstairs Bearsrestored to draft space. The AFD in question was lightly attended, but unanimous for deletion, and such closes are usually routinely closed as "delete". There is no consensus that Daniel erred in so closing. However, several participants in this DRV did agree with the nominator that the factual basis for the arguments were deficient, and that removing the article was probably a mistake, and the case is made well enough that I believe there is a consensus for restoring in some form. Included in this are people who called for reclosing as "soft delete", since that option means that it can be restored upon demand. The options are to restore directly to article space, or to restore to draft space. This comes down to editorial discretion, and having looked at the deleted article, my assessment is that it is a start, but falls somewhat short of truly being an encyclopedia article since it is dominated by an infobox and episode list, and the main body of the article is very short. As such, I believe it should be worked on in draft space before being moved back to article space. The draft is at Draft:The Upstairs Downstairs Bears.Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Upstairs Downstairs Bears (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Where to begin with an AfD where just about everything was wrong? Let's start by looking at the !votes:

  • The nominator claimed that this was a driveby creation by someone whose other edits were limited to adding categories etc. This is substantially false. The article was "created" as a nearly-empty stub by such an IP user, yes, but it was substantially written by a long-standing editor (myself). This !vote should have been disregarded as so misleading, it can simply be considered incorrect.
  • Another user claimed that this series is Teletoon 'between full shows' filler. This is blatantly false. This is a standard-length series of 13 half-hours, or 26 half-episodes. Teletoon's actual filler shows have "episodes" of something like 2 minutes each, sometimes even less. Once again, this !vote should have disregarded, this time as utterly wrong.
  • The remaining contributor to the discussion simply claimed the show is non-notable without making any arguments for that. This !vote should have been disregarded as... an actual vote, contrary to deletion policy.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. There was no attempt whatsoever made by any of the discussion participants to look for sources, which should have been a gigantic red flag for the closer... but apparently wasn't. Here are the sources I've found:

  • A full article specifically about the TV series (not even the source material!). Do you know how rare this is for similar series (especially for ones this old, given how many articles on lesser-known media have simply disappeared over the years)?
  • The following source was already used in the article as I recall, but I'm adding it here for completeness as it is an excellent non-primary source full of information about the series (one has to wonder why it was conveniently, I mean completely, ignored in the AfD): In case anyone is wondering about its WP:SPS reliability, here's a quote from I've been quoted on DVD releases and popped up on a couple of "extras", I've written for the BBC and others, and I am often contacted by the media for cartoon comments and info. [...] Best of all, the site is recommended reading for a number of academies, colleges and courses. Also note the author's industry experience, and the "PC Press" images on that page for the website itself.

That's actually already sufficient per WP:N, which requires multiple reliable sources, i.e. a minimum of two. But let's go on:

And all of this is in addition to the numerous primary sources with detailed information about the show, which one of the discussion participants tacitly acknowledged by incorrectly describing them as "unacceptable" and implying they were used to show notability rather than... detailed information about the show. Modernponderer (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Weak Endorse - WP:TLDR McClenon mobile (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • User:McClenon mobile, every word that I've written here is highly relevant to the question of overturning the AfD. The first part covers the deletion discussion itself, while the second part is a list of sources and explains how they show notability. If you have a suggestion for how this could be condensed without losing valuable information, it could be implemented, but otherwise I ask you to please actually read what I have written as your current response seems highly unconstructive. Modernponderer (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also pinging User:Robert McClenon... what happened to It will not be used to !vote in project space.? Modernponderer (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • relist This was very much TL;DR, writing this much causes more harm than gain to your cause. That said, we have sources worth discussing and no !votes, including the nom, that really addressed our inclusion criteria. Now that we have sources to discuss, we can move forward in a more reasonable way. Hobit (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • User:Hobit, I ask you the same question about your TL;DR claim: what do you think was superfluous in the above, and could be removed without making a weaker case? (Frankly, WP:TLDR is ridiculous for an encyclopedia of all places.) Modernponderer (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You just needed to say "I'd like this reviewed, the nominator and the !votes didn't address our inclusion guidelines and had factual errors (e.g. this wasn't 'between full shows' fillers, it is a standard-length series of 13 half-hours, or 26 half-episodes.). Further, there were good sources in the article and I've found some new sources ([3], [4]). Based on that, I'd ask that the deletion discussion be reopened so a fuller discussion can be had." would have stated 90% of your argument in about 20% of the space. And recall this place is staffed by volunteers--long things just tend to not get read. If you really wanted, you could have gone with your full argument in a collapsed section and something like what I wrote as non-collapsed summary. Hobit (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Changing to restore, no prejudice against a new AfD. Basically the same as the "treat as soft delete" I'd missed how old the AfD was. As always, I believe requiring the use of draft space should never be a part of a required process (it's broken, slow, and is designed to be optional). Hobit (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • User:Daniel should wait the full 168 hours before closing low attendance discussions.
Endorse. It was unanimous agreement to delete. Now, post AfD deletion nearly a year later, if someone disagrees, follow advice at WP:THREE. It only takes two to demonstrate notability, maybe three, but throw lots at us and more than likely you are wasting the time of anyone who gives you their time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • User:SmokeyJoe, WP:THREE is almost exactly what I did here with the first 3 sources. The trade publications provide additional detail, but obviously aren't the focus of the source list. (Speaking of wasting time, I really feel like I'm being trolled at this point...) Modernponderer (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I count eight sources. With the fourth, you have failed WP:THREE.
    Start a draft use the best three sources. If you can’t help but add more sources, then use the draft talk page to list the best three. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On reviewing the article at the time of the AfD, change !vote to overturn, defective AfD. The article had good sources, and not a single participant spoke to the sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - Too long, didn't read. I have changed the provision about use of the alternate account so that I can make an immediate entry on a mobile device. I have not yet read the appeal. I have read the AFD, and I endorse the closure. I will read the appeal within 48 hours, while it is still open, which almost certainly will not change my opinion on the closure. If the appellant wants to submit a draft for review,
  • Allow Review of Draft, but only when there is actually a draft rather than a speech. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • User:Robert McClenon, did you read the part where I mentioned that I had already written the initial article? Why not support WP:USERFICATION if you want to see a draft? Or are you seriously suggesting that I should start over simply because... my "speech" was too long for your sensibilities? Modernponderer (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to draftify as that was a defective AfD, plain and simple; it should have been relisted instead of deleted right off the bat. I expected better than "this is not notable!" and virtually nothing else as a deletion reason. However, since it is too old to reopen this specific discussion, I think draftification would be a more appropriate remedy to allow the article to be rebuilt with better sourcing. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Apart from being closed 3-4 hours, it was not defective, and there was no good reason for it to be relisted. Although only three participants, all three were clear and strong reasons to delete. Based on their comments, the sources were not GNG-compliant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only comment in that AfD I'm seeing that addresses sources is "TV listings and network sites for the show are unacceptable". The nom and other other !vote don't mention sources at all AFICT. I tend not to read "it's notable" or "it's non-notable" as policy/guideline-compliant !votes so maybe that's where we differ in what we're seeing? Hobit (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I, perhaps poorly, inferred that the statements addressing notability implied the existing and available sources were examined and found to be below worth mentioning. A temp undelete will resolve this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Treat as soft delete and allow recreation/improvement. This has been closed sufficiently long ago (last year) that a relist is inappropriate, and yet this is how most under-participated AfDs go: no one bothered to look for sources, so it got deleted based on who showed up. Modernponderer, please take it under advisement that you are the biggest obstacle to this being recreated at this point. You don't need to argue with DRV participants, you just need to provide sources that the outcome was wrong and leave it at that. None of us were the ones who opined in the AfD or deleted it, we're just here to help clean up messes, so ranting in our general direction and then being irritated that you got told "TL;DR" is not winning your case: editors have attention spans, so stand up, speak up, and shut up--that is, a good DRV appeal should be about a paragraph succinctly listing why the outcome is wrong. Daniel seems to be a reasonable admin, but when he's given a lame, under-participated AfD like that to close, this is what happens, so don't take it out on him, either. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • User:Modernponderer - The part where you said that you had written the initial article was in the content that I said I would read within 48 hours. I mean to provide a draft that will pass review. The original article was found to be lacking, and ranting won't change that. Provide a draft for review. I will read the overly long post within 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nominator comment/question: If any appeal over a certain length automatically comes off as a rant, I apologize though my intention was simply to make an ironclad case. But it is incredibly frustrating that both User:Robert McClenon and User:SmokeyJoe keep saying "the close was correct" when I've pointed out that 2 of the 3 !votes had clear factual errors, and the remainder of the discussion was pure voting without any argumentation or research – all exactly the type of thing policy expects closers to disregard.
In any case, would you support WP:DRAFTIFICATION? I can do a thorough rewrite of the article using the new sources, but I don't think it's fair to ask me to start from scratch with an article I've already contributed to. Modernponderer (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Request temporary undeletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment – I have read the overly long appeal at least twice. Here are my comments:
      • I stand by my Endorsement of the close.
      • The appellant states that factually erroneous statements were made by the participants. I don't see that as a reason for an appeal, and I don't see a guideline that the closer is required to verify the accuracy of the statements made by participants. A requirement that closers verify the accuracy of statements would make it much more difficult to close AFDs. If the appellant wants to impose such a requirement, they can discuss this at a talk page or a policy page, rather than in this Deletion Review. I don't see a guideline that says that factual errors by participants are a basis for appealing a close, although significant new information is a basis for recreating a deleted page. The appellant has not shown any error in the close, and their arguments to that effect seem to be just an unfocused diversion.
      • The appellant says that the participants did not look for sources. They are not required to look for sources. The appellant says that the failure of the participants to look for sources should have been a concern by the closer. I don't see a guideline to that effect, and such a guideline would be a bad idea.
      • The appellant is providing a list of sources that amounts to a URL Dump, which is insulting to the reviewers, saying that they are too important and busy to put the sources into a reviewable draft.
      • The appellant has the right either to ask for undeletion into draft space at Requests for Undeletion, or for temporary undeletion, which will have the same effect. That wouldn't have required 568 words.
      • This reply is long because the appeal was overly long and the appellant wanted me to read and assess it.
      • Maybe the appellant wants to change the procedures to put more of an obligation on the community to find sources. That not only would be a bad idea, but also isn't relevant here.
      • The appellant does seem to have a reasonable case to request the deleted article for rework, and the handwaving and blowing of smoke distract from that request.
  • Temporary Undelete, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Endorse there was unanimous support for the deletion of the article at the time. While I think a relist would have been more appropriate with only two delete votes plus the nom, I don’t see the purpose of reopening the AFD almost a full year later. I also vote to allow recreation of the article. The AFD had barely more than the WP:SOFTDELETE threshold, so I think a recreation should be granted whether through this DRV or through WP:REFUND. Should the recreated article not have sufficient sourcing, then it can be sent to AFD again. Frank Anchor 17:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - In reviewing the temporarily undeleted article, I now see that the appellant has a reasonable case either for a relist or to recreate, subject to another AFD. The appellant didn't state that reasonable case, and instead had a lot of irrelevant or unreasonable issues. The reasonable case is that the appellant was one of the authors of the article, but not the originator, and so was not notified by Twinkle, and was on a wikibreak of a few months at the time of the AFD, and therefore did not have an opportunity to dispute the statements made by the other editors. That is the real issue, not that the closer should have discounted their !votes. The appellant should create a draft based on the temporarily undeleted article and any sources, with appropriate additions to the text, and we, the DRV editors, can review it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The close was the correct close based on the input from the editors, and the original statement by the appellant was too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore to draftspace. I agree with Jclemens that we can't really fault the closer here: when there's a quorum and everyone agrees that the subject isn't notable, the discussion is, for better or worse, going to be closed as delete. That said, the AfD was clearly flawed and additional sources have been provided, so Modernponderer's request for draftification strikes me as reasonable; feel free to move it back to mainspace once you're satisfied with it, although anyone is of course welcome to start a new AfD at any time. (As implied above, WP:REFUND is generally willing to restore deleted articles to userspace or draftspace, so if you find yourself in this situation again, you may find that making a request there is easier than making a request here.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong endorse but allow recreation: Sorry, I am not buying into this screed. However, I do see potential for an article on this subject, so we should allow the creation of a new article on the same subject. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: I've struck out User:SmokeyJoe's duplicate !vote, which may confuse the closer. Pinging for full disclosure... Modernponderer (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Modernponderer, nobody who has any business at all closing a deletion review would be in the slightest bit confused by this. I can see that you care a lot about the outcome here but I'd love it if you'd consider not trying to manage the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore, as a defective AfD: the close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was a poor fit for the evidence, as can occasionally happen with poorly-attended deletion discussions. Dronebogus, the nominator, hasn't always edited attentively and hasn't always shown the best of judgment. I have a lot of sympathy for Daniel who closed the discussion in accordance with the consensus which was exactly what we expect.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • About the original close: A number of comments here have been made to the effect of "the closer had no choice but to close as delete". I absolutely disagree – the only correct "close" for an AfD with two !votes besides the nominator's, all with very short statements showing a lack of thorough investigation, is to relist as many times as permitted by policy. Doing otherwise is precisely the type of action that leads to "defective AfDs". (And yes, closing several hours before the AfD period ends just adds insult to injury.) Modernponderer (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are overly emphatic. The nominator, User:Dronebogus, might take on board the advice to improve the quality of their deletion nominations or not do them at all, and the closer, User:Daniel might accept the advice be more discerning on low quality nominations and !votes.
    You would do better to politely ask the closer, and if rebuffed by the closer, to request userfication and follow advice at WP:THREE (8 is not almost exactly 3). SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Archives, by year and month
Year 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