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.
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, 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:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2023 July 11}}</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=2023 July 11}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2023 July 11|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.

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.

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 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

9 July 2023

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 (closed)

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 – Speedily unprotected by Spartaz. The draft can be moved to mainspace. This doesn't inoculate it against a future AfD. I'm closing this DRV as an involved user, which isn't normally allowed but in this case I'm merely clerking for Spartaz; I happen to remember how to close DRVs without using a script.—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2023 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I nominated this article for deletion in December 2022. At the time of nominating, it had just 6 sources and barely any information. However, since its draftification it has had loads of improvements, with new sources and information added. I believe that the article has long been ready for mainspace, yet it has been getting declined every time by AfC reviewers on the basis of there being insufficient independent reliable sources. I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion if you look at the sources that are in the article right now: 4 references to the organisers's websites (not independent); 27 references to (news departments of) national broadcasters (I'm not sure if that would count as independent); 7 references to 5 different independent sources that I'm not sure if they're reliable (Komsomolskaya Pravda, Sputnik, Eurofestivales, ESCUnited, ESCXTRA). 36 references to 23 different independent reliable sources (Banbury Guardian, Euronews, All About Music, ESCplus España, nostal.ge, The Avondhu, Nova Makedonija, Fokus, Radio Eska, That Eurovision Site, Portuguese American Journal, Europa Press, Las Provincias, Formula TV, Diez Minutos, Інформатор UA, TV Zone UK, Викна, El Periódico, Eurovoix, 12xal, Newtimes.kz, Press.kz, Eurofestival News). There was also a complaint about WP:TWITTER sources, and I agree that there were three of those (which I have removed), but just because something was published on Twitter doens't mean it's per se unreliable (reliable news organisations also sometimes put things on Twitter and it's still reliable because it came from that news organisation). And even then, keeping the entire article (with at least 36 reliable sources) hostage just because there were 3 unreliable ones is not fair. I know that WP:OSE is not a valid argument, but I have seen articles be accepted with far fewer sources and I don't understand why this article in particular is getting such high scrutiny. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Comment I fully support everything that was stated above. Now that the Twitter sources are removed I don't see any reason to decline the submission. Andthereitis (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)  Comment: The article still being in the draftspace in its current state is insane. Social media sources are reliable if they fulfill the conditions laid out on WP:SOCIALMEDIA, which they do ImStevan (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Comment I went to accept this at AfC as the rule is "likely to survive an AfD" and I think this draft passes (although - I must say as an AfC reviewer, there are too many sources and it is not entirely obvious which sources demonstrate notability.) However, the reason this is at DRV isn't because there's a problem with the deletion discussion, but because the page is write-protected for some reason, which I discovered when I went to accept the draft! I would boldly un-write protect it and accept the draft as this isn't really what DRV is supposed to be used for (it's not controversial to accept it), but I don't have the ability to do the first part. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Oh okay, I'm not really familiar with deletion review. I did think that this is a controversial move though, given that multiple different reviewers have declined it. I wasn't sure where else I could hold a discussion that would get the attention of admins. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Speedily unprotect and then speedily close this DRV. I think this is uncontroversial.—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC) Downgrade protection of the title, as per User:S Marshall. The reason why we are here is partly because of two errors. The first was disruptive editors who recreated the article after the AFD, so that it had to be deleted again. The second was a common good-faith overreaction by an administrator, in this case, User:Liz, who dealt with the recreation by fully protecting the title rather than ECP-protecting it. Many AFC reviewers don't want to review a draft if the title is locked, because they won't be able to accept the draft even if they want to, and they cannot be sure of whether a simple request will unprotect the title. So my message to admins is, when locking a title, use ECP-protect rather than full protect unless there is a reason why ECP-protect is insufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Unprotect if an AfD deleted something under WP:TOOSOON, then indefinite full protection is very likely to be harmful because when it's not too soon it won't be possible for anyone else to write an article. If people want this to stay out of mainspace it needs a new AfD. Hut 8.5 07:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Downgrade to ECP. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC) I have unprotected the target. In the absence of a working DRV closing script maybe someone who still remembers how to do it can close this as recreation permitted. Further AFD required if doubts remain ? Spartaz Humbug! 08:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 July 2023

Abdul Monem Limited

Abdul Monem Limited (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This article was deleted, I am not asking to overturn to keep but please restore a copy to draft space. I believe the subject is notable enough and would like to continue working on the page. Thank you. - Indefensible (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The nom tagged me at REFUND asking for a draft but then raised this DRV before I had a chance to consider their request. I have no opinion on the request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you looked there already. Did not know you had not reviewed it yet. - Indefensible (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse the deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Refund the deleted article, but note that it was deleted, and will need to be improved before being submitted for AFC review or moved to mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse the deletion. A comprehensive review was done as a WP:BEFORE. There is no coverage that satisfies WP:NCORP for such an old company. This is time-wasting and predatory at best. scope_creep^Talk 10:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Keep deleted (decline refund). In the AfD, there was a claim that the article is promotional, and it went uncontested; in fact keeps seemed to agree that the article was bad (for example: The state of the article is not great). Doesn't seem like something that an editor who knows what makes for a notable subject in this area, possesses good sources, and is capable of writing a reasonable article would need to start from.—Alalch E. 13:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Also, instead of trying to get a standalone page published, it's better to direct efforts to expanding Abdul Monem (entrepreneur)#Career, where Abdul Monem Limited is already covered. I am 99.999% sure that this should never be a separate article.—Alalch E. 16:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, refund to draft space Good-faith attempts for recreation should allowed and the necessary tools (i.e. article history) should be provided as requested. Any new article would, of course, be subject to another AFD. The claim that it [d]oesn't seem like something that an editor who knows what makes for a notable subject in this area, possesses good sources, and is capable of writing a reasonable article would need to start from is dubious, as starting with the basis/formatting of an article that is not great is better than starting from nothing at all. Frank Anchor 14:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Draftify I don't see any reason to decline what should be a completely uncontroversial request. Yes the article sounded a bit promotional in places but it wasn't nearly bad enough for G11 (and certainly not in draft space). Nor does the state of the article matter - it's fine to have a bad article in draft space if someone wants to work on it. Hut 8.5 16:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Gege Gatt

Gege Gatt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

was closed by NYC Guru as keep citing Forbes, but the forbes source [1] is unreliable since WP:FORBESCON. This was brought up on the closer's talk page and the response was Consensus doesn't mean "majority rules". You could have a discussion where there are 2 keeps citing sources and policy and one delete stating why the editor doesn't like the article and three other "Delete per" comments. Except all four !votes that were delete were all based on policy. The sources seem to have been discussed at length at Talk:Gege Gatt. I also noticed that the Times of Malta source brought up in the AfD is written by "Press Release", which doesn't seem to be brought up on the talk page or the AfD. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 03:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to Delete or No Consensus. I also had issues with the close, and raised this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Overdue AfDs prior to the opening of this DRV. Firstly, this is a close or controversial call that IMO makes a NAC close (which NYC Guru did not even clearly mark as a non-admin one, contrary to the instructions at NACD) likely inappropriate per WP:NACD.

Moreover, the closer was right about WP:NOTAVOTE, but IMO their weighting of the arguments was incorrect. All four delete votes (or five including the nom) were policy-based, some were briefer, but others went into detail discussing failures of relevant notability guidelines and analysing sources, i.e., 1, 2. By contrast, of the two votes in the keep side, one of them reasonably provided a plethora of sources and examined these suitably, however, the delete votes reasonably rebutted these, resulting in a good-faith disagreement over the sources. However, the keep voter repeatedly casted double bolded keep votes, 1st double vote, 2nd double vote, 3rd double vote, which is contrary to AfD conduct guidelines. Still, this keep vote still is reasonably policy-based but should not be weighted significantly higher. By contrast, the other keep vote was weak, merely stating Keep Refine but not delete. More sources would be desirable, and more detail on his studies and thesis (plural) without citing any P&Gs. Therefore, overall the keep side is not stronger than the delete side. Given that the delete side had a significant numerical advantage and that the strength of the argument is similar, in addition to this being a WP:BADNAC, an overturn to NC or delete, depending on whether the keep side is slightly discounted for repeated double votes, is appropriate in my opinion. VickKiang (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy overturn as a WP:BADNAC, to be closed by a competent administrator. SportingFlyer T·C 08:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'd also WP:TROUT the closer. A non-admin should not be closing that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 08:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Relist (preferred) or overturn to no consensus. This is a WP:BADNAC as the keep and delete votes were not weighted properly. There were credible arguments presented on both sides, though the delete side put together a slightly better case IMO to show sources presented by the keep side were not to standards. That said, there clearly is not consensus to delete at this point. If this is resisted, I strongly recommend the participants read WP:TLDR as some comments and responses were several paragraphs long and went into excessive detail, distracting from the argument they were attempting to make. Frank Anchor 15:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn . Also suggest NYC Guru consider whether it is possible to be too BOLD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn as a WP:BADNAC and WP:FORBESCON, which I brought up on the closer's talk page. Prior involvement: I participated in the discussion at Talk:Gege Gatt, and nominated the article for deletion. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse to Keep While concerns raised are noted, I maintain that the consensus was correctly interpreted by User:NYC Guru

The arguments to keep the article were well-supported by a variety of reliable sources which were examined in detail during the discussion. The delete votes, while policy-based, did not definitively demonstrate that the subject failed to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There was a genuine, good-faith disagreement over the sources, and while the keep votes might have been repeated, they were still grounded in policy and backed by sources.

Regarding the argument that the article was closed by a non-administrator (NAC), I note that non-administrators are indeed allowed to close AfD discussions when the result is not controversial per WP:NACD. While this was an interesting discussion, the non-admin closure does not in itself invalidate the result.

Finally, consensus is not a simple headcount of votes; it involves considering the quality of the arguments, the policies and guidelines, and the reliable sourcing. The result does not necessarily follow the numerical majority.

Our goal here should be to improve the encyclopedia and ensure that all content meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability and notability. If there are concerns about the article's quality or the validity of its sources, the appropriate step would be to improve the article, rather than delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalArchiver2020 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This comment gives me LLM vibes (or maybe its just an unusual writing style for discussions around here, but still unusual).

There wasn't a "disagreement" over the sources. The sources have been evaluated over at the article's talk page where they mostly fail to provide significant coverage for this person. It would be inappropriate to characterize that and the subsequent inability to provide sources from those who !voted keep (and inability to show whether offline sources are more than just passing mentions) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete or Relist There is clearly a majority to delete (5-3 including the nom, User:DigitalArchiver2020 has !voted Keep more than once), the Keep rationales are unconvincing, and WP:FORBESCON has not been taken into account by the closer. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Relist - When there is no obvious consensus after one week, it is often better to Relist than for the closer to weigh strength of arguments, and is a bad non-admin close for a non-admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• This article is only user review because I mistook a reference link. NYC Guru (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete, as there was a rough consensus to delete, and the non-admin closer, who should not have been closing this AfD, failed to properly recognize this.—Alalch E. 13:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

4 July 2023

Australia–Soviet Union relations

Australia–Soviet Union relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deleted under G5 but appears to be a decent article on a notable subject. No discussion was held and no users were notified before deletion e.g. at WP:AUS. Deleting admin has refused to restore and request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion was refused by User:UtherSRG. ITBF (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Refund the deleted article to the appellant, because a good-faith editor is allowed to recreate an article that was deleted only because of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per WP:BMB. Stifle (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Restore per Robert McClenon. In every situation we should prioritise what is best for readers, and that is retaining a quality article on a notable subject, regardless of who created it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse - we do not award blocked actors. Contents of the article were provided to the requestor so that they can create the article anew. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  This sets a path direct to an attribution failure and copyright failure. If an editor of the future article has even read the past article, they cannot deny influence from the past article, and thus attribution to the deleted article is needed. If you’ve shown the deleted article to a future writer, you should undelete the deleted article, and chide yourself for a bad decision. In future, only provide the references. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I did not. A link to the archived contents were provided by another user. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Good. Can you point me to where this happened. Also, to the blocked user and why they were blocked? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  You can see who the blocked user is from the logs: User:Te Reo Ahitereiria.—S Marshall T/C 00:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  He hasn’t edited for two years, and barely anything on his talk page since then. Why did User:Explicit decide, last week, to invoke G5 speedy deletion now? And where was what discussion? At WP:REFUND, seems implied, but I don’t find it.

  The information required for this review is painful to dig up. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe: This article was created by Thiscouldbeauser, who was identified as a sockpuppet of Te Reo Ahitereiria just under three weeks ago. The master is a prolific sockpuppeteer with nearly 30 confirmed sockpuppets. The sock account created hundreds of pages—mostly redirects, if I remember correctly—so it was not possible to go through them all at the drop of a hat. They needed to be reviewed carefully and individually.

  This article specifically squarely fell into WP:CSD#G5 territory. Thiscouldbeauser originally created it as a redirect. Hey man im josh changed {{R cat shell| to {{Redirect category shell|. The sock then wrote an article in its place. Then the edits made by other users were the addition of a {{clarify}} tag, disambiguating a link, a bot dating a maintenance tag, another link disambiguated, the addition of {{DEFAULTSORT}}, and Anti-Russian sentiment getting linked. There were no major edits performed by anyone other than the sock. ✗plicit 02:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Understood. Reasonable G5, but if an editor in good standing wants to take responsibility for the content, it should be undeleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse with the understanding that any user in good-standing should be provided the tools requested to recreate the article. The article was only deleted based on who created it, not the content of the article itself. Frank Anchor 12:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Undelete due to the contents now being reviewed by someone who will rewrite the article. Attribution compliance is more important than not rewarding block evasion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Undelete. We must provide true attribution for the content that has been incrementally worked upon; there is a continuous thread of contributions.—Alalch E. 16:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• We don't strictly have to undelete in this case; there are other ways to preserve attribution that wouldn't amount to an end run around BMB.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would support one of these options, if identified. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  See WP:PATT for the usual methods. In this case, for an example of a workaround that would do both, see Special:Diff/1142986708 and Talk:Rail transport in Great Britain/Attribution.—S Marshall T/C 19:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  These aren’t better ways. The content was there for a long time, 6 months? Were there no other authors? Why is deletion now so important? What long game is the blocked user playing? I always thought G5 was a speedy thing, not something to be used so far back looking. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, there's an incompatibility in this debate between the people who want to preserve attribution and the people who want to delete banned users' contributions, and I was just pointing out that we can have both. I think of G5 as quite a difficult thing for DRV to deal with because DRV is usually so content-focused. A G5 is a way to manage disruptive behaviour, and I do think sysops should have latitude to manage disruptive behaviour. And this title isn't salted and a historical G5 won't be any kind of obstacle to the nominator starting a fresh article now --- so why should we restore an article by a rather prolific and very disruptive sockpuppetteer?—S Marshall T/C 00:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  Don’t be so quick with “incompatible”. How about “need for balancing”? Absolutely agree that G5 is a simple powerful tool for dealing with disruptive behaviour, which I strongly support, but, here, the disruptive behaviour of block evasion was so long before the deletion that it can’t be called a timely or effective response to disruptive behaviour. Is there current disruption needing the response? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  The last edit was five months ago by User:Jarble. After five months of no edits, I don’t see justification for deletion a lot of reasonable looking content in the name of prevention of disruption. On G5, I also understood to be confined to pages where all of the non-gnome edits were by the blocked user. Was this the case? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would say it's because the sockpuppet investigation took so long. SPI is understaffed and this was a prolific bugger. The puppet was identified as a sock about three weeks ago.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Understood. Nevertheless, here we are. It was a stable article for months, with lots of prose, prose for which the attribution best practice is to retain the edit history.

  Im guessing that it is the nominator, User:ITBF, who wants the banned socking user’s content? So, these are the options:

  (a). Deny undeletion, supply the list of references, and ask ITBF to make no use of the deleted article prose, and start again; or

  (b). Undelete, do best practice attribution, accept that the sock tricked us into using their contributions; or

  (c). Use an alternative method of attribution, which names the banned user, but doesn’t keep accessible any of the actual edits.

  I really don’t like (c) because downstream use of Wikipedia content will very likely fail to record the attribution, violating the copyright. (a) is my preference, if ITBF can forever maintain an assertion that they have not used the banned user’s writing, even from the google cache, even for vague background contextualisation.

  If we do (b), is it really so bad? Simple honest question.

  I would like to show respect both to SPI and to anyone who wants to make mainspace content better. But, Australia-Soviet relations? That’s pre 1992? Not current-controversial or anything? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think you've got the right idea with showing respect to SPI. That's a difficult and tedious job done by volunteers and it's pretty important that we at DRV don't make their lives any harder.

  I think that when a sockpuppeteer gets over a certain level of disruption, it's reasonable just to G5 everything they've written and move on. If we expect the poor SPI people to make a careful, detailed inspection of the sockmaster's content before deleting it, then the already-bad backlogs are going to get worse and worse. I think we need to be seen to back them up. So, we're in this ghastly place where an "endorse" outcome isn't really fair on the nominator but an "overturn" outcome isn't fair on SPI, implying criticism of them as it does. And that's why I still prefer C.—S Marshall T/C 13:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  I certainly “Endorse” the G5. We are her considering the undeletion request, referred from REFUND. I suspect that the undeletion request would have been better discussed off-wiki. I here have give some comment, but I think it best that the undeletion request to be considered to be at the discretion of the deleting admin. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• Could this just be restored under the redirect please? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Al Mashhad News

Al Mashhad News (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Mashhad_News was deleted without a consensus. It was a soft delete. The page was deleted without a consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Mashhad_News . Additionally the page has more credible sources now and is a prominent news station in the Middle East for credible independent news> 116.68.105.121 (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• I initially speedy-closed this as undeleting a soft-delete based on the nomination; however, it has been pointed out to me that there was a second AFD which closed as a full delete. As such, I am reverting this action and reopening this DRV. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse the full delete at the 2nd nomination, as the only argument given for retaining it, either there or here, is a form of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES - if you want to have any hope of overturning this discussion you need to cite the sources you claim exist now for us to review them. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Weak endorse With no prejudice against recreation good faith attempts to recreate via WP:AFC. Appellant claims the page has more credible sources now. If this is true, then a “new” article would pass AFC. Typically, I would support resisting a discussion with such limited participation, but I don’t think it is practical to bring back a discussion that was closed almost seven months ago. Frank Anchor 16:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse - seems like the simple solution is for interested editors to work on Draft:Al Mashhad Channel until it is in a state that it can be reviewed. If it is notable, there will be non-English sources which can be used to ensure it passes review. JMWt (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• There was also at least one DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 19 which resulted in the SALTing. Endorse my own close, and agree with working on the draft, and ideally with one account although I'm not sure if it's sock or meat or just a lot of interested editors. @UtherSRG: had pinged me to a recent REFUND request, but I'm unable to find it now unfortunately. Star Mississippi 19:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Here is one, although I thought there was another. Star Mississippi 19:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse the deletion and suggest the IP user look to working on some other website other than en-wiki. I also wonder if the IP is evading a block as Draft:Al Mashhad Channel was created by and last edited by users who are currently indef blocked. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse the deletion. Downgrade the protection to ECP to allow review of a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Unfortunately there's nothing to review right now. I've been suggesting AfC throughout but they don't seem to understand draft space. Star Mississippi 13:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I will repeat my statement from the previous DRV to stop acting like a paid editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse as hard deletion, since there is enough participation and clarity in both AfD's, seen together, to be able to find a consensus.—Alalch E. 10:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Mashhad News (2nd_nomination) and do nothing, noting the disingenuous nomination and failure to supply the new sources for review. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse Neither AfD was great, but since this was temp-undeleted I did make sure to check that they weren't incorrectly decided due to low participation and cannot say that they were. It's not impossible this is notable, but the sourcing needs to be clearly better before we can have an article on it. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent discussions

1 July 2023

Sportskeeda (closed)

Sportskeeda – Deletion endorsed without prejudice against recreation Stifle (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sportskeeda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The closer seems to have gone into an overdetailed response to lots of moot points but missed the most important one. The closing admin didn't consider that the new refs added during the AFD hadn't been discussed at length - this would/could have negated many of the delete votes. A third relist with a note asking for input on the new refs would have been appropriate. That aside there was a numerical advantage to keep, to overcome this there'd need to be a very strong case for delete which i can't see. Desertarun (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Endorse looks like a very reasonable close. If new sources were added to the article, at no time were those identified during the discussion (a request for the WP:THREE best sources was even ignored on the grounds that "it's an essay") and most of the late !voters went for delete as well, so they would have had the ability to review any new sourcing. Excellent close against the numbers. SportingFlyer T·C 09:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC) The AFD started with 8 refs and finished with 20. The original nominator only looked at 6 of those refs. Without it explicitly being stated the new refs need examining it gives the impression that the article hadn't been recently improved. Desertarun (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Sorry, but those additional sources were discussed in the later stages of the discussion, without any sources demonstrably passing AfD. The mere fact sources were added doesn't invalidate the close - they have to demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 11:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC) The new sources were discussed by me and one other. In an AFD with 20 separate contributors, that's too few. Desertarun (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Note that I'd already accepted a request to restore the article in userspace in order for it to be used as the basis for an article on Nazara Technologies; said draft can be found at User:Lethweimaster/Sportskeeda-Nazara Technologies. signed, Rosguill talk 15:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Endorse with no prejudice against recreation either as it’s own article or part of a larger article. Content has already been restored on userspace so no further action needed. Carson Wentz (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC) The article has now been extensively edited in userspace. At the end of the AfD it was like this. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 June 2023

Dilshad Kamaludheen (closed)

Dilshad Kamaludheen – Closure endorsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dilshad Kamaludheen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Analysis of the sources:- 1 is just a database, no sigcov, 2 is only passing mention with match result, 3 is a repetition of 1, 4 again a database, 5 repetition of the 4th, 6 is match result, 7 is list of players, 8 mention only, 9 again passing mention, 10 match result again, 11 list of winners hence a database, 12 match result yet again, 13 same instance of match result passing mention, 14 says he got banned from participation, yet again only a passing mention, 15 again passing, 16 a database entry, not sure how did it came here, but it did. There is no instance of indepth in sourcing, no significant coverage, keep votes fail to address the bad sources available for him. Moreover he does not even touch WP:NBAD from a long long way. Clear cut deletion candidate. Considering above, this article failed WP:NBAD, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I therefore object the closure of this afd. Thankyou. zoglophie 15:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC) I closed the AfD, and have already had a discussion with zoglophie here, where I advised them to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC) I have nothing more to say to your insults for me. Now please let the reviewers decide. Thankyou. zoglophie 16:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse - No Consensus was the best conclusion by the closer even in the absence of extended argument, and the extended argument is further evidence of the lack of consensus. This appears to be a case where the appellant thinks that length of argument is strength of argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse No error by the closer was alleged here. No consensus was both a possible result from that discussion and the best result from that discussion. I might have agreed with the nominator had I participated in that discussion, but it didn't sway consensus in the actual discussion. Try again in a few months. SportingFlyer T·C 18:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC) many a times discussions go to second relist. Is relisting not an option here? Last year some of my nominations actually reached the furthest, ultimately resulting in delete. zoglophie 18:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC) It is an option but you don't want to keep relisting things if you don't have to, and there was more than enough discussion that closing was possible. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse there clearly is not consensus to delete. Only one "delete" vote outside of the nominator and that was a generic "fails GNG" vote with no further explanation. The "keep" side presented sources which some in the discussion considered to be passing. Appellant also needs reminded that DRV is not the place to relitigate an AFD. Frank Anchor 18:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse there was no consensus for deletion, if nothing else the fact that only one person other than the nominator supported deletion means the discussion can't reasonably be closed as Delete. If the only contributions to the debate were the nomination and Sportsfan 1234's cursory comment, the debate would have been closed as soft delete or no consensus. While there was disagreement over whether the sources provided demonstrate notability, this is a legitimate argument grounded in the notability guidelines, and it's not for the closer to close based on their own analysis of the sources. Hut 8.5 17:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse This is a relitigation of the AfD itself, not a valid DRV. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Weak endorse I’m on the fence between endorsing NC or voting overturn to keep, but both have the same end result. Not even close to having consensus to delete, considering it was just the nom and one other vote against a few keep votes that provided sources with varying levels of notability. The only user who felt specific sources were not good enough was the nominator who severely bludgeoned the process and wants to relitigate the AFD here. Carson Wentz (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC) looks to me people are concerned more about me arguing the sources are not good enough instead of the sources actually not being good enough for the player. And spamming the Afd with dozen sources failing WP:GNG, WP:NBAD, WP:SIGCOV doesn't mean the subject is notable, which the creator did and caused apparent disruption. One other keep vote didn't even presented sources to prove his point. I'm not expecting much at the moment from here actually, I will happily accept the review and come back in future. zoglophie 06:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC) DRV is not the place for you to argue the sources are not good enough despite your multiple attempts to argue this point here. You made your case on the AFD. Consensus disagreed. Its time to move on. Carson Wentz (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Comment - Length of argument is not the same as strength of argument at DRV either. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Murder of Carrim Alli

Murder of Carrim Alli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this discussion as delete, which has been challenged on my talk page here, so I'm bringing this to DRV for further discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse This could not have been closed any other way. SportingFlyer T·C 14:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse as the right assessment by the closer based on the input from the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Comment to User:Ritchie333 - Will contentious editors get the idea that AFDs that you close will have DRV as AFD round 2? If you think that you made the right closure, can you at least let the dissatisfied editor do the work of filing the DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment FWIW, as the "contentious editor" in question, I probably wouldn't have brought this to DRV. Park3r (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse Despite the lone keep vote adding several sources to the article, nobody else voiced an opinion to keep the article in the 18 days between this vote and the AFD's closure. In addition, many of these sources were scrutinized during the process. Frank Anchor 18:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn I added 15 sources to the AFD, all from WP:RS and argued that the subject possibly met WP:GNG. It was meant to be a top-level comment before another editor indented it and made it a response to the first delete vote. The final relisting asked for sources to be examined. One of the post-relisting votes was a very dubious delete with no rationale, which another editor addressed on the voter's talk page[2], and the other was an assessment of 6 sources (out of 15). Among the sources were two academic articles that referenced the murder that were not addressed, nor was my point about it meeting WP:GNG, rather than WP:EVENT. Do I believe the article should be kept? I don't know, but I do believe the AFD was inadvertently cut short because of a single challenged keep vote, post-relisting. Closer offered to draftify the article but that would still leave the sourcing unaddressed and open it to further AfD challenges. Park3r (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC while the deletes had the numbers, the argumentation was quite poor and misstated or misapplied e.g. WP:ROUTINE. I grant that a further relisting would not have helped, but I do expect the closing admin to be familiar enough to detect and deprecate a WP:VAGUEWAVE posing as a rationale. Jclemens (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also: Murders of non-notable people are almost never notable. is a ridiculous statement. Just looking at what comes up first when I search "Murder of" includes only John Lennon in the top 10. Ahmaud Arbery and George Floyd are there, as is Laci Peterson. Sure, in sheer numbers, most murders of NN people aren't themselves N... but that's a non sequitur, because we're talking about a specific instance of alleged national prominence. Jclemens (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse not a great discussion, and I'd prefer some more analysis of Park3r's sources, but the participants didn't think they were enough to overcome the arguments for deletion and I can see why. The idea behind pages like WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS is that while some subjects like grisly murders generate lots of short term media coverage, we shouldn't have an article on them unless they have lasting significance as well. The fact that sources exist, or even that the subject passes the GNG, isn't enough to overcome this. Park3r wrote that the subject was covered over multiple years in RS, but that seems to mean that there is contemporary coverage of the murder itself (in 2004), contemporary coverage of the trial (in 2007) and contemporary coverage of the overturning of the convictions (in 2009). That doesn't in itself indicate lasting significance. There is only one source cited which was published after 2009 (this one). Hut 8.5 17:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

  You don't consider that continuing coverage? I suppose we should delete September 11 attacks since Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks isn't enduring coverage of the attacks themselves? Hyperbole, of course, but really: If an event hits the press multiple times for connected but separate reasons, that's textbook ongoing coverage. Jclemens (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  "Man on trial for horrible murder" makes the news for exactly the same reasons as "man horribly murdered" does. We're an encyclopedia rather than a newspaper and we are supposed to have different standards. The 9/11 comparison is silly, 9/11 has huge cultural resonance and will continue to do so for decades (perhaps centuries), and anybody writing a history of the United States in the early 21st century will probably have to discuss it in some detail. If on the other hand the coverage of 9/11 after the event was largely limited to news stories about legal proceedings against the perpetrators, and the coverage almost entirely stopped in 2006, then it might be comparable to this situation. Hut 8.5 17:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Just to clarify: people are killed in horrible ways in South Africa fairly routinely and their murders barely crack a mention in the media (I know a woman from the same town as Alli who was killed at home, had her fingers chopped off before being stabbed, and her death only made the local (suburban) paper, and I've had a relative tortured with a hammer, before being shot, and that didn't get any coverage). Looking at Boksburg explosion you can see how even 41+ people being burned to death due to criminal negligence doesn’t get a lot of ongoing coverage in South Africa. Carrim Alli’s death was gruesome, but that would not have made it newsworthy in itself (otherwise we’d have an article about every necklacing victim), rather the fact that he was murdered for dealing with corruption at the highest levels of the police that made it newsworthy (see also: Murder of Babita Deokaran). That’s also why it made it into the two journal articles, including the one about whistleblower protections published in 2022, indicating a degree of WP:LASTING effect. It’s actually very rare for the alleged murderers to be apprehended, for a case to go to trial and for the SA media to cover a case like this at all, let alone over a long period. Park3r (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse The community had a chance to evaluate Park3r's sources, and evidently found them insufficient. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse – the idea that events require temporally and geographically broad coverage to be notable is well supported by WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, and while reasonable minds can disagree about where precisely to draw that line, the editors who participated in this AfD pretty clearly reached a consensus to delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Alim Industries Limited

Alim Industries Limited (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this discussion as no consensus, which has been challenged on my talk page here, so I'm bringing this to DRV for further discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse. I'd be frustrated if I had !voted to delete because this was almost a delete, but alas there were sources, whether those sources passed NCORP were discussed extensively, and the drive-by delete !voters added nothing given the discussion that had already taken place. @Ritchie333:, in my opinion at least, please don't open up DRVs for your own closes, especially considering the petitioner had said they wouldn't take it any further. Even if this gets overturned it's clear you know what you're doing and I believe it's on those wanting a different result to take things here in any non-edge case. SportingFlyer T·C 14:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse - No Consensus is a valid conclusion by the closer. Also, when editors argue as much as happened here, that is further evidence that there isn't a consensus. The appellant can renominate after a reasonable period of time. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Your using a legal term "appellant" which is really unsuitable here, as most people don't understand what it is, and yet your not taking into effect the quality of the arguments nor the policy itself in the Afd discussion. Your assuming because there is lots of discussion, there must be no consensus? Does the quality of the discussion not matter, since the same kind of arguments have made numerous times in the past and been shown to be fallacious. It like the Afd is almost standalone in own wee world and nothing that came before matters. You see the same kind of keep !votes been made all the time, and while a lot of them have been comprehensively rejected in the past as being fallacious, they seem to be given new weight. scope_creep^Talk 07:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment There was no sources on that article that passed WP:NCORP with an admin that choose wilfully to ignore that last two delete !votes, when the delete argument was already made, on a completly generic farm implement manufacturer, of type where there is millions of them. What is particularly egregious is the fact that Highking had to take this to DRV, who is a specialist in this area and a bellweather, yet that knowledge is completely ignored for two keeps !votes, one who was new to Afd editor, whose has made a whole series of mistakes over the last month and who up until about 4-6 weeks ago, hadn't read WP:NCORP and the editor creator and that is no consensus. I can't understand it. Overturn to delete scope_creep^Talk 07:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete I see a lengthy but inconclusive (neither party convinced the other one) discussion on the suitability of sources, and then several delete !voters that came after it. In this situation it can be assumed that the latecomers read the discussion and agreed that the sources are not suitable, and saw no need to restate the same arguments that were already discussed above. This thus falls back to the strong numerical majority to delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus was a viable option for the closer. The two late delete voters did nothing to add to the “delete” argument. Frank Anchor 01:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  They added nothing other than their numbers, true, but in doing so didn't they show that the delete argument was found to be more convincing and thus should be given more weight? I acknowledge that this viewpoint doesn't match the typical way discussions are closed on Wikipedia, but I can't think of any refutation to it and none has been provided.

  By the same argument, doesn't your comment add nothing to the "endorse" argument, since it basically restates SportingFlyer's comment above? Evidently you think it adds something, or you wouldn't have commented. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, this is completely different. In that I added a similar viewpoint to SF, but there are differences between our arguments. Unlike the delete arguments that just say “fails NCORP” or “per nom” with zero explanation as to why. Frank Anchor 02:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to keep The delete side failed to even assert that both NCORP and GNG were failed. Per N, if either one is passed, an article is notable, so a "fails NCORP" is not a valid deletion argument absent an assertion that GNG is failed as well. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you for real. Have you read the Afd? It states it in the opening !vote: I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Then I state it further on. If the two editor's had read the policies they would have known what it was about. It was a company, so only WP:NCORP applies and that has been consensus since about 2017, and that is an assumption made by everybody when they take part in a company Afd, or the sorted company Afd list, unless its an inexperienced editor who doesn't know what it is, like this for example. The editors who were there knew that NCORP applied because that is what the experience of hundreds of previous Afd's showed. Is that all experience somehow to be suspended because it wasn't stated as a textual statement in the rationale. Everybody knew that it was NCORP being discussed. Again on here, it seem come back to this, about being its own wee bubble, as though the rest of the Afd history, the 1000's that i've taken part in the last decade, and other folk who specialise in that area, somehow don't exist. Is it contingent on us to tell new editors what the policies are? No, I don't expect to go to Afd and spout boilerplate as though I'm a trainer, nor expect to address arguments that have been comprehensively debunked and are specifically due to NCORP being rewritten to address in the first place. You seem to saying that is everybody's function. It is not, by any measure. The whole thing is moot anyway, since what is posted to Afd is a mere fraction on what needs to be posted. Most of the junk is never addressed and the battle for quality is lost. Its not being fixed in here, because there is no consistency. scope_creep^Talk 19:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

NCORP applies just fine, but it's just another path to notability if the GNG isn't met. Any topic that meets GNG is notable, regardless of what SNGs it does or does not fail. Don't like it? Amend N so it no longer says It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right (and NCORP is listed there as "Organizations and companies"). The fact that everyone has been applying NCORP wrong for ~6 years isn't my problem, but it might be a good argument to go and undo some of the deletions of GNG-meeting organizations. And the battle for quality is never won by deleting articles, but rather improving them. An applied eugenics approach to articles is not a helpful or productive approach, because it alienates good editors and does nothing to stem the tide of even worse articles being created every day. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If a company can pass either GNG or NCORP, that means that the NCORP guideline never applies and is entirely dead letter, and that it can be deleted with no consequence, because all companies that pass NCORP automatically pass GNG. What NCORP does is explain how the general notability criteria are to be interpreted as much stricter (and in which way) for companies. Please read WP:SNG: SNGs also serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. ... SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the ... strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. (emphasis mine), and WP:ORGCRIT: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. .... NCORP is simply a reiteration of GNG applied to companies with an extra layer of strictness to avoid abuse by interested actors, in order to mitigate the risk coming from such activity, with an extra layer of redundancy. NCORP is not an alternative path to notability like other SNGs. NCORP is different from other SNGs. It has a protective role. It has not been applied wrong for ~6 years.—Alalch E. 16:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinion. If you want Wikipedia guidelines to reflect that opinion--which I'm not disparaging nor disputing that many people hold--you need to change N. An SNG does not--can not--change the GNG, which is contained in N, and is the overarching guideline that enables SNGs to exist as anything beyond essays in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:NCORP the intention of its "stronger emphasis on quality of the sources [is] to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals". Thus, common sense would say the independence requirements should not be applied in a way which disqualifies sources that don't reflect such gaming.

The interpretation advanced by HighKing in the AfD was that when a reporter sources information on a company's activities from the company, then even if the article is independent reporting as a whole it nevertheless constitutes non-independent coverage. That's inconsistent with the WP:NCORP's stated intention. And it's not clearly provided for by the text of WP:ORGCRIT. Without that argument the objections raised by the delete voters lose a lot of their force. Oblivy (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

If you read what was actually said, that certainly isn't it. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse or overturn to keep The organization has notability as a small domestic agricultural products producer that the government and NGO's recognize as a bulwark against imported tool makers. I was of the opinion the nomination was wrongly brought (because of the patent lack of WP:BEFORE), and I expanded it and provided sources. It's not just a self-promo project or "so what, it's just a business" situation.

@HighKing objected to one of the sources for reasons I think reflect a non-obvious reading of WP:NCORP, that an article which is independently written can't be independent to the extent it relies on information from the company. When I pushed back, @Scope creep piled on. I don't think I'm thin-skinned, but got to be too much. Saying "I give up" reflected a situation where two highly invested editors were telling me I was wrong and I wasn't going to convince them otherwise. I never changed my keep vote, but as @Ritchie333 surmised I had other things I could work on.

The project benefits from these articles because it should answer questions about organizations that the public may want to know about (as opposed to orgs that just want people to know about them). Although coverage is thin there is enough sourcing to show notability, and common sense should prevail. Oblivy (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:ORGIND requires two types of "Independence". The one you're referring to is one half - independence of the author of functional independence. You also need to show that the sourcing contains "Independent Content" or intellectual independence. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete per Pppery.—Alalch E. 16:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete (edited) At DRV we're don't rehash AfD arguments but examine the actual close. It is difficult for me to impartially evaluate the close seeing as how I was a participant. Nevertheless I'll try. As an aside, I questioned Richie's close on his Talk page in order to understand his reasoning so that I could perhaps address any deficiencies in future AfDs. I was dismayed when my argument was dismissed as "personal opinion" without being provided any further detail. The fact that Richie brought this to DRV himself is an indication that perhaps this close wasn't good.

WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS says Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. The fact that Richie dismissed by guidelines-based argument for deletion as "personal opinion" is, in my opinion, the primary reason why consensus was misinterpreted. Another editor supported this reasoning and I can only assume this was dismissed also as merely supporting a personal opinion.

WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS also says consensus is determined by looking at strength of argument. None of the Keep arguments were based on NCORP guidelines and even here, some of the Keep !voters are repeating arguments which are flawed, are misinterpreted, or do not feature in AfD/NCORP criteria for establishing notability.

This AfD really boils down to evaluating consensus. The closer determined that the weight of Keep arguments was enough for "No Consensus". While I might not agree with the reasons provided, this wasn't an egregious close especially given the lack of overall *engaged* participation. I wouldn't have brought it here, its a waste of time. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse - this discussion seems to further highlight the lack of consensus. I tried searching in Bengali for more sources and probably would have voted to keep. - Indefensible (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Relist or overturn. I'm usually inclined to endorse closures where I read the consensus as more closely aligned with one outcome but the close is also plausible or possible, and this discussion can be considered that, however I believe the extent of downweighting for the pre-relist delete !votes is excessive in this case. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

26 June 2023

Angels–Mariners rivalry (closed)

Angels–Mariners rivalry – Deletion endorsed Stifle (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Angels–Mariners rivalry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Closer wrote "Suggestions to redirect the page to either 1995 American League West tie-breaker game or to other articles [sic] on rivalries did not win additional support following their proposal". I don't think this is a correct reading of the consensus. Three users supported the redirect to 1995 American League West tie-breaker game as an WP:ATD. One additional IP user voted for a Redirect to "an articles on rivalries" prior to the suggestion of that specific page. Only one user, the deletion nominator, opposed the redirect. The redirect page is directly mentioned as best representing the rivalry in the Seattle Times source full article about this rivalry. This ATD support was perhaps hard to notice due to the lack of actual bolded !votes for the redirect, and abnormal threading of support for the ATD, but support did exist for the redirect to 1995 American League West tie-breaker game as an alternative to deletion. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse Rosguill is an experienced closer and directly noted that they had considered a redirect in their close but opted against it, and wasn't consulted before this DRV was opened. While several keep and delete !voters noted a redirect was possible, I think this discussion was validly closed as delete. SportingFlyer T·C 21:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse - very sound and well articulated close. Onel5969 TT me 22:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse (In the interest of full disclosure, I am the original AFD nominator) - Very well written close. Redirect would have also been a viable outcome based on limited support that raised some valid points (though I personally disagree with them, as stated in the AFD). However, as Rosguill explained in the closing statement, arguments for outright deletion had the strongest backing based in policy. Frank Anchor 23:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Noting that DRV procedure was not followed here, as they never consulted with me prior to bringing it here. signed, Rosguill talk 23:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC) The DRV instructions say that one should "Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer...", which I did do. This being my first interaction at DRV, I am unaware of the norms of the users here. I was attempting to "keep things out in the open" and follow the review process, rather than going straight to (and risk annoying) an individual user. If that is breaking "DRV procedure", the directions at DRV need to be updated. PK-WIKI (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC) PK-Wiki, I had removed my comment because SportingFlyer had already made the same point. Reinstating my comment after I removed it isn't appropriate, although ultimately it's not a big deal. signed, Rosguill talk 01:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse - Not only was this a valid conclusion by the closer, but it is a clearly explained conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse. Looks like a reasonable reading of consensus to me. If a redirect is desired, I would go ahead and create one. And if it proves durable/non-controversial undeletion of the history could be considered later. In other words, I don't see that the consensus in the AfD should be read as preventing a redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse but allow creation of redirect The close was appropriate, however, if someone wants a redirect they should be able to create it, which of course can be challenged at WP:RFD. 104.246.113.199 (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Endorse I voted delete and later opined that redirect was a suitable ATD. However that got little support among the delete voters. I have no issue with any user creating a new redirect to this proposed target page. Restoring the page history is not necessary in this case. Carson Wentz (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Endorse. There was not such a level of support for redirection as the suggested alternative to deletion as the appellant states, so that the close would be anything other than reasonable. —Alalch E. 14:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Avatar: The Last Airbender (disambiguation) (closed)

Avatar: The Last Airbender (disambiguation) – Proc. close. Not the right venue to contest a CSD tag, which was declined anyways. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 12:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Avatar: The Last Airbender (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Added many entries to the page named "Avatar: The Last Airbender" and "The Last Airbender" RMXY (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Procedural close. The page has not been deleted, just nominated for speedy deletion, and this is the wrong venue to contest that (the talk page is the right place). However I have declined the speedy deletion as it is not substantially identical to the version deleted 16 years ago. I'm not completely convinced that this is a necessary disambiguation page, but that's something that needs to be discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 June 2023

Sarah Danielle Madison (closed)

Sarah Danielle Madison – The community's decision here falls somewhere between "endorse" and "no consensus to overturn". I think I could justify either decision in a closing statement, but since there is a choice, it's right for me to select the close that least restricts the community's freedom to make decisions about what to do next---so I land on no consensus to overturn. Editors wishing to redirect are welcome to pursue this option further by beginning a discussion in any appropriate forum.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sarah Danielle Madison (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Likely fails WP:BASIC. Consensus moved from weak keep to delete then redirect as a WP:ATD. Coverage was very weak. Should be redirected as a best alternative scope_creepTalk 07:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse. No consensus is an accurate reflection of the discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Overturn to redirect (or delete). The nominal keeps, while denoting their advocacy in bold letters as "keep", actually made comments which are, in substance, arguments for why to delete the article (lack of significant coverage). So there was consensus to delete. Redirection was identified as a good alternative. There's no special significance to bold letters, the argument is what matters. Alternatively overturn to delete.—Alalch E. 09:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I appreciate the closer for closing this- the result was not implausible, and I'm sure that other editors might disagree, but IMO this should be albeit weakly be Overturned to Redirect per Alalch E. Of the three weak keep votes, the one from Oaktree b was policy based but the others two were weak. One of them acknowledged a limitation of in-depth sources but still voted weak keep, which makes little sense. Thw other one by CastJared states that the article needs more sources to pass GNG and then makes a comment that the keep votes were "stranded", which too makes little sense (and at the time of the writing they are blocked for related reasons such as poor AfD participation with info in the threads linked). This IMHO contrasts to the far stronger arguments made by the delete and redirect, as Beccaynr provided an unrebutted ATD that would to me be a reasonable alternative instead of delete. Still，I understand that there were also a few policy based uncommitted comments, and my opinion is not that strong at this point. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC) The most likely reason Beccaynr's redirect vote was unrebutted is that the AFD was closed six hours after it was posted. A single late vote does not equal consensus. Frank Anchor 19:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the note, I had indeed missed that. I suppose overall this would make my opinion weaker. I agree that Oaktree’s vote, while not the most detailed analysis, can be considered as policy based as it alludes to SIGCOV (I'm still unsure whether it refers to merely there being many sources or is actually policy-based, though this is not a hill I'm willing to die on). Personally, I still believe that two of the keep votes were considerably weaker. One of the votes vaguely says that but a lot of news articles published about her death instead of referring to any policy or specific sources, whereas I've analysed the vote by CastJared above. Overall, I acknowledge, however, that my opinion is weak (and have altered my wording to make that clear), and as always I appreciate your insights in DRV. VickKiang (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse No consensus is the correct reading of that discussion. I don't know why the closer wasn't consulted before taking this to deletion review. SportingFlyer T·C 13:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse no consensus closure as there was no consensus in the three weeks the AFD was listed. Also the appellant's statement that Consensus moved from weak keep to delete then redirect as a WP:ATD is unequivocally wrong. A single "delete" vote does not shift consensus to delete, and a single "redirect" vote does not shift consensus to redirect. The Keep votes, particularly Oaktree B's, presented sources and asserted they were WP:SIGCOV while the delete/ATD side claimed they were not. With an even !vote split, this is a clear case of no consensus. Frank Anchor 14:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC) I can't find the part where Oaktree B asserted that the sources he mentioned are SIGCOV, can you help me find it?—Alalch E. 16:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Quoting from Oaktree B's vote, there is much coverage on her death. [two links to sources sources] and others all explain about her time on 7th Heaven (emphasis mine). I would reasonably consider that to be an assertion of SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 19:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the reply. I would read that as an indicaton of quantity not quality.—Alalch E. 21:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse. No consensus is a fair reading of the discussion. I also agree with Frank Archer's comments above. --Enos733 (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Comment from closing admin - I don't have much to add, this seems like a pretty uncontroversial "no consensus" result. While this individual certainly seems to be on the edge of notability, and while sourcing was admittedly thin, I think it would have been an overreach to find consensus to delete or redirect here. Obituaries aren't necessarily considered significant coverage for the purposes of establishing notability, but the fact that an individual had so many obituaries printed in so many different publications at least suggests the possibility that there is significant coverage elsewhere that hasn't been found yet. Either way, there's certainly not consensus to keep due to the current lack of sources, but not quite consensus to delete either. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse. Certainly, there was not a consensus to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse. The discussion about deletion had no consensus. This does not preclude a redirection discussion on the article talk page, where it belongs. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse. No consensus is the best description of the discussion.Jacona (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse - No Consensus was a valid conclusion by the closer, and the best conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Endorse. There was indeed no consensus. CT55555(talk) 23:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Overturn to redirect. All of the keep !votes were "weak keep", and two of them literally state they couldn't find any GNG sourcing! Not to mention those two !votes ought to have been dismissed outright. One is from a user who has been blocked and banned from deletion discussions due to nonsensical NOTHERE !votes. The other is from a user with, at the time, ~20 edits, whose only edits this year (after a 1-year hiatus immediately following achieving 12 edits/30 days) have been mostly rapid-fire unhelpful AfD !votes, including some keep rationales quite similar to those of SPAs and socks[3][4][5]. The only !votes that engaged in discussion of the sources were a weak keep, a delete, and a redirect, with the latter two giving much more detailed analysis. That leaves us with three editors who do not believe the subject should have a standalone article and one who only weakly supports retention. JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Generation Α (closed)

Generation Α – Redirect to new article speedily enacted as requested. Anyone may RfD as desired. (non-admin closure) Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Generation Α (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This page was created in 2009 and deleted because of the WP:CRYSTAL violation as generation alpha doesn't exist at that time, at that time was generation z. Generation Alpha spans between 2011–2025/2013–2035 and the deleted page now should be redirect to Generation Alpha. Vitaium (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2023 (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
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