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.
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
1.
Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=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:
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 September 30}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 September 30}}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 September 30|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:
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".
The Electroimpact article was deleted on March 31, 2025 after an AfD discussion concluded that it lacked significant, non-local coverage and did not meet WP:ORGCRIT.
Since that time, a completely rewritten draft has been prepared using only independent, reliable sources from national news and aerospace industry publications. The draft addresses both achievements and controversies in a neutral tone, resolving previous concerns about neutrality and conflict of interest.
CompositesWorld – Reporting on Electroimpact's role in Rocket Lab’s Neutron rocket project.
The Columbian – Reporting on workforce scale and operations.
With these sources, the article now clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT and demonstrates broad, non-local coverage. I am requesting that the deletion decision be overturned or that the page be restored to allow recreation using the new draft. Pollluxo (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then go ahead and create the article if you believe it is “ready.” The title is not WP:SALTed, so any user in good standing can re-create it at any time, though it could be subject to another AFD discussion. I will not evaluate the references you provided because DRV is not a content-evaluation forum. We can have a procedural close on this discussion. FrankAnchor01:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note the article and DRV statement seem LLM generated. But as Frank said there is nothing actionable at DRV, the editor can send their AI slop back into mainspace which will likely be deleted again. JumpytooTalk05:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Paul – Speedy endorsed. LLMs don't have a standing at DRV. Since the only warning the appellant has received was made after they filed the two appeals, I'm refraining from blocking. Further violations should be reported at AN/I. Owen×☎12:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The AfD close overlooked multiple independent sources establishing Jon Paul’s notability as a filmmaker. Coverage includes Taekwondo Life Magazine, an interview at Red Movie Awards, and WildFilmmaker. He is credited by independent record organizations (Asia Book of Records, International Book of Records, WRCA, World Records India, Golden Book) as the filmmaker of Dojo, the most awarded live-action fictional short film in history. His work also has verified distribution (Apple TV, Fawesome) and IMDb listing.
Some delete !votes argued that a person must show “multiple notabilities” beyond their film work. This is not supported by policy. WP:BIO requires only significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject — which is present here. Requiring “separate notabilities” adds a bar not found in policy.
The delete !votes were largely generic (“non-notable,” “just a film festival list”) without engagement with WP:BIO or WP:RS, while the keep arguments cited specific sources and policies. AfD outcomes are based on strength of arguments, not vote count. The close gave undue weight to unsupported delete comments over detailed policy-based evidence.
Endorse the discussion could not have been closed any other way. Lists of awards for a film don’t count towards an individual’s notability. The first source has no byline and is again about the film. Suggest nom reads RS, GNG and NFILM SpartazHumbug!07:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am very much disinclined to entertain a DRV request that misrepresents the XFD (no such argument of "multiple notabilities" exists in the AFD as far as I can tell, nor "awards alone are not enough" in the other one) and does not even bother to do so through human hands. This should be speedy endorse and the nom should stop wasting our time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse and block filer: Basically all this "user" does is post LLM-generated text, both here and the respective AfDs. The volunteer community shouldn't be bothered to spend a single second on this, enough is enough. Left guide (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Left Guide. The user was asked not to use LLMs in XfD and proceeded to submit two DRVs doing the same thing. This abuse of process constitutes disruptive editing. While I don't think we can consensus ban at DRV, I would think an admin would be justified blocking, or at bare minimum, issuing a final warning. Local Variable (talk) 10:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Dojo (film) – Speedy endorsed. LLMs don't have a standing at DRV. Since the only warning the appellant has received was made after they filed the two appeals, I'm refraining from blocking. Further violations should be reported at AN/I. Owen×☎12:30, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The AfD close gave insufficient weight to multiple independent sources establishing notability. Dojo is recognized as the most awarded live-action fictional short film in history, with 1,200+ international festival awards and verification by independent record organizations (Asia Book of Records, International Book of Records, WRCA, World Records India, Golden Book). It won Best Action Film of the Year at the Red Movie Awards (same edition honoring Tom Holland), and also received recognition at Urban Action Showcase. Independent coverage includes Taekwondo Life Magazine and WildFilmmaker. Distribution is verified on Apple TV and Fawesome.
Film industry research by Stephen Follows shows 30,000+ short films are submitted annually to Cannes, highlighting the unprecedented scale of Dojo’s achievement.
Several delete !votes incorrectly stated “awards alone are not enough.” This misstates WP:NFFILM, which explicitly recognizes major awards and festival wins as establishing notability. Here, Dojo has both significant awards and independent coverage. Other delete !votes dismissed independent sources as “routine” without policy basis. AfD closes must weigh arguments, not headcount, yet the delete !votes were repetitive and generic, while keep arguments were policy-based and sourced. The close gave disproportionate weight to unsupported delete comments.
Endorse The discussion could not have been closed any other way. There is plenty of evidence in the discussion that the participants trued really hard to find decent sources and came up short. This in no way can be described as an uninformed consensus. SpartazHumbug!07:04, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse and block filer: Basically all this "user" does is post LLM-generated text, both here and the respective AfDs. The volunteer community shouldn't be bothered to spend a single second on this, enough is enough. Left guide (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close per Left Guide. The user was asked not to use LLMs in XfD and proceeded to submit two DRVs doing the same thing. This abuse of process constitutes disruptive editing. While I don't think we can consensus ban at DRV, I would think an admin would be justified blocking, or at bare minimum, issuing a final warning. Local Variable (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This AfD was closed as Keep, but I believe it was unduly critical in dismissing the Delete/Redirect arguments.
By my count, 8 of the 12 participants support deletion or redirecting, with 5 of those 8 describing this as some type of problematic fork or endorsing a !vote that did so. Identifying an article on LGBTQ issue as an undesirable fork of the existing broad-concept article on topics related to LGBTQ people or the article on LGBTQ rights is a reasonably sufficient and straightforward policy-based rationale that should have been given weight in the close.
The close found that no policy-based arguments for deleting or redirecting were put forward. All of the arguments that it is a fork were faulted for failing to explicitly cite CFORK, or failing to specify or prove exactly which type of unacceptable fork it is. It should be clear that those describing this as an undesirable fork meant it is an unacceptable CFORK, whether they explicitly linked to that guideline or not, and whether they reached that conclusion by way of it being a POVFORK, redundant content fork, or both.
By contrast, the four Keep !votes are not subject to any similar scrutiny in the closing analysis, despite one offering no clear rationale at all. A consensus of Keep simply does not reflect the discussion. Trystan (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It was said that the page is a POV fork, but the alternative point of view represented by the ostensible fork wasn't identified. If the page had been merely redundant, that does not make for a "problematic" fork; rather, a merely redundant fork is a non-problematic fork, and deletion may not be required over redirecting or merging. It was said that something is wrong with the content's quality, but not what. Looking at the unsourced and non-existent content at the page that was ostensibly forked (Transgender meant LGBTQ people), which cannot possibly be better content, the idea that this was redundant content of low quality that should be deleted seems like trying to argue too hard to delete the page as a bit of a reflex to the non-credible bad-faith allegations at the start of the discussion. I think that this DRV should endorse and that interested editors should propose a merger.—Alalch E.14:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Redundant content fork" is one of the two types of "Unacceptable types of content forks" identified by WP:CFORK (the other being WP:POVFORK). A merge could certainly be considered (not sure Transgender is the article you mean), but not in the face of a very recent consenus to Keep that found no credible arguments against keeping. Hence the DRV.--Trystan (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to start a merge discussion after a recent AfD that had the outcoms of "keep". Because merging is keeping content too, just under a different organization. Starting a merge discussion under current circumstances would not be anything like trying to circumvent the AfD's outcome. All forks are unacceptable and need to be resolved in some way, but when we say "problematic" and it was alleged that the content presents an alternative POV, things sound much more serious, and proper deletion starts looking like the most appropriate response. But things aren't serious. There is no POV issue and nothing is particularly "problematic" here from the policy standpoint. It's just about optimizing organization. —Alalch E.14:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a merge compatible with the terms of the Keep consensus would reflect the true outcome of the deletion discussion. I don't think DRV is the place for involved editors to debate each other, so I won't comment here further.--Trystan (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete in line with the consensus at the AFD. Closer substituted their own opinion, which should have been cast as a !vote, for a neutral assessment of consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(closer here) Which of the Delete !votes do you consider to be based on P&G? Or are we just counting noses? I'm surprised to see you, Stifle, of all people, settle on "Delete". Two recent AfDs that came to DRV, both having an actual consensus against retention, you closed as "No consensus" because views were evenly split between Delete and Redirect. In the AfD before us here, there is exactly one pure Delete vote; all the others are either Keep, Redirect, or "Delete or redirect". According to your usual logic, this would have been a clear case of No-consensus close. Is this a case of "rules for thee but not for me"? Owen×☎18:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't yet reviewed the AFD and the appeal and the article in sufficient detail to cast my vote (that is not a vote), but this has been personalized too much, and is ugly. The closer says: Alalch E. doesn't create pages out of spite, but even if they did, this wouldn't be a policy-backed reason to delete an otherwise compliant page. No evidence of POV has been provided to back the "POVFORK" accusation. The closer shouldn't be defending the originator by name. Neither the AFD nor this DRV should be focused on the character of the originator (or of any other involved editor). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't defending anyone. I was criticizing the nomination for making a baseless, bad-faith accusation against the author, and more importantly - for using that accusation as the basis for nominating the pages for deletion. My comment was firmly based on WP:DEL-REASON, and focused on the improper reason for nomination, not on the character of any of the participants. Owen×☎18:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my close. We all love to quote the old, "not a vote" line. But when the outcome differs from a plain nose-count, people--often including admins and experienced editos--complain. It's clear that the majority of participants in this AfD did not want those BROADCONCEPT-type DABs to stay here, but few of the reasons for deleting or redirecting them were based on policy. Claiming that the common name is issues and not issue is not a valid reason to delete both issues and issue. The claim of POVFORK was unsubstantiated. The call for deleting the history behind a redirect was unsupported by policy. The appellant is incorrect in claiming that I rejected any !vote for failing to cite CFORK. Both the Totally unnecessary nonsense forks and the I don't see what this page, either as a DAB or a BCA, has the potential to add were read as arguing CFORK. This view, however, did not gain consensus. Owen×☎18:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from requester. Alalch E. and I (as two editors on either side of the deletion discussion) now both support merging, per this discussion. If there aren't any concerns that redirecting at this point would be inconsistent with the AfD close, perhaps this DRV could be closed.--Trystan (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, apologies, as I'm new to this process, so help me if this isn't the place for it-- but I think the original page should be kept intact, as it's a separate concept that isn't mentioned on the Suicidal Ideation page, that specifically is noted as NOT being Suicidal Ideation.
It's an important concept with a well-known phrase used in many places and culturally important. Naturally, the French page for it is still up.
I also believe the original consensus was interpreted incorrectly, as it seemed to be a discussion if it was a suitable fit for redirect, and seemed to migrate topic when the page to which to redirect had been decided.
Further opinions: The French page refers to this Phenomenon as "High Place Phenomenon" which currently redirects to "Intrusive Thought" on the en wiki. This was the original redirect request, so perhaps that page simply needs to be built-out more before redirecting to that page, instead.
Comment - When I first looked at the RFD, I thought of voting to Relist to try to gain a better consensus. Then I checked the date of the RFD. Relisting a two-year-old RFD would be silly. Opening a new RFD would be a reasonable action. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just following the process outlined in Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose if there's a better way to approach this, I'm happy to oblige, but again, I'm new, so please help, if you can.
No action. The RFD is more than 2 years old. If there is something that's changed meaning the article should exist now, it's open to an editor to edit the redirect and restore an article. To the extent the OP is challenging the original RFD closure, such a challenge should fail as it was closed properly. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No action. My close was correct and I didn't "misinterpret consensus" as the OP falsely states. Also the RfD is more than two years old, and the OP should've boldly edited the redirect instead of opening this DRV. CycloneYoristalk!23:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Draftify and keep SALTed to force going through AfC. I don't fault UtherSRG for deleting this perpetually recreated page, even if it did technically extend beyond the "sufficiently identical" scope of G4. But this drama should not be staged in mainspace. I don't want the community to waste more time on this at AfD until an AfC reviewer decides it warrants another look. Owen×☎11:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically overturn G4 as it is not close to being sufficiently identical to the previous version, a requirement for G4 deletions. I do think the recreated version suffers from a lot of the issues that caused its initial deletion, though it is further expanded. I would vote to not keep this article in an AFD and I do not believe it has any chance of being kept in this state, so restore to draft to allow for improvement. No opinion on salting. FrankAnchor12:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the deleting admin. I was not asked to undelete, though Fram inquired about the deletion. I would have draftified instead of deleted, but I'd already draftified it once and the author restored it to main article space, so WP:DRAFTOBJECT came in to play. I agree with OwenX on the course moving forward: draftify and retain maintain SALT. - UtherSRG(talk)14:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftobject is an essay, G4 is a policy. And you were explicitly asked to undo your deletion ("Please don't delete the article. ", "Is there any way the article deletion undo?", and I said "was the deleted article really identical or nearly identical to the one deleted 8 years ago, or was it a new creation? Because G4 would only apply to the former, not to the latter." and later "please follow policy". You did not reply whether the pages were identical or not, and showed no intention to follow policy here. Your defense that you "were not asked to undelete" rings hollow. Fram (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy Should probably have never been recreated while under sysop protection, but it was. G4 is clear. It isn't identical. Speedy criteria should be strictly enforced. DRAFTIFY is one shot. Local Variable (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This hasn't been protected since mid-2018, when it was created as a redirect to List of phobias#A.That redirect survived more than seven years without controversy. Its history is now at Draft:Androphobia, interleaved with at least one other draft that was never moved. Its most recent revision is here; if we endorse this deletion, the page should be recreated with that in place. —Cryptic16:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy & draftify The G4 is incorrect, as the deleted articles were all stubs and the current version is not. But the article title was supposed to be salted per the last AfD, but it seems it got lost when a redirect was created. Apply the SALT and require AfC approval for re-mainspacing. JumpytooTalk16:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy, unsalt, and handle as part of GENSEX The latter is important, because it's hard to imagine why it would be so controversial otherwise. I took a look at androphobia in Google Scholar, and it's in use if not widespread use, so something should exist here: either an article, or a redirect to something appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I’m unsure what to suggest here. It seems to me that speedy delete is wrong because sources do exist and the page is not just a recreation. However the available sources do not appear to me to meet WP:MEDRS and the page is explicitly framed in medical language, which I doubt would be acceptable to medical-focussed colleagues. If we are going to undelete, it seems to me that it should be tagged for their attention and will likely be deleted at AfD. JMWt (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn improper G4 and let AfD handle it. GENSEX poses no restriction relevant to this case. Oppose draftification. DraftObject has already been expressed. If the topic is not eligible for standalone article treatment, draftifying does not help decide that (AfD does). —Alalch E.14:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article recently went through an AfD, which was closed as delete. However since then these sources were uncovered:
1.The review of one their albums from theWholeNote's Editor's Corner, which cites them as "one of Toronto's best kept secrets" (counting towards WP:BAND #7) [1]
Ignore - The instructions at the top of this board include:
Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted
I agree this doesn't need to be at DRV at this time. Since you did participate in the most recent AFD, I'd strongly advise creating a draft and submitting it to AFC, rather than either creating directly in mainspace or moving a draft there yourself; putting the four points above in {{AfC comment}}s at the top of the draft (just under the submission template) will help overcome the sort of reflexive "this was just deleted!" declinations that recently AFD'd pages tend to attract. If you need the old contents of the page, administrators in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles should be willing to help you out. —Cryptic01:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Initially the good folks at WP:REFUND suggested to bring it here. I have already asked the original admin for a while now, but haven't received any response. I shall ask another admin now. Thanks. Xpander (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We may need to clarify the interplay between the two processes further, if you were told to come here to get an article back so you could add later sources. That's not a controversial deletion issue. Jclemens (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, the request at WP:REFUND#Sina Bathaie was for a restoration directly to mainspace (like the initial request here), so UtherSRG was correct to decline. There's mention in REFUND's header that it's the right place to go for post-afd draftification/userfication/email requests, though there isn't in {{UND|afd}}. I'm not completely convinced adding a mention there too would be a net positive, since it's already quite long and wordy, and most of the people asking for afd-deleted material (at least when I was watching, and occasionally responding at, WP:REFUND) are the sort of inexperienced editors that are likely to just copy-paste it back into articlespace. —Cryptic14:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy restore to draft to allow for improvement and incorporation of these sources. It is better to have the previous deleted version as a starting point than to have no starting point at all. DRV is not the right venue but the anppellant was pointed here annyway; we shouldn’t need a week of bureaucracy to allow a longtime contributor the opportunity to improve this article. FrankAnchor13:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The AfD discussion was closed with a consensus against deleting, however, I feel this isn't the case. When @Star Mississippi !voted redirect, they clearly meant that as an alternative to deletion, considering they said but not independently notable. @Asilvering's !vote this week said Oppose redirect, not Keep or Delete. Disregarding the blatant SPA vote, I feel there is no consensus to keep the article at the very least, and should be relisted for another week to see what people say. ChildrenWillListen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect. By count of noses, there are three participants arguing to retain the page as a standalone article, and six arguing against it. Upon closer inspection, however, none of the Keeps, including the one who created an account just to vote here, carries much P&G weight. But even if we gave those weak Keeps full weight, we still have two thirds of participants who would be happier with either a Delete or a Redirect than they are with how this AfD was closed. Keeping an article in place because participants can't agree on how to get rid of it is either a supervote or a blatant disregard for consensus. The closer effectively discarded the Deletes because those !voters failed to offer an ATD. Owen×☎13:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own closure as consensus against deletion. Redirect is not a delete !vote. An AFD discussion isn't needed to determine between keep and redirect, that can be taken forward by discussion on the article talk page or pursuant to WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome, not close. I think "no consensus" is a perfectly reasonable way to close this AfD, though if I had come across this as a closer I would have relisted it to see if anyone seconded the late-added !vote (which, disclosure, was my own). I do not, however, think it is correct to close this as "consensus against deletion". -- asilvering (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for another week. It's better to try to sort it out at AFD, rather than to direct people to a less-visited (and hypothetical) discussion at an article talk page. Geschichte (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - Discussions of whether to blank and redirect or keep are often contentious, and can often best be resolved by the consensus process of AFD. If talk page discussion of whether to redirect or to keep is inconclusive, it may be necessary to open a new AFD. It is better to keep this existing one open. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome - I too would have closed it as "no consensus", but keep is a reasonable enough close, given the same outcome. Relist isn't a bad option - though it was already relisted for a week, and the only further participant didn't really speak about wanting the article deleted, but more so that perhaps a redirect to a sex criminal many be a bad idea. The only decent delete argument is BLP1E, and (at danger of relitigating) a quick glance at pre-2020s articles in newspapers.com does seem to find other stuff. I'd suggest that the nominator spend their time trying to improve the article, rather than deleting it. Nfitz (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that the nominator spend their time trying to improve the article, rather than deleting it. I don't agree. This was a perfectly sensible nomination, both at AfD, and DRV. There's no obligation to try improve articles that don't meet policy, and BEFORE wasn't breached when significant effort is needed to find sources, if they exist at all. Local Variable (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect. There is clear consensus to not keep the article as a standalone page. The keep votes were weakly based in policy (including one from an SPA which should be entirely discounted), while the delete and redirect arguments were stronger. There is one completely nonsensical “do not redirect” vote which should not carry much weight. Redirect gives more editorial flexibility than deletion (merging content, sending to RFD, etc) and makes more sense here. Also okay with a relist as my second choice, to allow for further discussion. FrankAnchor00:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that ChildrenWillListen's assessment of my redirect !vote is correct. I'm surprised by stifle's take here that a redirect is not a delete vote, as it very much is a vote to delete the information. That said, no comment on the close as I do not have the time to reread the AfD at this time. StarMississippi01:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stifle, it's an alternative in the sense that it preserves the page history in a way that does not make it inaccessible to non-admins, which makes it preferable to deletion in many cases. But it is very much a "delete" type of vote, as it means the content is removed from the encyclopedia. We very often close AfDs as "redirect" even when there are more or even far more delete !votes, provided that there is no specific objection to a redirect proposal. -- asilvering (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle goes back at DRV as long as I do and its very much the case that historically DRV does not treat a redirect as a deletion. Indeed, in 2009 when I wrote Wikipedia:Non-deleting deletion discussions, DRV would have closed this appeal as moot as a redirect wasn’t considered to be a deletion, but as an editorial decision. SpartazHumbug!07:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Stifle's close. I think he correctly assessed consensus, as redirection normally leaves the information in history, and articulated a path forward. I think "no consensus" was within closer discretion, as was relisting the discussion again, but Stifle was not obligated to choose either alternative. I'm unwilling to disregard the SPA !vote as it actually made the single most detailed argument in the AfD, and in the process strongly suggesting a close connection to the subject, but has a reasonable read on policy and was not supported by socks, so I think weighing it appropriately is fine. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist is the best option. I think most people who argue for a redirect believe that the subject should not be a stand-alone page. I also believe that editors who comment early in the discussion with a preference to delete a page are usually fine with a redirect (especially since I don't assume many editors revisit an AFD they participate in). But beyond that, I do think that it is better to have a discussion about a redirect at AFD rather than on the article talk page as there are more eyes on the discussion at AFD. --Enos733 (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and treat as a simple "no consensus" close. There was no consensus. BLP1E was invoked, but specific BLP concerns were not stated. It was not explained how this high-profile individual seeking media attention is a low-profile individual. This was ultimately just a notability dispute, and on that level, the delete case was not argued especially well. It was possible to relist but not required.—Alalch E.17:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse An unusual case because it closed with a strong argument against redirecting (I don't recall the last time I saw that). I think NC is the only reading here. Tough case, right outcome. Also (again!?) per Alalch E.. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The was an improper close per WP:DRVPURPOSE 5 because it was an improper WP:NACD close. It was pointed out that the sports-bio article was built only from databases which violates the last bullet point of WP:SPORTSCRIT. The guideline mandates that all sports bio pages have one article with WP:SIGCOV physically present in the article. Per the RFC at NSPORT we are supposed to delete sport-bio pages built only from databases even if sources exist outside the encyclopedia. Normally I would add the source myself but unfortunately the offline nature and foreign language component of the sources prevent me from doing so (I don't understand them well enough to use them). I really don't think a non-admin should have closed this while the article isn't compliant with the source presence component of SPORTCRIT. An admin would have at least the power to delete the article and consider the matter fairly. We really shouldn't be overturning the SPORTSCRIT mandate to not have sportbio pages only sourced to databases. Note I raised the issue with the closer and they told me to take it to DRV. 4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think the discussion clearly showed a preference to keep the article. It would have been nice for editors to incorporate the sources found in the article during the week the discussion was active (or now during deletion review). Since none of our policies and guidelines are self-executing, a closer is expected to follow the discussion - especially comments based in policies and guidelines. So, while there is a justification to delete, WP:NOTBURO strongly suggests we take the time and update the article, rather than delete it because of compliance with other policies. --Enos733 (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Enos733 I get that. The problem is we have a pattern at sports AFDs where this policy gets widely ignored, and the RFC based outcome essentially unimplemented because editors know they can ignore it. This leaves a large portion of our sportsbio pages only built from databases, and if we don't enforce this policy we just encourage editors to continue to ignore the guideline and continue to build articles solely from databases against the RFC decision. If we aren't going to give that policy teeth (like we are supposed to), why do we have it? I think it would be better to relist and encourage participants to add the source.4meter4 (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: everything you eloquently said here is true. But realistically, what do you expect to achieve with this DRV? Countless AfDs, DRVs and RfCs have been fought over this. Most sports SNGs are now deprecated, and WP:NSPORTS2022, which is the closest we ever got to a consensus in a decade, has never actually received ascent to Guideline status, and is just sitting there as what lawyers call "dead letter law". I admire you for fighting the Good Fight, but I fear this battle has been lost long ago. Owen×☎01:28, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX: Perhaps. I see a few possibilities. One a CONSENSUS emerges here to uphold SPORTCRIT on review and we delete the article now; two it doesn't and the close is endorsed and the guideline is ignored; or three we relist and give the editors who found sources a chance to follow the guideline and add the source to prevent deletion. Hopefully policy compliance wins out by following option 3 (which would be my choice), or by following option 1 (less desirable).
You may be right that Option 2 is the likely outcome here. If it is, it creates a paper trail. If I keep bringing this issue up and the paper trail continues in a similar noncompliance direction, I'll have enough evidence to take this to another RFC. At which point, I'll advocate that we tighten the policy further in some fashion and make it harder to not follow here at AFD. I don't know exactly what that would look like, but I strongly believe compliance for this guideline shouldn't be optional.4meter4 (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse overwhelming consensus to keep, such that a NAC was highly appropriate. There is no way this AFD would go any other way even if it were to be relisted. FrankAnchor01:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that so one-sided a discussion is never going to be closed as delete, even if everyone but the nominator directly and blatantly contradicts long-standing and well-established policy, which WP:SPORTSIGCOV is not. If you want the results of these afds to match the wider community consensus, you have to find some way to get the wider community to participate in them. —Cryptic01:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Realistically, even if that is the external consensus, it's not up to the closer to override local discussion consensus. That would be akin to a !supervote. I agree entirely with Cryptic too. A lot of editors spend time deletion sorting, and this is one reason why. Local Variable (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The question here is whether a non-admin can acknowledge that the community has reached a local consensus that is inconsistent with the guidelines. The closer doesn't need the Delete button to conclude that the community decided not to delete this stub. Maybe there should be a discussion about closes where the community decides to keep a stub that does not comply with guidelines. But we don't need a Deletion Review to discuss whether a non-admin can recognize a consensus to keep. Non-admin closes are for cases where there is a consensus to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"that does not comply with guidelines" is a community judgment. The community spoke pretty clearly here, which is why we're endorsing this outcome. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. The community disregarded a guideline, and the appellant doesn't like that apparent inconsistency. A month ago, a long-time editor was banned for being difficult about the community's disregard of a guideline on the sizes of letters. In case there is any uncertainty, I am agreeing with User:Jclemens, not disagreeing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should encourage closers, na or otherwise, to leave some sort of comment on how they're resolving WP:LOCALCONSENUS or at least literally any closing statement at all (beyond the result) where thorny issues might apply. I don't disagree that this isn't currently materially actionable though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from involved. – To make it clear, my position at AfD is not the WP:SPORTSCRIT is being completely disregarded, but rather that its scope is limited to articles being kept under that specific SNG and not everything WP:N more broadly. See Q3 of the SPORTSCRIT FAQ, and note the it says "sports-specific" (specific to sports generally) not "sport-specific" (specific to a particular sport). – Ike Lek (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I don't know how this could be anything other than a keep, given there wasn't a single "delete" during the discussion. Nor any challenge of the multiple sources provided in the debate. Even the nominator (User:4meter4) acknowledged the sources, and instead of rejecting them said If we are going to keep this, someone needs to add that source - which completely violates WP:DEL-CONTENT. This editor appears to have a pattern of trying to push clean-up by prodding and AFDing articles, even though they could be improved. That they try and delete so many articles, and fundamentally don't understand the AFD (or DRV process it would appear) is concerning. Nfitz (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The deletion underestimated the availability of significant independent sources. Paparusso is verifiably notable as a cultural organizer and producer with sustained coverage in reliable media, institutional endorsements, and international impact. With improved sourcing and a neutral rewrite, the article should be restored. Afí-afeti (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – The article on Nicola Paparusso meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. The AfD resulted in deletion due to perceived lack of in-depth sourcing, but substantial, reliable coverage is available in national and international media documenting his career as a cultural organizer and communications producer.
1. - Significant Independent Coverage
ANSA (Italy’s national news agency) covered Naomi Campbell receiving the La Moda Veste la Pace award, conceived by Paparusso, confirming the award’s cultural importance and Paparusso’s role in it.
Milano Finanza reported Paparusso’s involvement with the presentation of the documentary Anime di coraggio at the Venice Film Festival in 2025, demonstrating his contributions to internationally recognized cultural productions.
Il Messaggero has covered African Fashion Gate (AFG), the cultural association founded by Paparusso, linking him to international cultural initiatives.
Il Messaggero also highlighted Paparusso’s cultural programming in television and events, further confirming sustained coverage.
2. - Institutional Backing
La Moda Veste la Pace is presented under the patronage of Italy’s National Anti-Discrimination Office (UNAR) and the Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana, both authoritative cultural institutions.
The 2023 edition was held at the Spazio Europa venue in Rome, with support from European and Italian institutions, underlining official recognition of Paparusso’s initiatives.
3. - International Scope
Through African Fashion Gate, Paparusso has connected international fashion leaders (including Naomi Campbell) with anti-racism initiatives, expanding the reach of his work beyond Italy.
Multiple outlets across Europe have documented his projects, demonstrating cross-border cultural significance.
Comment @Afí-afeti please limit your participation here to necessary input and let all participants have their voices heard. You were bludgeoning the AfD and that will not be helpful again here. StarMississippi12:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is the filing editor alleging an error by the closer, or is the filing editor requesting to consider additional sources? The instructions at the top of this noticeboard state:
Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted
If this filing is based on some error by the closer, 'Endorse or Speedy Endorse because no such error has been stated.
Overturn to delete and salt PROMO/COI, bludgeoning process, and what even looks like a LLM or LLM-like second statement from the appellant. Being required to work in draft and use AfC process before mainspacing is an appropriate consequence for this conduct. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Correct interpretation of consensus. I can appreciate the frustration above but I agree with the closer that there was no need to salt. One, I don't think a purpose of DRV is to salt articles as punishment. Two, if anything, it's better they went the 'proper' route to challenge instead of recreating it again. Local Variable (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence of gaming the system, combined with the relatively low importance of this topic, make me suggest salting as an appropriate remedy: the encyclopedia is only perhaps trivially poorer, at best, for not having this as a topic. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse accurate reading of consensus and good closure. Nominating statement looks like it was written on Chatgpt which is strongly deprecated. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: here we go again with ChatGPT. The nominator is most likely a paid contributor that engages in canvassing. Conceited effort for paid promotional placements in unreliable Nigerian sources. m aMANÍ1990(talk | contribs)12:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be involved in bludgeoning over here because of you, but I feel offended by your statement "ChatGPT", like am so stupid to write a WP:NPOV, without the help of an AI; you trying to say all my contributions including my most recent: Odeal, is a result of AI?; as you have become a bot in noticing or detecting Artificial Inteligent contributions. I honestly pick an offense to your word, as they don't read in Good Faith. It's like boxing all my contributions here as a result of AI, yet I had copyright issues, you didn't notice that after going through my talk page?; SMH!. I though AI was to be smart, yet AI, allowed me run into Copyright issues. SMH!
Comment (comment from involved editor): It is amusing to me that you have chosen to start a DRV for Nicola Paparusso. Five editors with little to no understanding of policy suddenly appeared to argue for keeping the article, two of whom are now blocked, while not a single experienced editor supported retention. If that does not seem like a clear case of UPE to the community, then I would say you just got lucky and it seems you are testing that luck once again with this DRV. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a EC salt is a bad idea, but otherwise don't think there's much to say here. I would encourage AFC whether or not this is salted or not. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Salt. I am concerned by the concentrated effort at WP:BLUDGEONING this article into existence. This is a concerning use of DRV. As echoed earlier by @Jclemens, there was blatant effort to game the prior AfD with suspiciously timed editors suddenly weighing in where a lot of LLMs were also utilized inappropriately.
Peppering with the obvious use of AI again in the nomination and continued use of unreliable paid sources, I think this is the only reasonable course of action given what only could be read as WP:PROMO or at the very least WP:COI. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The close is likely reasonable based on the discussion in the AFD. However I was surprised by jumping into Proquest and seeing English-language articles that haven't been mentioned here (perhaps they were in the article already?), which seem better than what I'm seeing discussed in the AFD. I'm surprised the keep side was so adamant, but did such a poor job of presenting their case. Still, that there's better sources out there isn't a factor for DRV. And nothing precludes doing a better article in Draft (or mainspace - but I'd advise against that after two AFDs). And what sources would one find in a proper Italian archive? Nfitz (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I would like to ask a review of this deletion. The article (now a redirect to For a Revolutionary Left) covered an organisation that has been active since 1986 as a faction and a journal within the Italian Communist Party and the Communist Refoundation Party, and later as an independent party. While its latest name, since 2024, has been "Revolutionary Communist Party (Italy)" (Partito Comunista Rivoluzionario), the organisation was previously known as "HammerSickle" (FalceMartello) and "Left Class Revolution" (Sinistra Classe Rivoluzione). There are tons of sources on the 39-year-old organisation, especially under its previous names, as exemplified by the corresponding article in it.Wikipedia, which by the way has stricter notability conditions for political parties. This said, I would be more than happy to see the deleted article's history rescued and restored, while "Revolutionary Communist Party (Italy)" could well stay as a simple redirect to For a Revolutionary Left (the most recent electoral list Left Class Revolution participated in) or the Communist Refoundation Party (the main party to which HammerSickle / Left Class Revolution was long affiliated, representing big chunks of it, especially of its youth section). -- Checco (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's usual to discuss with, and mandatory to notify, the closing admin when a deletion review is countenanced. That doesn't seem to have happened here. Can the nominator please explain why (or link if I've missed it)? Stifle (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! I did it here, without pinging User:OwenX. As I was advised to do, there are now redirects and a small sub-section on the previous incarnations of the party at For a Revolutionary Left. However, what I am asking is at least to rescue the deleted history and make it visible to users. --Checco (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the result - the consensus was to delete. However, I see 87 different sources on the Italian wikipedia page, and these were not really discussed in the AfD. Most are from only one or two websites though. Still, if several of those pass GNG, this could have been deleted by mistake. If these sources are presented, I'd be happy to draftify this to the user. SportingFlyerT·C10:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the organisation, especially under its previous names, has been active since 1986 and is mentioned in several third-party sources. --Checco (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is the filing editor alleging an error by the closer, or is the filing editor requesting to consider additional sources? The instructions at the top of this noticeboard state:
Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted
If this filing is based on some error by the closer, 'Endorse because the close of Delete was the right conclusion by the closer.
If this filing is a request to consider other sources, Procedural Close because the filer should submit a new article.
Per above, while I would not have deleted the article and, probably, under a different name ("HammerSickle" or "Left Class Revolution"), the result would have been different as the two are quite well sourced, I would be OK with restoring the history behind the current redirect. --Checco (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history to redirect to allow any user to create a draft and incorporate the references that were not discussed in the AFD. I find no fault with the delete close, but new information has since come to light. FrankAnchor15:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Endorse correct interpretation of consensus and source analysis. A second relist would have also been an acceptable outcome, but is in no way required. Of the four sources presented by Taabii, three were correctly dismissed as being WP:ROUTINE and the other one was considered borderline. The remaining keep votes were basically WP:PERX and/or WP:OSE-based arguments. FrankAnchor13:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – My thought on my first reading of the AFD was that it should be Relisted, but then I reviewed it to see why the closer had discounted the Keep votes, and I came upon one a Keep vote that accuses the other voters of intentionally vandalizing the article. That vote must be discounted, and raises questions about other Keep votes. The closer acted reasonably in discounting the Keep votes and in finding a rough consensus to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse keep !votes were mostly bald assertions of notability. The presented sources had serious problems. Given the weight they deserved, there was consensus to delete. Local Variable (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Participants in this DRV may be interested to know that the article was created by someone now blocked for UPE and other participants are currently in various SPIs. Cryptic, I'd say you're correct on that one, if you'll give us a moment to do some laundry. -- asilvering (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - opposite reaction to Robert McClenon and Cryptic; as Zuck28 wrote in the final vote, this is a WP:LISTED company doing notable work and is likely to have SIGCOV, if the sources in the discussion are thrown out then more references should be found before deleting. I just looked briefly on ProQuest and already see promising references that could have been used to support the article. It does not make sense to delete this and keep the other articles either; they should probably all be merged into a larger article on their parent company. - Indefensible (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The consensus has been interpreted correctly and the IP should know that AfD is not a voting system. When editors base their rationale on stock reports, subject’s major projects and other contracts, rather than on policy-based arguments, it is easy to interpret the consensus as those rationales hold no weight in an AfD. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I was going to go with relist, but the sources provided in the AFD by User:Taabii don't come anywhere close to meeting WP:GNG. They are truly terrible sources. Even the one that Yuvaank was a bit positive about is just a routine financial research report for investors. Are there better sources out there - who cares, we are looking at the close of the AFD. Nfitz (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
