Wikipedia:Deletion review

This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

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

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

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

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2024 December 23}}</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=2024 December 23}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 23|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Active discussions

23 December 2024

List of health insurance executives in the United States

List of health insurance executives in the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I request that the "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States be overturned to no consensus for these reasons:

1. There was no consensus that the list failed WP:NLIST.
2. There was no consensus that the list violated WP:CROSSCAT.
3. There was no consensus that "the list potentially puts people in danger" or that "the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence".
4. The closer was WP:INVOLVED through having asked a previous closer to reverse a "no consensus" close. The closer showed a clear preference for deletion when writing, "I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons."
   • Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it." The closer participated in a discussion about the page by arguing with the previous closer that "no consensus" was wrong and advocating for a "delete" close.

Cunard (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Extended comment from DRV nominator:

  WP:INVOLVED

  Sandstein (talk · contribs) closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States as "no consensus" on 16 December 2024. OwenX (talk · contribs) posted on his talk page that he believed the close should have been "delete". OwenX wrote:

  1. "It was a tricky AfD to close, but after discarding the canvassed and non-P&G votes, I see a consensus to delete. I found two threads on Reddit canvassing for votes, and I'm sure others exist. What you said about NLIST is true, but I believe the Keep !voters did not adequately refute the issues of NLIST and CROSSCAT, which was nicely summarized by Dclemens1971 there. I'd be willing to re-close (and likely face the inevitable DRV...), if that's okay with you."
  2. "Two editors with 48 edits to their name, and one with 39 edits, among others with almost no AfD history, all show up suddenly after this and this were posted on Reddit. Note that until the canvassing began, there was a clear consensus to delete, with only one opposing view (from a non-XC editor). I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons. As a minimum, relisting to get a few more non-canvassed views from experienced AfD participants would make sense."

  This sequence of events is similar to an admin starting a deletion review arguing that an AfD should be "overturned to delete", the AfD being reopened and relisted by the AfD closer, and then that DRV initiator later closing that AfD as "delete" before the seven-day relist period had finished even though discussion was ongoing. This would violate WP:INVOLVED as the argument for an overturn to delete goes beyond acting "purely in an administrative role".

  The closer explained:

  Firstly, with regards to the timing of the close, WP:RELIST clearly tells us that A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. The AfD had been open for 13 days and 9 hours. It was not closed early. Since I'll be spending most of tomorrow (Eastern Time) with my in-laws, I figured I'd take care of this tricky AfD now rather than leave it for another admin to struggle with (and with the DRV that will likely follow). There is no policy that obliges a closer to let the relist clock run out, but if you feel you've been short-changed here, I'd be happy to hear the rebuttal you were planning to post on that AfD, and will reconsider and amend my close, if warranted. That said, unless you bring up an argument that turns everything around, I don't see how your reply to Sirfurboy will change the consensus I read there.

  Secondly, I did not edit the article nor !vote in the AfD. To quote WP:INVOLVED, my role in this debate was purely administrative. I told Sandstein that I believe he erred in his N/C close, as I did see a rough consensus, after discarding non-P&G-based votes. That is exactly what an uninvolved admin is supposed to do when closing - or assessing the close - of an AfD. I never weighed the article on its merits, and have no opinion about it either way. My sole input here are the arguments expressed in the AfD, as they relate to our policy and guidelines. Sandstein's close was not overturned. He agreed with my assessment of his close, chose to relist it, at which point any admin--including him or me--was welcome to re-close. The situation you describe is materially different, as the DRV participant in your example was a side to the dispute. In this case, there was no dispute.

  I disagree that OwenX's involvement was "purely administrative". When he "assess[ed] the close of the AfD" by telling Sandstein he should have deleted the article, OwenX became WP:INVOLVED. When he wrote, I don't think leaving this to stabilize is the right approach here. It's hard to dismiss the views on that AfD that this list, created four days after a highly publicized murder, is not here for encyclopedic reasons., he became WP:INVOLVED.

  Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "As a general rule, don't close discussions or delete pages whose discussions you've participated in. Let someone else do it." OwenX should have let someone else close the AfD because he initiated a discussion with the previous closer about how the AfD was wrongly closed and the article should have been deleted.

  WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT

  There was no consensus that the list violated WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT. Numerous established editors argued that the subject met WP:NLIST and did not violate WP:CROSSCAT. Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says:

  One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.

  I provided sources showing that "highly paid health insurance CEOs in the United States" "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are other sources that do not just discuss the grouping of "highly paid health insurance CEOs in the United States" such as President Obama meeting with them in 2013. This Washington Post article notes, "The White House hosted a group of health insurance executives this afternoon to discuss - you guessed it! - HealthCare.Gov." This Modern Healthcare article notes:

  Fourteen insurance industry heavyweights were called to the White House Wednesday to advise the Obama administration on how to fix the dysfunctional federal health insurance exchange. ... Kaiser Permanente CEO Bernard Tyson, WellPoint CEO Joseph Swedish, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini and Humana CEO Bruce Broussard were part of the delegation that met with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Deputy Assistant to the President for Health Policy Chris Jennings. ... Other healthcare industry leaders participating in Wednesday's meeting were: Patrick Geraghty, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida; Jay Gellert, president and CEO of Health Net; Patricia Hemingway Hall, president and CEO of Health Care Services Corp.; Daniel Hilferty, president and CEO of Independence Blue Cross; Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans; John Molina, chief financial officer of Molina Healthcare; Michael Neidorff, chairman and CEO of Centene Corp.; James Roosevelt Jr., president and CEO of Tufts Health Plan Foundation; and Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association."

  This article also lists the "health insurance executives" who participated in the meeting.

  Concerns about revising the list's scope to better reflect the sources should be handled through a discussion on the talk page per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

  "the list potentially puts people in danger" and "the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence"

  There is no consensus for the viewpoint that the list potentially puts people in danger or the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence. These are not policy-based reasons for deletion. This information is widely publicly available and well-sourced to high quality reliable sources, so the list does not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The list passed Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists before the killing happened. Deletion under this basis violates WP:NOTCENSORED. As one AfD participant wrote:

  Finally, I think it's dangerous territory to limit the creation of controversial articles based on timing. Was this page made in response to a terrible event? Yes. But at what arbitrary point would we then be allowed to create controversial articles? Who gets to decide what's controversial? Slippery slope. I think the timing of this needs to be taken out of the equation.

  Cunard (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved). AfD is not a vote, but most of the keep voters treated it that way. I counted only four keep voters (including Cunard) who offered policy-based rationales for their !votes. The rest were some mix of WP:PERX, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:WHATABOUTX and WP:ILIKEIT. The canvassed votes distorted the debate and the closer was right to discard them when discerning a consensus. As a result, the appellant’s first two points are incorrect. There was a delete consensus on those grounds. (Re: NLIST, Sirfurboy rebutted Cunard’s sources, and I will add that those sources are all about health insurance CEOs, not the broader category of executives, which was the subject of this list. At no point was NLIST met and no consensus existed there.) Point 3 I agree with the appellant; I and a few delete voters made comments on the propriety of this particular list, but I agree that a preponderance of the delete !voters did not discuss this. However, there was a consensus to delete on NLIST and CROSSCAT. Finally, the question of whether the closer was involved. As the other participant in the discussion on Sandstein’s talk page, I do not think so. OwenX expressed his view about whether a consensus had emerged, not what it should be. I think OwenX’s comments about not “leaving this to stabilize” plainly meant that he believed there was a consensus and that a N/C close when a consensus exists on a contentious subject is not the right approach. That’s an opinion about closing procedure, not a supervote or “involvement” that would preclude a later administrative action. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn This is a tough one to assess for several different reasons, including the length of the DRV, so I copied and pasted the discussion into a word processor, eliminated canvassed votes, and came to my own conclusion before reading the full petition. I completely agree with Cunard here on both counts: that OwenX became involved when they petitioned Sandstein to relist their close, and that the close itself was wrong. I get a no consensus result, after the relist there is clearly no consensus when only looking at votes from long term users, and while I have sometimes disagreed with Cunard about whether the sources they find are good enough at specific AfDs, in this instance their detailed !vote does directly rebut arguments made by delete !votes and more discussion about those sources would be welcome. I think the best result is a relist to give some time to discuss those sources, but an overturn to no consensus would also make sense. SportingFlyer T·C 07:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). It is right that, per Dclemens1971, most of the keeps were non policy based and should be discarded. The closer correctly assessed the consensus. But I was involved so you would think I would say that. But come on. Someone creates a list of health care executives (not just CEOs. Not just the top 10 best paid. All and any of them) on December 8. Created when companies are removing the names of their executives on safety grounds. Created and grouped into a handy list. OwenX did err on one point: It was not just Dclemens1971 who argued for IAR in addition to the failure of this list to meet NLIST. I argued for that too. IAR is policy, and this is a clear and present danger to the encyclopaedia and to the people on the list. Note that we are not hiding information, because we have the information on individual pages. But we should - indeed we must - hide a handy collated list of healthcare executives created in the wake of, and clearly as a response to, the murder of one of the people on the list. We should hide it because the list is dangerous and we should hide it because it obviously brings the whole project into disrepute. I am sorry, but I sincerely believe everyone arguing to keep this list deserves trouting. Recently there were long discussions at ANI about sites that acted in harmful ways, and how Wikipedians should probably avoid them. Well, taking on board those arguments, if this were overturned and kept, I do not see how I could continue to participate on Wikipedia. And I do not say that lightly. IAR is policy. Now is the time to use it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for a while. Strong hit list perception. Potential encyclopedic value doesn't justify. This topic should be censored for a while. WP:IAR.—Alalch E. 13:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Vacate close and allow an uninvolved admin to close the AFD. The closing admin requested the previous no consensus close be undone and the AFD be relisted , thereby making them an involved party (particularly when the new close differed from the original close). I don’t necessarily disagree with the delete outcome, based on hit list and BLP concerns, but there is a clear bias (albeit likely unintentional) in the current close. Frank Anchor 14:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Why would we vacate the close and re-close for the sake of it if we believe the close was correct? That is just a waste of someone's time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

While I normally argue against process for the sake of process, there are some exceptions. An involved closer who publicly stated displeasure about a previous close is certainly one of these exceptions. Frank Anchor 17:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Vacate and reclose by an uninvolved editor On balance, it does appear that the closer became involved by questioning the original close. --Enos733 (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment (as closer): I find the whole "INVOLVED" thing ridiculous. When two bureaucrats discuss how to close an RfA, is one of them automatically "INVOLVED"? Are both? What about when several Arbcom members discuss a case before them? Should all but one recuse themselves?

This particular AfD received the attention of two closing admins, rather than the usual one. I don't see how that makes either "INVOLVED". Reading consensus isn't "involvement". And had my read of consensus--and my exchange with Sandstein--been about changing to a Keep close, I doubt Cunard would be here calling foul. Owen× ☎ 16:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• endorse because it's the right close for the right reasons but I'll be honest it doesn't sit well that the closer advocated for a different close to be undone. For those who are concerned about independence, I'll happily substitute my delete close for the actual closers, which I believe now ticks all the necessary boxes to endorse this close. To be clear I did read every word of the nomination but Jeeze Cunard I was really tempted to skim over it because life isn't that long. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

21 December 2024

Luigi Mangione

Luigi Mangione (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed two days early by a non-administrator, despite the AfD having over 30 votes. While the outcome will still likely be keep, it was an improper closure and didn’t give me time to rethink my vote reading through the keeps. Someone on the talk page noted that one in every five votes was something like merge or delete, and given more time could have closed as no consensus. Isn’t there a policy against non-admins closing potentially controversial AfDs, anyways?— Preceding unsigned comment added by EF5 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse but allow early renomination. I agree that this should have been handled by an admin. Many of the Keep !votes are little more than WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or WP:ILIKEIT, completely ignoring WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR. Additionally, some of the most experienced editors make a compelling case to redirect the page to Killing of Brian Thompson, as per our common practice in such situations. Alas, the outcome wouldn't have been any different had an admin closed it, whether immediately, at the end of the seven days, or after a relisting or two, be it as Keep or as No-consensus. There was simply no consensus to delete or redirect the page, as the appellant here readily admits. Per WP:DRVPURPOSE#6, DRV should not be used to argue technicalities, which is what the appellant is doing here. Overturning to No-consensus would achieve nothing. Owen× ☎ 14:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Sure, it would've been preferable if an admin were to close this AfD, but that would be needless bureaucracy at this point considering the non-admin closer was correct in that the AfD was WP:SNOWing towards Keep. By my count of the bolded !votes, roughly 100 users supported Keeping the article (which includes experienced editors and admins) while 19 users voted some other way (and most of these non-keep !votes came early on in the discussion, not towards the end). As an admin opined at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Mangione, "any outcome other than 'keep' would be highly controversial." Some1 (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Overwhelming consensus to keep. A separate merge discussion can take place on the subject article’s talk page to see if there is an interest to merge to Killing of Brian Thompson, though I find consensus to do so unlikely at this point (maybe more likely several months from now). While an admin closure would have probably been better, it was clear the AFD would not close with any result other than keep. And GhostofDanGurney is a very experienced AFD contributor. Frank Anchor 16:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus (involved). It's true, "keep" was the overwhelming !vote, but as people always say, AfD is not a vote. Only about 20 of the many, many "keep" !votes articulated an appropriate rationale; most of the rest were WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSINTHENEWS, WP:WHATABOUTX, or simple unexplained !votes. Meanwhile, there were 9 reasoned "delete" !votes and 9 reasoned "redirect" or "merge" !votes. That's a close to even split between those who believed it currently warranted a standalone mainspace page versus those who didn't. I truly think that if a closer had discarded the non-policy-based !votes, N/C would be closer to the actual outcome. (And, in a handy WP:IAR outcome, it's fundamentally the same result as "keep".) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Everything you said is true, Dclemens1971. But as I mentioned above, I can't see anyone objecting to an early renomination, which means an overturn to N/C would be symbolic in nature, without any practical impact. Owen× ☎ 16:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fair point; I’d missed your comment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Would overturning to no-consensus actually change anything? It's not like the article would actually get deleted. guninvalid (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  It would allow earlier renomination (not that I expect that to happen), but more importantly it would reinforce the principle that drive-by !votes without rationale are to be discounted when looking for consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  I changed my own vote from Endorse to Overturn to No Consensus per your reasoning. Many of the keep votes were not based in policy; it’s important to emphasize that AfDs are not straight votes and that votes without policy based rationales will not be given serious weight. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse own close - I felt keep !voters such as Locke Cole, Cullen328, and 50.39.97.171 successfully rebutted much of the concerns from the non-keep-!voters regarding BLPCRIME/PUBLICFIGURE and BLP1E. The main concern that did go unanswered, however, was WP:RECENTISM, so I'm okay with an earlier re-nomination. But a consensus for anything besides keep in that discussion, I felt truly had a "snowball's chance in hell" at this stage. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• overturn to delete As far as I can see, the many, many people who gave the same rationale for deletion— that a string of passing mentions in business news do not add up to notability— were just ignored, both in other responses and in the counting. And it's hardly a WP:SNOW situation. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse and disallow (not like it's a hard and fast rule, but still) early nomination. Nothing is going to change in a week or a month. The problem with RECENTISM I've discussed in detail here. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  While there is every reason this could have been a NAC close or a SNOW close, a NAC SNOW close is almost always going to end up here, especially on a well-participated AFD, so GhostOfDanGurney I suggest you not try that in the future. We may even want to make a note or strengthen the existing advice against doing this precisely because this DRV is the predictable (inevitable?) outcome of an NAC SNOW close of a contested AfD. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse I referenced the reasoning on the AfD talk page, so to avoid regurgitating my own words: "As far as I can tell from a rough search, the Keep:Delete ratio is very roughly around 5:1. Granted, the numbers alone do not warrant a snow close, but otherwise, the keep !votes would have to be on average 5x better and more relevant than the delete in order to even consider no consensus here. Granted the keep votes probably are overall much better quality than the deletes, but maybe only by a factor or 2-3x at most, leaving it very much consensus for keep at 3:2 at a minimum. I don't think there is an issue with the snow close personally, but sometimes it's worth elaborating on it, such as even bringing this back around to no conesnsus is not a realistic uphill battle; and otherwise time is on the side of the keep !votes, that of the discussion avalanching towards keep more specifically. There are otherwise certainly enough counter-arguments of BLP1E, CRIME and PERP, even if not as much as there should be in such a discussion." CNC (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse, and do not encourage an earlier than standard WP:RENOM. <involved, !voted “keep”>. There is an abundance of quality sourcing that precludes a reasonable argument to delete. The possibility of the sourcing being a flash in the pan will requires months, minimum, to establish. AfD should not be used to argue “merge and redirect”, use the talk page for that. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Trout for the early NAC. An early close is never justified if it leads to a review. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: [blanked list, retained so that below comments remain relevant]. E_F⁵ 03:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Only WP:BLP1E was provided as a reason by the nominator. It's not on editors to address every single argument levied by !voters, especially when such arguments are meritless. You can cast stones at the original nom for not providing any additional reasons to support deletion, but the process was followed and this was in WP:SNOW territory. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, you cite a !vote "Keep Noteworthy" above, which appears to be a claim of WP:N, but you claim your list is a list of every vote that isn't rooted in policy or is just a claim with no evidence. Also, considering many other !voters voting keep provided sources and evidence, why do you suppose everyone else should too? Or are you looking for copy-paste !votes? Seriously, get out of here with this. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sour grapes are over there, in case you're lost. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

What?? Voting on an AfD should be policy-based, not just "keep" or "he's too notable". I'm giving evidence to my claim that keep votes were given unnecessarily large amounts of weight when closing this. Yes, I left out the ones with evidence, because that wasn't the point of the list. Again, would you give weight to the five keep votes that just said "keep"? I believe this is the second time I've had to say this to you, but way to WP:ABF. E_F⁵ 19:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, you're already violating WP:DRVPURPOSE #8 by casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors. Carry on, I look forward to seeing you blocked for being an idiot. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, please. Keep the personal attacks to yourself. E_F⁵ 19:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You first? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I removed a comment after realizing it violated our aspersions policy. Do you have an issue with that? Feel free to take this to ANI if you want to continue, as it’s clogging up the DRV. E_F⁵ 21:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) with an Oncorhynchus mykiss to the non-admin closer. This was the only possible close, but it wasn't necessary for the non-admin to close the AFD early. The close should have known that the close would result in this DRV, and this DRV could have been avoided by not doing a non-admin snow close of a contentious topic. Sometimes a closer cannot avoid being taken to DRV, but a non-admin can avoid being taken to DRV for a snow close by leaving it to an admin. I didn't vote in the AFD, but I voted Keep in the MFD, and said that an article should be kept, and would have voted Keep in the AFD if I had participated. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• While I expected this AFD to close as Keep or No consensus, it is not what I would define as an appropriate SNOWCLOSE as there were plenty of editors who argued to Delete or Merge/Redirect. Typically, SNOW closes are almost unanimous and this one wasn't unanimous. I think this close happened because an AFD close was requested at WP:AN and I think the closer was responding to that brief discussion.

I don't think this is worth overturning but I do think the NAC closer should get a reminder that they should have probably have left this to a more experienced closer who might have left a more explanatory closure statement. Having seen this AFD earlier, I expected it to wind up at DRV no matter what the close was because it was a controversial subject and the discussion was closed early. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved) as I feel there was a consensus to keep. The closer however, should be admonished per Liz's comment above. This definitely wasn't a "Snow Keep"- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was a snowball's chance in hell of the deletion proposal being accepted, so there was no need to run it through the entire process. Correct application of WP:NOTBURO and an appropriate application of WP:IAR, both by invoking WP:SNOW, and it doesn't matter that the editor was a non-admin. The discussion was contentious but the outcome was obvious and it can't seriously be stated the keep outcome is now controversial (even the starter of this DRV does not claim this much), the closer is an experienced editor and has not expressed a lack of impartiality or similar (to my knowledge), and the keep result did not require action by an administrator.—Alalch E. 15:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to No Consensus (involved) This AfD should have been closed by an admin after the full seven day with a reasonable analysis of how they reached the implemented outcome; SNOW NACing this was incredibly inappropriate. I initially recommended overturning the closure and allowing an uninvolved admin to make a fresh decision. However, at the end of the day, this was either going to be closed as Keep or No Consensus. The closer has definitely earned a good trouting, but I don’t believe that the outcome reached (specifically, the article staying up) was substantively wrong. (I’m recommending Overturn to No Consensus rather than a standard Endorse per Jclemens‘s reasoning and my concern that many of the keep votes were not based in policy).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  It wouldn't be a good thing to overturn to 'no consensus' when there was a consensus. —Alalch E. 23:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  my concern that many of the keep votes were not based in policy Many keep !voters routinely mentioned either notability (a clear and direct appeal to WP:N), while many others noted the significant media coverage in reliable sources (an appeal to WP:SIGCOV specifically and WP:GNG indirectly). As to the plain "keep" !votes with little or nothing added, I'd argue that we should abide by WP:AGF: these editors probably saw compelling arguments made earlier in the discussion and felt no need to add to what were already good arguments to keep. The first truly naked "keep" vote didn't occur until after ~25 other !votes, a majority of which were already "keep" and had each provided rationales. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. The close was correct on the merits. There was not a snowballs chance in hell of a delete consensus coming out of that discussion. Much better to revaluate in six to nine months and discuss the possibility of a merge/redirect at that time. On the other hand, any early close of such a contentions discussion was likely to end up at DRV and an early NAC almost certain to. Any close almost certain to be disputed in good faith is a poor candidate for a NAC. So a minnow to "Ghost of Dan Gurney" for a mistake in that regard. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse If it's snowing outside, you need to be allowed to say it's snowing. I do agree this should not have been a NAC, but I don't think it quite rises to a level of a BADNAC which needs to be overturned. SportingFlyer T·C 07:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). There were multiple policy based argumements to keep. Clearly, we want new editors to articulate a policy based rationale and should encourage that in various friendly ways. But the recommendations of new editors who are, in effect, echoing the !votes of more experienced editors should not be discounted entirely. They were both persuaded and motivated to !vote. What I see is a number of good faith newbies who noticed that a high visibility article was up for deletion and decided to help out by chiming in. That ought to count for something.

• I agree that this discussion should have been closed by an administrator after seven full days, but that is nowhere near a big enough problem to overturn the close.

Cullen328 (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

20 December 2024

Zimbabwean cricket team in Ireland in 2024 – Listed in the wrong place. See comment below for details. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Zimbabwean cricket team in Ireland in 2024 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Even after the deletion discussion's consensus to delete, page has not yet been deleted. Forgive me if this isn't the correct place to post such requests TNM101 (chat) 10:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC) The page was indeed deleted in response to the AFD. It has since been undeleted and moved back and forth in and out of draftspace. The version currently present is significantly different that it is not eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#G4. The concerns raised at the AFD, mainly around it being too soon to write about what was then a future tour, are no longer applicable. Accordingly, if you feel the article should be deleted again, the appropriate action would be to make a fresh listing at WP:AFD in the normal way. This DRV will be closed shortly. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 December 2024

15.ai – Procedural close. This process for review of the article's delete outcome has been made moot by the filer's creation of an entirely fresh draft with different (newer) sources. Despite a clear consensus to endorse the delete close of the previous AfD, a page on this subject was once again put in pagespace by the filer through the AfC process (while this DRV was running). I reacted to a correct G4 speedy deletion tag, but on approach of the page creator/filer restored the fresh draft. Since this discussion doesn't bear on the new draft, I'm boldly closing this DRV immediately and then opening a fresh AfD discussion where the new draft may be discussed on its merits. All versions of the page are currently viewable for the purposes of this review; unless anyone objects, I'm going to leave them visible during the new deletion procedure. BusterD (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
15.ai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I think the AfD was closed erroneously. The reason given was There is a consensus among those editors that the sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability, while those supporting keeping, with one exception, suggest the case for keeping is weak or present arguments that get less weighting. This is insufficient to overcome the weight of editors supporting deletion., but this consensus that sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability was established before the new sources were found, and once the new sources that demonstrate significant coverage were found, the consensus was going the other way. I think it's unfortunate that the discussions had sockpuppets and canvassing, but given the popularity of the subject among younger audiences, it was something that was to be expected. I believe that the subject is notable due to the sources that I recovered in my research. Initially, with only a few reliable sources available, several editors voted in favor of delete. [1] After a week of discussion, the AfD for 15.ai was relisted for further discussion, and I did my due diligence to do some research to find additional sources that could be used for the article. On December 9, I made an edit displaying the research that I did over the weekend, finding several more reliable sources that would be viable to use to establish GNG, such as sources from United Daily News and a newsletter article from an IEEE-published author. [2]. Ever since that edit, all of the subsequent votes have either been Keep votes or previous Delete votes being stricken. I'm confused by how the AfD was ultimately closed as Delete when it looked like the consensus was heading towards a Keep after the new sources were found. Specifically, after the new sources were found, Schützenpanzer changed their vote from Weak Keep to Keep, JarJarInks voted Keep, Aaron Liu expressed his Keep vote (but didn't bold it), and Sirfurboy struck his delete vote after a discussion with him regarding the newly found sources. Importantly, not a single editor expressed a delete vote after the new sources were found and the AUTOMATON source was considered to be reliable, and the editor who submitted the AfD has closed their account. Thank you for your time. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Edit: I'm also willing to put in the work to use the new citations in a new version of the article, or at least please reconsider relisting the discussion so that a better consensus of the new sources can be found. After taking a look at the other Deletion reviews, for convenience I've compiled some sources that are candidates to demonstrate reliability and significant coverage as discussed in the AfD (the first three are the new ones): [3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ([12] [13] the SIGCOV of these two were debated, but I feel like they're still relevant to the discussion) GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse A pretty badly socked discussion that has already been at DRV once - I think this was clearly the correct close. SportingFlyer T·C 19:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC) It's unfortunate that the discussion had socks (though I believe they were only "likely" and not officially "confirmed"?), but still the discussion was headed towards a consensus that the new sources found were enough to establish notability, with one of the active Delete votes striking their vote as a result of the discussion. If I'm reading this correctly, the original decision was a "no consensus" before the closing admin changed it to a "close" only after it was brought to DRV. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC) I don't think there was anywhere close to a consensus those new sources established notability. I also only see one voter who went from weak keep to a struck vote. The fact this was already overturned once also has no bearing on the result of the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC) I don't think there was anywhere close to a consensus those new sources established notability. But that's what I mean. The first closing decision was a No Consensus, but it was only changed to a Delete after the person who's still casting suspicion of me being a sockpuppet/SPA brought it here to DRV. There wasn't nearly enough discussion about the new sources. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC) I made one comment about it. In this discussion. Now you're making multiple replies that are WP:POINTy or WP:BLUDGEON. Regardless of sourcing, there's WP:TNT which provides a clean slate for the article. – The Grid (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC) As I noted at the close I gave considerably less weight to editors who were not extended confirmed given the socking and canvassing. While GregariousMadness correctly notes one delete was struck after relist, one keep whose basis was the previous AfD by Robert McClenon (which another keep explicitly mentioned) was also struck when he realized there had been socking/canvassing at the first AFD. So not all movement was towards keep. Crucially, the socking that was identified happened after the re-list. If I had been looking at this when Liz did, I too would have relisted and likely with a similar message. This new information, combined with the previous knowledge around canvassing, I think justifies my decision to weight non-EC differently and thus means the delete opinions expressed before the relist weigh in on the overall discussion differently. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC) I totally understand where the delete votes were coming from, and I thank you for your quick response! I don't blame you at all for weighing their opinions more due to all the chaos happening in the AfD, but I have to point out that those delete votes were why I spent the weekend researching for new sources that could be used for the article. I didn't want the discussion to be derailed by the suspected canvassing and sockpuppetry, so I tried to steer the discussion toward the right direction by submitting the new sources and giving a detailed explanation for each one. I don't think I'm an EC yet, so I don't think it's fair that my research was weighted differently just because of some bad apples (again, which were to be expected because of how popular the subject was among the younger crowd). And despite all that, after my research was posted to the AfD, there were no additional delete votes made. If at the very least, you could grant me some time to edit the article to include the new sources, I can spend the next week editing it further. Also, I want to note that the socking was around only two accounts, which were likely to be socks, but wasn't officially confirmed. Socking is bad, of course, but two sketchy SPAs shouldn't nullify the entire argument that the subject meets GNG due to the new sources posted. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC) It was much more than two socks. You can easily be considered a SPA when you have been involved with both AfD and SPI with an account related to the 1st AfD of 15.ai (pinging Ivanvector). – The Grid (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC) What do you mean? I was first found as "Unlikely" to be associated, and then a subsequent investigation found that technically at best I would be a possilikely, but I already explained that I use a very generic setup that numerous other people use (and live in one of the most populous places in the United States). I haven't even edited the 15.ai article that much recently. Most of my edits were contributing to the mathematical theory of neural networks and various other mathematical articles. You can see my edit history to verify. Are you telling me that all the other people who voted Keep, including the editor who struck their Delete vote, are all socking? Also, I wasn't even present for the first AfD? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse (3 edit conflicts. 4th time lucky) as correctly within closer's discretion. I thanked Barkeep for the no consensus close and I thanked them again for the delete close. From which you may infer that I was content with either outcome and thought either was a reasonable assessment of the consensus. I would challenge the view that the new sources had demonstrated notability. I was the one who struck my delete vote, but I did not move to a keep. There were a couple of sources that some editors would have accepted as passing GNG. I did not think so, but decided to step away from pursuing the point further in recognition that a less manipulated discussion might actually have fared better. On socks, two socks were confirmed. Others were suspected but not confirmed. GregariousMadness was one of these latter ones but gave an explanation that I personally found very plausible, and to my mind is clearly not a sockpuppet. But in saying they were drawn to the subject by someone else they had met at college, they came a little close to being regarded as a meatpuppet. Yet I think they are here entirely in good faith, and we should not WP:BITE an interested and willing new editor, but not everyone was here in good faith. GregariousMadness may want to look at a page such as Generative artificial intelligence. This does not mention 15.ai, but could support a sentence or two on it (particularly the legal issues that saw the creator take it down). Their knowledge and research might also be useful for other unrelated improvements there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Honestly? I’m just feeling so sad and helpless over all this. I tried my best to address all of Brocade River Poem’s problems with the article last month starting in October, and time and time again other editors have questioned my intelligence or belittled me for not knowing the rules by heart. And even after I addressed the last of her problems over that weekend, she wrote back “Cheers!” and then immediately nominated the whole article for deletion despite me addressing all of her comments and her not saying anything about it at all. I can't even bring up the diff to show that because the whole talk page is gone. Then I gave my case on why the article should stay and did my extra research over the weekend, but because of people who can’t behave that’s out of my control, my arguments are being un-weighted along with those who agree with me, even though I was under the impression that an AfD wasn't a vote. And then when I’m finally proud of the research I did and was on my way to convince people with the new sources I found (because the Teahouse says that a good rule of thumb is 3 reliable articles that show significant coverage to pass GNG, so I thought I did something good), the whole article gets deleted out of nowhere, leaving me confused and sad and not sure what I did wrong or what I could have done better. And Brocade closed her Wikipedia account so I’m left thinking that she made her account just to try to get the article deleted and be all condescending toward me while doing it, but I don’t even know what I can do about it or if anything can be done about it because it’s all speculation. Ever since I came back to Wikipedia, it feels like my voice isn’t being heard, and it’s especially hard for someone on the spectrum and juggling grad school, so I just try to edit stuff that I’m comfortable with, and still random people come at me saying that I’m an SPA or a sockpuppet (like the person doing that in this DRV, who was also the person who asked the closing admin to reconsider the "no consensus" decision) and it’s been really bothering me, sometimes keeping me up and night because I’m so anxiously refreshing the page over and over again thinking that I might get banned at any moment. So much happened so quickly and I can’t keep up. I’ve been trying my best to address everyone’s comments but I go away for a week or two and the whole article goes from being slowly improved on to deleted and gone, just like that. All I’m asking is that I be given some time to improve the article because I just haven’t had much time lately, and I thought the no consensus decision would give me enough time to do that. I’ve been trying to learn how Wikipedia works but it feels impossible. To me, it feels so obvious that notability is established with the sources since other AfD have way worse sources than the best ones I found, so I’m left feeling like the whole process is random and arbitrary. It makes me so confused when something like Ai_sponge is a Keep but somehow one of the most influential early voice AI projects is a Delete. I want to be able to edit the article with the new sources that I found, but seeing that it’s all gone makes me feel like it’s not even worth re-submitting it if I have to start all over. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC) I'll reply more on your talk page, but just to note, you can request the article be restored to your userspace if the deletion is endorsed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC) And Brocade closed her Wikipedia account so I’m left thinking that she made her account just to try to get the article deleted and be all condescending toward me while doing it, but I don’t even know what I can do about it or if anything can be done about it because it’s all speculation. The truly ironic part of me seeing this weird conspiracy that is borderline the same accusations the sockfarm were making is that I came back here to say that after reviewing the newer sources you linked, I'd be inclined to change my vote to draftify the article if the AfD were still ongoing. Cheers, though. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 07:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Relist. The AFD never came to a proper conclusion, with people still debating whether AUTOMATON should be considered a reliable source, as well as GregariousMadness's thorough research and discovery of the new sources. The first "No consensus" closure was probably justified, but the change to a "delete" jumped the gun, IMHO. Relisting to determine a consensus on the sources sounds reasonable. UnstableDiffusion (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Thank you! I'm hoping more editors will consider the new sources because I spent a lot of time finding them. Please at the very least, if you are looking through this deletion review, consider a relisting to gain some more consensus on the new sources found. Again, I don't think it's fair that my effort is being overshadowed by the bad behavior of editors who have no interest in how Wikipedia actually works. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 01:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse the close, I was surprised to see that the AfD ended as No Consensus and then switched, but the closer's rationale made sense to me. While I am retiring from the project because I feel I was spending entirely too much time on Wikipedia, I kept my eye on the AfD that I created since I was told people might ask me direct questions. Even if AUTOMATON was a reliable source, that isn't a procedural error. The closer weighed Extended Confirms higher than others and came to the conclusion to Delete. The arguments raised by the Delete cadre was that the coverage provided was trivial. My initial concern about the seeming lack of notability was raised at the Good Article Reassesment, where I was told that the notability should be addressed at AfD, and that is the entire reason I nominated the article and predates any interaction with GregariousMadness. As for the editor who submitted the AfD has closed their account frankly, I do not see how my decision to retire has any bearing on whether the close should be re-evaluated. To my understanding, an article being deleted does not prevent it from one day returning to the encyclopedia, so if the creator wishes to improve it (which is their rationale for overturning the deletion), they can still do so in draftspace and run it through Articles for Creation. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 06:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC) The arguments raised by the Delete cadre was that the coverage provided was trivial. The argument had merit before the relisting, but the new sources I found demonstrated significant coverage ([14], [15], [16], [17]) but were ultimately ignored in favor of the EC's opinions, which were made before the new sources were posted. All I'm asking is for my sources to actually be examined, and again it feels like my voice isn't being heard. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse GregariousMadness makes the best case for 15.ai being notable -- though I'd discount the Medium source as our existing consensus is that it's generally unreliable as a self-published source -- but I don't see the coverage as significant and enduring enough to overturn a reasonable close. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Weak Endorse (involved) - Deletion Review is not AFD round 2, and the editors participating in the DRV are not closing the AFD, but reviewing the closer's close of the AFD. So the question is not whether we would have closed the AFD as the closer did, but whether the closer's judgment can be justified. If all good-standing !votes are counted equally, the close should be No Consensus. The closer says that they weighed the !votes from Extended-Confirmed editors more than from newer editors. In view of the history of this article, that is reasonable and proper. There is a long history of sockpuppetry associated with this article, the previous AFD, the Good Article review, and the discussions at WP:ANI. The presence of multiple single-purpose accounts is strongly suggesting of off-wiki canvassing. The web site evidently has a fan club on a third web site. The fans may not be familiar with Wikipedia guidelines of notability. I would have preferred to see the closer identify which of the voters were given a higher weighting and which were discounted, but after writing this statement, I see that that is unnecessary, which is why I am striking the Weak from the Endorse. The closer recognized the need to discount editors who were likely to have been recruited for the purpose (or fabricated for the purpose). I initially cast a Weak Keep !vote in the AFD based on the principle of respecting a previous AFD, and then struck that !vote when I saw that the previous AFD had been corrupted by sockpuppetry, and did not cast a replacement !vote. Approve Submission of Draft for Review - The title has not been salted, and a good-faith editor may submit a draft. The draft should preferably be a clean start for the topic, starting over, without reliance on the previous history that was corrupted by sockpuppetry and other misconduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse (involved), I think this was a fair and accurate reading by the closing administrator, of a discussion which was badly-disrupted throughout its life. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse - Of the non-delete-!voting participants, several expressed what were admittedly "weak" positions. More still either struck their keep !votes or had rationales "as per" editors who later struck their keep votes. The consensus was not going the other way as the appellant attests. Therefore, this was a reasonable close by the closer. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 20:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse (involved as voted at the afd and commented at the resulting SPI) proceduraly I see nothing wrong with the close, which is what DRV is for, DRV is for determining whether the close is compliant with rules etc. it is not afd round 2. Lavalizard101 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Comment. I'm the one who posted the deletion review, and I want to thank everyone here for your comments. I thought about this whole thing some more today with a cooler head, and I no longer will oppose the deletion. Still, I found a new motivation to do the subject justice, and I'm going to start a draft of a new article, all from scratch, and submit it to AfC when I think that it meets Wikipedia's standards. I'm still learning a lot, and this experience has opened my eyes a lot. Thanks everyone again for helping me out, especially the editors who were kind and patient with me despite my annoying posts. I'm going to get to work now! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse Weak endorse reasonable closure. After discounting the sock votes, I see some level of consensus to delete. A second relist would have also been appropriate, but was in no way required. Frank Anchor 14:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Adding that I oppose G4 deletion for the current article regardless of the outcome of this discussion based on the good-faith creation of a new article that is likely sufficiently different than the previous version. (This is not quite a DRV topic, but I feel a need to include it in this discussion anyway). Advice was given to the appellant to go through the draft/AFC process, and that is exactly what was done.Frank Anchor 22:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Comment I responded to a speedy tag on this and deleted it appropriately, reading this discussion. Immediately afterward User:GregariousMadness called on my talkpage and said not only had he created a newly sourced draft, but had convinced an AfC reviewer to pass it before the speedy tag. They asked me to undelete, and I did so, knowing folks in this process would like to know about the speedy passage at AfC. BusterD (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC) As the AFC reviewer in question, I had no knowledge of this discussion prior to passing it, so I apologize if I caused any problems with this. I personally am on the side of the new draft meeting notability criteria, but I have no comment on the current discussion here due to being largely unfamiliar with the broader conversation and original 15.ai article. A quick read seems to indicate to me that the old article had severe problems, but I am unaware of how the stark the difference between the new and old articles is. The creator of the new article has left a source bank on the talk page showing their strongest sources, so I'd recommend editors here take a look at those and see if they feel they're up to snuff. Unsure what the process from here is since I haven't had something like this happen before as an AFC reviewer. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC) I have added {{DRV}} to the article, which while not strictly true is true enough. I trust the closer to deal with appropriately depending on the outcome of this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC) I rewrote the whole article last night. You can attest to the fact that I didn’t have access to a draft of the original article because it was never sent to me, and I’m glad you never did because I didn’t want to be biased. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC) It is true I never sent the article. I have for ease of comparison for DRV participants undeleted the previous article history. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Thanks for restoring the history. I have now looked at the deleted article history and the new version and it does look like a good faith rewrite, but clearly from the same primary author, so it shares similarities of structure and content. The sourcing appears to be largely the same, including sources discussed at the last AfD that were not in the article. I don't really know where we go from here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC) I wasn't the primary author of the original article. I only came back to Wikipedia a few months ago, and the article had already been written by then. When I left Wikipedia to focus on undergrad, this was the status of the article: [18]. The content is completely written from scratch but shares vague similarities because I was the one who wrote the first paragraph of the lead and the paragraph introducing the characters (and also edited the article when I returned to Wikipedia), so while the structure might look similar, it was written without any reference. The sourcing is also very different. I added at least eight new sources that weren't found in the original article, including United Daily News, Analytics India Magazine, Inverse, GamerSky, a source written by a machine learning specialist, and a source written by a machine learning professor, and I also deleted multiple sources that were found to be overly unreliable. I also didn't include sources that had significant coverage but wasn't sure about its reliability, whose content could be verified by a different source anyway. I put great care into making sure that every sentence in the article was neutral, objective, and verifiable. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 10:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Comment. If I did anything wrong by creating the article from scratch and sending it through AfC (which I was advised to do so by User:Liz and after Robert McClenon suggested that I remake the article since the name wasn't salted), please let me know. I was advised that it was done too quickly, but I only submitted the draft because the top infobox said that it would take up to 8 weeks for a draft to be approved, so I figured I would submit a good enough draft and continue editing it. I didn't expect it to get approved so quickly. As User:Pokelego999 above noted, I had no reference of the old article other than a couple of very small snippets I had saved on a text file while I was editing the original version of the article months ago. You can check the edit history to see how different the article reads now. I'm really, really, really trying my best to improve Wikipedia, and I'm committed to doing everything right this time. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC) Liz told you ...if the second AFD closure is endorsed and the article is kept deleted... That didn't happen. This discussion is still open. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 05:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Everything is fine. This discussion is obviously not going to have any effect now and if someone wants a new AfD, they should start one. The only thing this discussion does is procedurally block the AfD (because of a Wikipedia:Deletion policy provision: A page on deletion review should not be listed on a deletion discussion page until the review closes ...). It needs to be closed so that a potential AfD can be opened. —Alalch E. 09:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC) No action: Notional endorse, but this DRV is now moot and should be closed.—Alalch E. 09:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15.ai – Reclosed by the original closing admin. —Cryptic 16:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
15.ai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This is the 2nd time an AfD has been tempered by off-site canvassing. (First AfD) I would have paused even to close this 2nd AfD. I would have thrown any input from canvassed parties into the trash. How exactly were E+C editors weighted here, even if they were self-interested parties? The refs provided skimmed the surface for anyone who provided a thorough source assessment table. Either a better look at the participants is needed or the no consensus result should be overturned. – The Grid (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) – The Grid (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Closing admin here. I will note that the filer didn't discuss this with me before filing the request and so this could have been avoided. I had mis-attributed EC to a couple of editors who didn't have it, which I realized while typing this response. As such I agree there is a delete consensus and have reclosed accordingly. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Recent discussions

14 December 2024

Cartoys

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

This deletion discussion had minimal participation and the nomination did not fully follow the procedures in WP:BEFORE; there are articles in the Wall Street Journal, Puget Sound Business Journal, and Chicago Tribune with significant coverage, not to mention a good number of Seattle Times articles in local archives. I believe this was a premature deletion and the article could be saved and improved. SounderBruce 00:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse, there were two relists where no one weighed in. This was by no definition premature. Did you ask the deleting admin for a copy to improve in draft space? That would make sense if you believe you can improve it to where a G4 no longer applies. Star Mississippi 01:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - Correct interpretation of the consensus. No keep !votes were made in the discussion and the sources brought by the requestor here were not presented in the discussion. The nominator at AfD also does not show any indication of a failure in their BEFORE duties. The closer cannot be blamed for assuming that a third relist would have yielded similar results as the first two. Delete was the only option here. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 03:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Allow a Relist per Extraordinary Writ, preferable to a restore due to involving NCORP (which is indeed a higher bar to meet than GNG). ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 18:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn, with my apologies I saw this, thought that it was absurd, and failed to say so at the time. I can only opine in so many deletion discussions, and mistakenly assumed that other editors would chime in, as this area is not a core interest of mine. I was wrong. The decision is wrong on the merits, no matter who participated and how, and if DRV isn't the right place to say that--what is? Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Restore we now have sources. The Chicago Tribune one is solid. WSJ is light. The Puget Sound ones I can't see, but they look likely to be fine. Closer's close was okay, but now we have sources. Hobit (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Relist. The first relist never actually made it onto the log, so this was really only relisted once. Given the good-faith request above and the low participation, a second relist is reasonable; the sources are decent but not so good that I'd want to just overrule the AfD (especially since WP:NCORP is stricter). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with a relist too. But I note that until and unless N is changed, a corporation can meet GNG or the appropriate SNG, CORP, to be notable. Jclemens (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  As I was writing my comment, I very specifically thought: "if I say that, Jclemens is going to reply that NCORP doesn't override the GNG". I guess I've finally reached the exalted status of DRV regular. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Welcome to the club! :-) Wikipedia works best when we all collaborate despite its imperfections. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Restore based on new sources available and the minimal participation at the AFD. Any user is able to renominate for deletion. Relisting is a good option as well and would be my second choice. Frank Anchor 16:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Restore. I find no fault in how the AfD was closed. However, limited participation in it allows us to treat the outcome as a soft-delete, even if it wasn't spelled out as such, and restore the article in response to any good faith request. Owen× ☎ 16:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse own close. And forgive any confusion, as I just now changed my name back to my old name. It is not the closers' job to do their own research and reach their own conclusion, but to do their best to read consensus. I don't see how, with the discussion that was held, there was a compelling argument made to keep. That being said the technical issue with the relisting and the apparent availability of sources that were somehow not found by the particpants in the AFD is enough to justify another relist. I think this is the first time I've had a close challenged by someone who did not actually participate in the deletion discussion. That would've been where to make the case. I utterly reject the notion that it was premature. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, your close was fine--the discussion sucked and utterly failed to find the sources that existed. I had more obligation, as someone who monitors DELSORT Washington, to go find and list the sources our appellant did, and I failed to. The process was correct, the result was wrong. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  No one here, with the possible exception of the appellant, is claiming that you erred in your close, Beeblebrox. The only question before us is what to do with the page now, seeing as we found new sources. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse and Allow Recreation There is no error in the close. That said, if new sourcing can be added to the article that meet our notability requirements, there should be no objection to recreation by tenured editors in good standing. --Enos733 (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - There is no error in the close. There was no need for the closer to relist the discussion, and there is no need to overturn the close and relist the discussion to allow new sources. It is not necessary to come to DRV to ask for permission to submit a new draft, or to create a new article subject to AFD. Is there some way to advise editors who have found new sources are deletion that they don't need to come to DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would hope that a user with seventeen years of experience on the project would at least try just asking the deleting admin to restore it as a draft so they could improve it and return it to mainspace, but apparently jumping straight to DRV without talking to he closing admin first is the preferred option these days El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 20:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  In my opinion, editors often make a mistake in asking the deleting administrator to restore a deleted article to draft, or in asking DRV to restore a deleted article to draft, when they would be better off to start from scratch. If the article was deleted for lack of notability, the article that does not establish notability may not be useful. If the article was deleted as promotional, the deleted article is almost certainly not useful. Many DRV requests are unnecessary because permission is not needed to start a new draft if the title was not salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify. If the reasons for deletion can be demonstrated to be overcome, allow mainspacing. This is a higher requirement than overcoming G4. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse and restore only three participants, only two !votes - the closer had no choice, but I have no problem if this is soft restored. Since NCORP is involved I also support draftifying before restoring, but I haven't seen what was deleted. If it's not very good, I'd draftify. SportingFlyer T·C 20:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Restore. Given the list participation at the AfD, I believe that it is best to treat this as a soft deletion that can be restored on request of good faith editor citing sources. A new AfD can be started by any interested user, but I see no compelling reason to require one. As for the close itself, it was clearly within admin discretion and no blame should attach to Beeblebrox. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. The process was obviously followed correctly. An additional relist was an option but far from necessary. The outcome should not be overturned for any reason and should not be reinterpreted as a soft deletion. The page can be restored to draft. The DRV starter should have requested that.—Alalch E. 17:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

12 December 2024

Thamir Muhsin – Closure endorsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Thamir Muhsin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I'm not often astonished by closes. Half of the participants in this discussion asked for more time to look for sources (which clearly requires searching sources from the 1970s in Arabic) but it was completely ignored by the closer even though there was more of a consensus to relist than there was to delete (two poor quality delete !votes, one delete !voter who supported a relist, and one delete !voter who is often willing to change their vote if sources are presented (GiantSnowman). While the argument that it's been draftified and nothing more needs to be done could be considered, an open AfD allows for more eyes on a specific topic, and as such I'm asking for this to be relisted. SportingFlyer T·C 00:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC) I'll summarize what I said on my talk. Consensus on the existing sources was clear-cut. Multiple editors wanted time to find sources: they have it, as the article is in draftspace. Recreation is not disallowed, if new sources are found. Relisting achieves nothing except wasting the time of regular AfD participants, who have no evidence to examine, and AfD closers, who would be re-examining the same discussion I did. I don't see a constructive purpose to this DRV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Relisting achieves nothing except wasting the time of regular AfD participants - if I didn't vehemently disagree with this, I wouldn't have opened a DRV. There's a huge difference between shunting something into draftspace and to relisting a discussion. The latter allows for more time for other people to participate in the discussion and look for sources. No one in the discussion asked for it to be draftified, either! SportingFlyer T·C 01:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse close: There wasn't a single keep vote, there were four people who supported deletion for valid reasons. No one presented a reason for actually keeping, except that there simply must be something. More time was requested to find sources, but there wasn't really a good reason not to close the AfD. As mentioned in the close, there's nothing stopping someone from recreating the article. Also, your mention of someone who voted delete supporting a relist is inaccurate, they specifically stated they did not oppose it. You wanted time to find sources, you have it now with Draft:Thamir Muhsin. Frankly I'm astonished that this was brought to DRV considering this is the best middle ground someone could have asked for. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Just because there wasn't a single bolded keep vote doesn't mean deletion was unopposed. SportingFlyer T·C 01:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Deletes don't have to be unopposed. -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC) There wasn't a rational given to keep and that's what's important, there's no other way this discussion could have been closed. Regardless, you got the time you asked for by the article being moved to draft space. That's 6 months of no edits before it's deleted, which is why I'm truly astonished that community time is going to be wasted on this DRV. Do you wish to address the misrepresention that you made in your statement where you stated half the people there asked for more time? I count two, and one person who said they didn't oppose a relisting. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC) This is a very frustrating close. I'm frustrated an experienced administrator completely ignored the fact participants agreed this AfD would benefit from a relist. I'm frustrated the outcome was essentially to draftify when no one even discussed that option, which is a supervote. I don't want this to be draftified, I want an additional week of discussion where everyone would be invited to do a very difficult source search. And I'm frustrated the rationale to delete was that it wasn't "terribly fair" to AfD participants to leave it open, when two out of the four delete !votes were as lazy as you will see at an AfD, and of the other two one supported finding sources (and is someone who I know would change to keep if good sources were found) and the other did not object to a relist. Finally, three out of six participants supported a relist. That's half of the participants. I don't understand why that could possibly be considered a misrepresentation. SportingFlyer T·C 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC) To be very clear, I was referring to fairness to AfD participants in general, not those who had !voted. It is not respectful of an editor's time to ask them to read through and participate in an AfD that has functionally reached consensus but is awaiting more evidence that may or may not be found. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC) It hadn't functionally reached consensus, though, not unless you overly weight two delete !votes with a combined thirteen words between them. Most of the discussion was a discussion about how sources might be found, and discussion was still active, with most of the discussion occurring in the last 24 hours. SportingFlyer T·C 07:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC) One editor saying "No objection to a relist" is not the same as asking for more time. GiantSnowman 16:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse - The closer correctly interpreted the consensus of the participating editors that the article should be deleted. Of the non-delete-!voting participants, the first questions the AfD nominator on their WP:BEFORE check, but does not provide their own specific sources to the discussion that would indicate that the nominator failed in their BEFORE duties. The second (the requestor here at DRV) admits that they cannot find any sources. Both of their comments can be more or less boiled down to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and are therefore weaker than the arguments in the delete !votes. A relist would be have inappropriate as although one of the !delete voters sympathized with the MUSTBESOURCES arguments enough to express a lack of opposition to a relist, they did not go so far as to abandon their position. Allowing draftification is an appropriate compromise that both respects the outcome of the discussion and allows those attesting that sources must exist more time and less stress with which to find them. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 03:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse as a reasonable implementation of the consensus of the participants, except for a detail. The close says Delete, but the actual action was Draftify, which was a reasonable alternative to deletion, and has almost the same effect as Relist. A Relist would have given seven days to find sources. Draftification gives six months to find sources, and longer if the draft is tweaked during that time. Proponents of an article for the subject have a longer window of opportunity to find sources than they would have with a Relist. Maybe the close should be changed on the record to Draftify, which is a mere matter of paperwork. This was a better close than a relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC) I see a small but important distinction between a consensus to draftify - typically associated with TOOSOON cases, CRYSTAL cases where the topic is likely to be notable, or clearly notable cases where the article is not policy-compliant - and a consensus to delete, after which the article is draftified as a courtesy to one or more editors. This is the latter case, for me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse per Robert. GiantSnowman 12:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC) I will add - the article was draftified over 2-and-a-half days ago and precisely ZERO sources have been found and added - not even considering all the time during the AFD itself. GiantSnowman 16:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC) the article was draftified over 2-and-a-half days ago and precisely ZERO sources have been found and added – I'd say that's mainly because I haven't looked for sources yet. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC) OK, so when do you expect to? When you asked for more time, how much did you need? GiantSnowman 13:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC) @BeanieFan11: I have no issue with you taking as much time as you need. Given that it's been 11 days since you first came to the AfD, though, it's a clear demonstration that draftification, and not relisting, was the optimal outcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Yes, I'm satisfied with the draftify outcome, although I was surprised initially with the closure. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse but add a post-closure note with the link to the draft. That way, interested parties are more likely to find and edit the draft. I agree that this close was better than a relist as it gives as much time as necessary to find and evaluate any new sources through the draft/AFC process, rather than a week to evaluate sources that may or may not exist. Worst case here, no valid sources come up and the draft will be abandoned and G13ed, which is a low-level risk. Frank Anchor 14:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC) That is a good idea: I will add such a link. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse although I understand SF's frustration because a mainspace article is much more likely to get the attention re: sourcing than one in draft space and systemic bias + pre internet is a huge issue here. That said, there was no sourcing to support retention. While I don't agree that draftification was a supervote anymore than redirect is when the closer finds that ATD, I think in this case it's the better outcome since this otherwise is likely a delete without you and other editors having access to the article to improve it. Star Mississippi 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse Closer provided a detailed statement, including an offer to provide a copy of the deleted article to anyone who asked for it. It's a perfectly reasonable close. El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 20:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse (involved) - Draftification is clearly a reasonable option in cases where editors are seeking more time to look for sources but deletion is otherwise the clear consensus. Suriname0 (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse in line with the clear consensus. Can be reconsidered when sources are actually presented, as opposed to a vague promise to look for them. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC) We ended up finding a lot of possible sources at Draft talk:Thamir Muhsin, so we can probably close this discussion now. I'm still really unhappy with the way this was handled for a number of different reasons. I think the thing which frustrates me the most is just how lazy the AfD nomination and two of the delete !votes were, and I still feel my participation and BeanieFan11's participation was ignored because we didn't explicitly vote in the discussion. At least there's a pathway back to mainspace though. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Why? No sources were located during the AFD timespan, and you've only been able to find sources many days later which appear to be under a different spelling of his name! GiantSnowman 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC) The AfD was open for a week, most of the discussion was within 48 hours of the close, the entire nomination was flawed ("non-notable academic" for a former national football team coach!), only one delete !vote even discussed a BEFORE search, and we would have found sources within the second week probably without needing to delete an article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Bruce Hall (musician) – This was not so much a challenge as it was simply a question about why a page was deleted. The question has been answered and the deletion endorsed. (non-admin closure)—Alalch E. 16:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bruce Hall (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Unsure as to why Bruce's page got deleted, I am reaching out as a rep of Bruce. 2601:5CD:C100:DA10:B0AA:52CB:1381:B68F (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse as a reasonable close and the only reasonable close of the deletion discussion. It was redirected in place of deletion because the separate article was inadequately sourced and did not support individual musical notability apart from the band. Any editor may submit a more complete draft for review, with reliable sources and providing information beyond his role in REO Speedwagon, provided that any conflict of interest must be declared. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse A draft isn't necessary, nor is our permission. to un-redirect and expand, provided a non-COI editor wants to do that--and there should be someone willing to. A draft is indeed the appropriate step for a COI editor. At the same time, I question the accuracy of the past AfD--it happened right as REO Speedwagon was in the news for the Hall/Cronin rift and cessation of touring, and I see plenty of Google News coverage for Hall--there's no question in my mind that at the time of the AfD there was an adequate amount of sourcing for Hall's individual notability, and the AfD outcome, though clear, was wrong on the merits. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse - The closer correctly interpreted the consensus of participating editors that the article's subject did not meet Wikipedia's notability policies as an individual, and that info about this subject that is known would be better suited for inclusion in another article at this time. As Robert McClenon states, this does not disqualify the subject from a future article if better sourcing can be found. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 21:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse The reason this was deleted is because we couldn't find enough information specifically on Bruce that was written by a secondary source (non-interviews, for instance) to allow him to have a stand-alone page on the website, but he's notable as part of being in his band, so we've redirected the page there and have included information about him there. If that's incorrect, it's possible a new article could be created if good sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse/speedy close This forum is for challenging the closers' interpretation of consensus, not for just saying "I don't get it and I represent the article subject". This should be closed. El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 20:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 December 2024

Shakir Pichler – Socks of banned users do not have standing to lodge DRVs. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shakir Pichler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) many new reliable sources have been added to sections to provide clear WP:SIGCOV but need to be structured properly into the References section rather than the further reading section with inline citations added to the biography section to them. Shakir Pichler shouldn't have to be punished with an AFK deletion/redirection decision due to the person editing the pages argumentative comments who will no longer be editing his page ever again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.211.83.46 (talk • contribs) Endorse and speedy close. Looks like Ponyo re-redirected and semi-protected recently after the IP had contravened OwenX's closure of the deletion discussion as redirection. There appears to be conduct--COI and sockpuppetry--issues surrounding this, so I suggest we do absolutely nothing other than offer to educate the COI IP editor: either a clue will be obtained, or a block will, I suspect. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Considerable efforts have been made to educate the appellant, and multiple blocks issued to socks and IPs she's used. This is a SPA who doesn't care about policies or guidelines, and will continue her attempts to restore the article regardless of how we handle this. Technically, the appellant is still banned, but since I'm involved, it would be improper for me to block the IP in the midst of a DRV against me. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) I totally understand your grievances with how I handled the AFD but I've never had one before and at the time, I didn't realise I was 'sockpuppeting' or what that even was. Therefore, I have informed you that there is now that there is a lot of credible references added to provide a good wikipedia entry which was the trigger for the afd to begin with and I am VERY happy to never EVER edit a wiki article again in my life, but as mentioned, I think it's extremely unfair that Shakir Pichler is punished for how I handled things. I honestly wasn't trying to deceive and I thought my role was to in fact argue and try to correct points of contention. And I honestly thought my user account was banned and not me personally, which was later explained. My heart was in the right place, just my skillset wasn't. Would be great if someone looked at the revision with the new links etc added just before afd closed and structured it better or allowed Shakir to find a good editor to take control of the page properly. I do apologise for my handling of the case but again Shakir Pichler shouldn't be punished for my mess-up. If any consolation, he has blocked me too! But Id like to make this right please as I feel terrible. 157.211.83.46 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse Redirect was a reasonable reading of that discussion if you ignore all of the involved editing, and while there's a chance he's notable there's nothing in the sources which makes me think redirecting this was a clear mistake. SportingFlyer T·C 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Speedy Endorse - The appellant admits that they are a blocked user. The close was reasonable, but we should not even be considering the close unless an appeal is made by a good-faith editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC) again, why should the subject suffer the actions of the original editor though? seems unfair. 157.211.83.46 (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 December 2024

Pump.fun – G4 overturned, page unsalted. Feel free to renominate at AfD. Owen× ☎ 16:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Pump.fun (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The article was deleted due to a lack of sufficient reliable sources. However, new independent and reliable sources have been identified that address notability concerns, including coverage in the Nytimes, Wired, Bloomberg, Gizmodo, and Yahoo Finance. These sources provide substantial and independent analysis of the platform, demonstrating its notability under WP:GNG. I believe the article can now be reinstated in compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiffre01 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Confirming I'm aware of this as the most recent deleter, and see prior discussion on my talk page at User talk:Pppery#pump.fun. I'm going to let other deletion review regulars comment before making a more substantive comment. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC) An assertion that "sources exist" without providing them is never enough to restore a page, but especially not for one deleted at AFD a week and a half ago. —Cryptic 20:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC) There were, admittedly, additional sources in the G4-ed versions that aren't in the deleted version. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC) I was taking them at their word here that there were "new" ones. Almost all of the ones in the recreation long predate the afd. —Cryptic 21:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (Original AfD nominator comment:) There are a couple of usable sources in the G4ed article, but there are also several sources that are being laundered through news aggregators. @Chiffre01: Just because something is syndicated by Yahoo! Finance or MSN does not make it more reliable; CoinDesk, CoinMarketCap, and Cryptopolitan are not usable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G4 and unsalt If there are new sources in a re-creation, it's not substantially identical to the deleted version. Now, if the same user keeps adding inadequate sourcing, that's a user conduct issue, and should be dealt with as such. G4 and Salt are blunt instruments best suited to when many people are trying to re-create and article. Having said that, I have no particular reason to think this will survive a new AfD, and would recommend it be worked on in draft space until everyone's satisfied about the sourcing. While that might not make everyone happy, it's better than out-of-process G4s or repeated AfDs, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Speedy Overturn G4. The deleting admin admitted there were new sources, therefore making the deleted version not sufficiently identical. I share Jclemens’ recommendation that this be moved to draftspace to allow interested users to improve the page to a point in which it would not be deleted via AFD again. Frank Anchor 02:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC) The temp undelete confirms that relevant content, in addition to sourcing, was added to this version, confirming that the G4 was inappropriate. Frank Anchor 15:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC) You (plural) are creating an absurd perverse incentive - deliberately don't include withold some of the sources you have found from the AfD so you can immediately recreate it and force it to go through the whole rigamarole again. We must not allow ourselves to be bound by that. (To be clear, I'm not accusing Chiffre01 of having done so, just pointing out that someone could). * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC) The solution to our admittedly informal 'rules' being subject to abuse by bad-faith actors is not to not follow the rules, but rather to note that bad faith application of any Wikipedia rule is a conduct issue, not one of content. We can argue that G4 should be changed, although I think it's fine the way it is, but to pretend that adding a new source isn't a substantial change to an article stretching definitions implausibly. Speedy deletions are to be uncontroversial; this one clearly was not. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC) What are the new sources? Given this area of the project is very disruptive, jumping to any sort of conclusion that a G4 should be overturned or that this should be unsalted feels plainly incorrect to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I've tempundeleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G4 - The version of the article that was deleted as G4 has information in the article body that was not in the article that was the subject of the AFD. The two versions of the article are not substantially identical. The differences are not just sources. The G4 nominator may nominate the new article for a second AFD, but it is entitled to a second AFD because it is not a repost. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I'm happy to re-create the article as a draft page/ Any thoughts? Chiffre01 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC) New coverage from 3 days ago Ca talk to me! 11:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Having reviewed the pre- and post- AfD versions, it's still a crystal clear delete/salt to me even if G4 is questionable. SportingFlyer T·C 19:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G4. Good for a new AfD.—Alalch E. 10:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Draft:Shay Albert Vidas – Deletion endorsed. There is not going to be a restoration of the draft to DRV starter's userspace, because they have been indefinitely blocked. (non-admin closure)—Alalch E. 05:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Shay Albert Vidas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I recently created a draft titled "Draft:Shay Albert Vidas," but it was deleted under G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). I understand Wikipedia’s concerns about promotional content and would like to request that the draft be restored to my user page so I can revise it. The draft was still in the draft stage and not yet published. I was working to present factual information about Shay Albert Vidas and his work in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Unfortunately, the deleting administrator, Bbb23, did not provide feedback on what was considered promotional, and I was not given the opportunity to revise the content. Additionally, I cannot contact Bbb23 directly because their talk page is restricted. I am also unable to post on the Administrators’ Noticeboard due to semi-protection and my account status. I have no way to resolve this issue without assistance. I am committed to addressing any issues raised and rewriting the draft to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability standards. I kindly request that the draft be restored to my user page for improvement. Thank you for your time and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayvidas (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse, having not seen the deleted draft, but trusting the judgment of Bbb23, and being familiar with autobiographies. The originator should be able to reconstruct what he wrote about his own career if he didn't keep a copy on his computer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse but it doesn't hurt for someone to email him the deleted content. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Egregious spam. Endorse and do not provide the deleted content, on the slim hope he'll have to pay someone to write it again if he wants to use it elsewhere. —Cryptic 10:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC) I suspect he did pay someone to write this. The standard of his English seems to vary from one contribution to another. Deb (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse and do not undelete. Vidas or his company may well be notable but nearly every single sentence of that article is unusable because it's 100% promotional (about the only one that would survive is the one about where and when he was born; even the sentence about his wife feels the need to eulogise her.) Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC) we are very known in israel, i can show you a lot of proof i'm not sure how to attach it, can i do another one, and you will tell me now if it will pass or not ? or adleast give me some info on What was wrong, so i will know to change it, i can do another draft and this time just tell me what to modify it ? would it be ok ? it's ok if it needs to be deleeted just to refrain from that happening again and again, can you look at a modified version i will write now and tell me what is wrong with it ? Shayvidas (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC) “I cannot contact Bbb23 directly because their talk page is restricted”. This is a failure of WP:ADMINACCT on the part of User:Bbb23. Userfy or email. User:Shayvidas, ensure that you have enabled email. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC) SmokeyJoe I'm not entirely sure what else Bbb23 is supposed to do when your talk page history includes 57 protection entries from 21 different admins and 118 removals of offensive material via revision-deletion. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Me either. Create a special mechanism to flag a desire to talk? Give the DRV applicant some benefit of the doubt? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC) It's a tricky one. I'm sure there's some cunning way of getting around it, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) No, it wasn't a tricky situation even before the editor became auto-confirmed. User:Bbb23 has email enabled. An admin who has semi-protected their talk page and has email enabled has made administrator accountability feasible. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Shayvidas has recreated Draft:Shay Albert Vidas. It is tagged as G11. I'll let another admin evaluate the tag. As an aside, the user is auto-confirmed and could have posted to my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC) the user is auto-confirmed and could have posted to my Talk page - that is incorrect. They are autoconfirmed now, but when they attempted to contact you, they had only 8 edits to their name - two edits short of the number needed for autoconfirmed. They made a genuine attempt to contact you, and when that failed - they tried to get help at the Help desk before bringing it here. Owen× ☎ 16:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC) I appreciate all the feedback and understand the concerns about promotional content in my draft. My aim is not to use Wikipedia for advertising but to provide factual information about my career and contributions to watchmaking i have no reason to lie to you, this is 100% true. I am committed to rewriting the draft to meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and notability. I would be grateful if specific examples of problematic content could be highlighted, so I can address them in a revised version.I dont want to be blocked, as i worked hours on all the text and I acknowledge past mistakes and am seeking guidance to ensure my next draft avoids similar issues can you please tell me what in my last draft was bad as in spacific sentences ?. I oppose providing any conflict of interest editor with specific examples of problematic content. They are asking us to do their work for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I also noticed suggestions about restoring the draft to my user page or emailing it for further revision. I would greatly appreciate this, as it would help me revise the content more effectively and align it with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you friends. --Shayvidas (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) I want to acknowledge Robert McClenon suggestion that I can rewrite the draft with a more neutral tone. I am more than willing to remove or rewrite any sections that were problematic. I didn't suggest that. I am often in favor of and never against rewriting promotional material with a more neutral tone, but I didn't make that suggestion. I said that the appellant should be able to reconstruct the draft without the need for undeletion. They should remember what their own career has been. If it really took them a long time to write a promotional autobiography, they just wasted a lot of their own time. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I did not suggest or advocate restoring the deleted draft. If they forgot to keep a copy of their work, we do not need to do their housekeeping for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I also want to address the point raised by User:Bbb23about contacting their Talk page. As Owen× correctly pointed out, I was not yet autoconfirmed at the time I attempted to reach out. I made a genuine attempt to resolve this issue and avoid any misunderstandings. If it’s possible, I would kindly request the restoration of the draft to my user page so I can make the necessary revisions based on the feedback provided. If this isn’t feasible, I would greatly appreciate detailed guidance on how I can approach a new draft that aligns with Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you again for your time and understanding. Endorse No LLM-generated deletion reviews. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC) i actually wrote it myself and it took quit a lot of time. and also talked to friends, revised it over and over and over again and it took hours. i can show proof if needed. Shayvidas (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC) We can easily tell that you wrote it yourself because it only concentrates on the good things about you and your company. That's not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If the friends to whom you showed it were familiar with Wikipedia, they would have been able to tell you that we don't accept promotional articles. Deb (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Comment - Appellant has been blocked. Closure seems in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 December 2024

Controversy over Baidu (closed)

Controversy over Baidu – Deletion overturned. I will send the page to draftspace (Draft:Controversy over Baidu) for the time being, as suggested by several editors below. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Controversy over Baidu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I am a course instructor supervising students writing and translating articles here for 10+ years and this is the first time I've seen a properly translated article (with references, interlanguage links, etc.) subject to speedy deletion (under strange rationale - G10, attack page). The page in question was just a translation of criticism of Chinese company Baidu from Chinese Wikipedia (zh:对百度的争议 - wikidata:Q10956638), perfectly normal for large companies - see Category:Criticisms of companies and articles like Criticism of Google or Criticism of Starbucks. It is simply the main article for the subsection present in our article at Baidu#Controversies. Now, the name should probably be Criticism of Baidu rather Controversy over Baidu (although we also have MSNBC controversies or Controversies of Nestlé - some name standardization of entries in this category may be in order...), but there is no good reason to speedy this. If someone dislikes the page, WP:AFD could be used, but I am pretty certain the article would be kept, per numerous precedents (dozens of articles in criticism of companies category). With all due respect, whoever speedy tagged it and deleted it needs a WP:TROUT and a refresher of policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Comment. Could the page be undeleted for non-admins to review? I don't see any reason that a page about controversies related to a company would automatically be considered an attack page, but I didn't see the content of this particular page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC) If an admin could either temp undelete this or confirm it's an attack page that doesn't require undeletion, that would be fantastic. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10 I don't need to see it, I've disagreed enough with Piotrus in deletion discussions over the years to know that he knows what is and isn't an attack page, so it can go to AfD if someone disagrees. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10 assuming good faith that it is a faithful translation of the Chinese page, this shouldnt have been speedily deleted. If there are other concerns, send it to AfD and let the community decide if it should have a place here. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Now that the page is visible, which it was not at the time of writing, I do not have to make assumptions about the content. I still stand by that this was not a G10 candidate. If there are notability concerns about the coverage of the controversies as a whole, send it to AfD, however, an overview a summary of controversies in a psuedo-list is a copyediting problem rather than a notability issue. The language used is strong and literal, however, that is inherited from the phrasing of the source language, and an artifact of it being a translation of another article. To me, this means draftify for further copyediting, but an attack page it is not. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse. After reviewing the deleted page, I completely understand the action of the deleting admin. The page is not like the other "Criticism of ____" pages mentioned by the appellant. It does not attempt to place these controversies in appropriate context or treat them encyclopedically. It's just a laundry list of negative content about the company, and it appears to be based on original research as the sources presented describe individual instances, not covering Baidu-related controversies as an overall topic. (As a translation, it has several significant defects as well.) I think there's probably some room for interpretation here; another admin might have reasonably decided this didn't meet the definition of an attack page, but given what's here (content that exists primarily to disparage...its subject) a G10 is definitely within discretion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC) This matches my thinking when I tagged the page for G10, including the "another admin might disagree" bit which is why I didn't use my own admin tools to push the delete button. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse I do think that was a G10 within discretion. There are also salvageable parts, so a draft might be a good idea if it's allowed, but it shouldn't be in mainspace as is. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse per Dclemens1971 comments above. The fact it is a translation from the Chinese WP is irrelevant, the existence of an article in another language WP is not a guarantee there should be a similar article in the English WP. --John B123 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse It sure looks like the only purpose of that page was to disparage its subject. --Here2rewrite (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Comment (nom). Having read the comments above, I am sure we can remove any parts that are based on weak sources/OR if such parts are tagged, and rewrite content that is not neutral if it is likewise tagged (and feel free to be WP:BOLD and nuke stuff). I don't think this is bad enough to be WP:TNTed, however, and the topic seems notable per coverage (ex. [19]) --Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Comment (nom). I've notified WP:CHINA and WP:COMPANIES about this discussion.--Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10. I don't think it was ready for mainspace, but I don't think this could reasonably be characterized as an attack page. The fact that it came through the translation process without sufficient encyclopedic context for EN readers is an important concern but doesn't make it speedy deletion material. I think draftification (or re-userfication) would have been a more appropriate remedy. As a professional translator and occasional Wikipedia translator, I think I understand what went sideways here. IMO Wikipedia translation is best approached as transcreation, and by the same token a faithful translation is mostly wasted effort; it's better to just use the source article as a jumping-off point so you can focus on the challenges of the target wiki-culture rather than on the challenges of the translation process. I am not here to cast aspersions on anyone who is willing to contribute such an enormous amount of necessary and important work. But much of the content of even the best translation, especially of a substantial article like this, will need to be removed or reworked before it can survive in mainspace on EN wiki. -- Visviva (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn speedy and send to AFD. It was not unreasonable to tag this for speedy deletion, or to action that tag. Absent context (and there was none provided in the article), it does seem to "exist primarily to disparage" and raises various other questions. But SD is for uncontroversial, clear deletions and this is not the case here. In particular, it seems there is content that is salvageable. So send it through normal processes to figure out what best to do. No trouting for anyone needed, just people acting reasonably (in creating, tagging, and deleting) and now needs sorting out. Martinp (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial and clear cases, which this is not. It can go to AFD if needed, but it is clear that the uncontroversialness criterion isn't met. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn speedy I can understand why it was deleted as a G10, but per Stifle, this isn't clear enough to be a speedy. It does lack needed nuance in places, but that's fixable. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10. This does not come off as "exclusively" an attack page. Individual sentences that come off as attacks can be removed via editing. Frank Anchor 17:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn. G10 doesn't exclusively cover BLPs, but the wording of WP:Attack page makes it pretty clear that they're the priority juridstiction for the criterion, implying that the bar should be very high for other pages to be deleted under it. This article is pretty bad (it's translated worse than Piotrius makes it out to be, and seems to include of WP:NOTNEWS content) but in terms of prose or sourcing or severity of allegations its no worse than other Criticism of <corp> pages. Mach61 00:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10, draftify. Seems more like NEGATIVESPIN than ATP. Rather more detail than seems necessary in many of the subheadings. The only bit that seems more like an attack that criticism of poor quality control is the final lvl2, ==Title==: there's already a critic quoted elsewhere in the prose referring to the company by the unkind pun 百毒; we could just explain it once and move on. Folly Mox (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10. I really don't see how this qualifies for WP:G10, which only applies when pages serve no other purpose than to disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity. And there is a purpose to that page—controversies surrounding a large company, like Baidu, may well be encyclopedic, just as we have Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Tesla, Inc.. The telos of this page is not to attack; even if it is a spinout of material that doesn't reflect well upon the subject, that doesn't ipso facto create an attack page when the primary aim of the page is to cover encyclopedic content. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10. It looks like WP:NEGATIVESPIN explicitly allows this kind of article. It also looks like, as Folly Mox pointed out, G10 is aimed mainly at BLPs. A lot of this article is cruft cited to social media with no lasting significance, and those parts should be removed, but the topic is clearly notable and appropriate for the encyclopedia. Toadspike [Talk] 21:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to know if the page can be reinstated as draft since new sources presented in the discussion were ignored. Svartner (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Endorse own close Just so we're on the same page here: This process is for contesting the closers' reading of the consensus of the discussion. It is not the closers responsibility to evaluate sources, but to gauge consensus, which I believe I did.

Your remark was there for a week without being replied to, so seemingly it was not found to be compelling by the other particpants.

Of the other comments in favor of keeping it, one made arguments not based in policy, one baldly stated that better sources exist and did not follow up on that when asked to, and one was self-identified as "weak".

Commenters supporting deleting or redirecting made more valid, policy-based arguments than those favoring keeping it, so deleting and redirecting seemed the most reasonable course of action. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

New sources were presented that were simply ignored. If the page was just redirected it could be improved in the future, but the deletion made no sense at all. And in this case, I'm just asking to make it a draft since I think it's possible to work on it in the coming months. It's quite reasonable. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you aren't asking that, as I tried to explain. You are asking to overturn the close. If you wanted it restored as a draft so you could work on it, you could've just asked me to do that for without opening a DRV and I would've done it, and none of this would be necessary. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• The AfD which runs a long time and where consensus is delete, but the very last vote is a keep !vote with sources, is always a bit difficult. At the same time there was also plenty of time to evaluate these sources, and no one bothered to. I think the close was generally fine, but the question is really whether the sources show that the consensus that GNG was not met was incorrect. These are foreign language searches about a topic I'm completely unfamiliar with, and one is paywalled, but I am not convinced this is a clear keep based on the three sources in the AfD. If it were up to me alone I'd endorse the close and draftify the page to allow more sources to be added, but I'm sure there will be others here more confident in their source analysis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  While this can be taken to a tendentious extreme, yes, a solid posting of additional sources invalidates all prior !votes on a notability basis, until and unless those editors come back to reiterate their !votes. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily agree with that - plenty of times at AfD you will see someone posting sources which don't actually meet GNG, and then you'd rely on the closer to make a source analysis, which could potentially lead to supervotes. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hence my saying solid posting, which I'm not saying this was. Some editors, Cunard and Daranios being two that come to my mind, will post what amounts to an annotated bibliography, including quotes and detailed rationales. In this case, these were untranslated bare links--a world of difference. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that the distinction you describe does exist. There was no depth to the final comments made by the appellant here, "here's some stuff I found" is not that compelling if you don't explain more clearly what it is. That fancy tool that generates an analysis table is pretty nice for this as well. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse the close, if this is an appeal of the close. The new sources were presented after two relists, and the closer had no obligation to relist a third time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Restore to Draft and allow review of draft. When the consensus at an AFD is Redirect, the article is usually Blanked and Redirected, so that the deleted article remains in the history. In this case, it was Deleted and Redirected. Is there a specific reason why it was deleted this time? I don't think that the appellant is making an unreasonable request to have the article restored in draft. They will be well advised to expand the article to summarize what the additional sources say. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Restore history to redirect, which would allow any user to create a draft from the prior version. The redirect close was correct, but I see no reason to have deleted the history as a blank and redirect would have had the same effect. None of the AFD participants made any objection to retaining page history (which is very common in a redirect and, in my opinion, the greatest benefit to having a redirect). Frank Anchor 05:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  We should really get rid of the delete-and-then-redirect as a common practice. It's great for copyvio, attack pages, or other abuse, but for run-of-the mill NN content, it's both overkill AND makes it more difficult for someone to come along and repair the deficiency later. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn to NC. Or relist. There's no good reason that after a relist, when the only editor commenting after the relist posts sources and opines keep, an admin should find a consensus to delete. Admins don't all have to defer to each other's relists, but that doesn't pass a sniff test. I've commented on other issues above, but that's the heart of the policy-based reason I find the close problematic. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse close which is consistent with the discussion. If we're going to raise issues not raised in the deletion discussion, then I will point out that this article and its companions are magnets for cross-wiki LTA. Simple wikipedia article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Spanish article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, French article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Afrikaans article created by a globally-locked sock puppet, etc. etc. All this talk about needing the page history: it's here, where it's been since the last deletion discussion. The content is insignificantly different from all the other times this content has been blanked, restored, deleted, recreated, redirected, and argued over. DrKay (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to Redirect without history deletion. There was no valid reason to delete the history, and indeed, none of the Redirect !voters suggested it. The Redirect !votes were for an alternative to deletion, not for a grave marker. If any revisions contain copyvio or attacks, those specific revs can be deleted. Owen× ☎ 11:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I felt the decision was spilt between those calling for redirecting and those calling for deletion, which is why I made the decision I did. It may not be what every other admin would have done in this case but I believe it was within the realm of admin discretion when determining consensus. I also really don't think using hyperbole like "grave marker" is helpful, or even makes sense in the case of a redirect, which is a more like a signpost if you want to use metaphors. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks to User:DrKay for providing a link to the deleted content. It seems that the deletion of the history by the closer didn't delete the history because there are two or more versions of the article with different linguistic forms of a preposition, a form of gaming a title. The appellant can copy the deleted article to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to Redirect without history deletion While a close of redirect was within the discretion of the closer, there was no reason given during the discussion that suggested the history was problematic. --Enos733 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse but restore to draft (or restore the history under the redirect, no preference). JSS' close was correct, but no reason not to allow requestor to try and improve this in draft space. That's why I lean that way vs. history restoration but either way fine. Star Mississippi 01:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC, or at any rate restore history, since there was plainly no support for the unusual step of delete-and-redirect. I am troubled by the closer's statement above that a lack of replies to a !vote indicates that the other participants did not find it persuasive. By that standard none of the delete !votes were persuasive either -- indeed even less so, since more time had passed. In this way and others, it seems clear that the closer took it upon themselves to pick away at the rationales for keeping without applying any comparable scrutiny, or apparently any scrutiny at all, to the rationales for deletion. Indeed the closer does not appear even to have weighed the rather obvious problem that the AFD nom failed to make a valid argument for deletion in the first place (improperly basing the claim of non-notability only on sources present in the article).
  But setting all those quibbles aside, even by the most favorable application of WP:DETCON, there was simply no consensus -- that is, reading the AFD discussion as favorably as possible to the close, the best that can be said is that both sides raised plausible arguments that were neither conclusively refuted nor found persuasive by their opponents. Looking at Svartner's sources I don't see anything that would justify rejecting them out of hand. (I can imagine that people with deeper knowledge of the subject matter might find reasons to do so, e.g. maybe these particular outlets are unreliable in this area, but nobody suggested that in the AFD.) IMO the best argument for deletion is the one raised above, that these articles are part of a larger program of promotional abuse, but that is not an argument that was raised in the discussion or considered in the close. -- Visviva (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I did not reject those sources out of hand. I didn't even look at them. That's not the closers job, I was there to read consensus, not sources. And the very first comment after the nomination does in fact mention the broader issues with this subject area, although it didn't seem to gain much traction. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Restore to draft, or (no objection to) restore history under redirect. We struggle with situations where a discussion sputters, then someone brings up potential sources, and .... crickets (i.e., silence). Did others evaluate the new sources and find them lacking? Or no one looked at them (since foreign language, or people were just tired of this discussion?). Layer on a topic area with history on wp, and I don't fault any decisions made. But sending to draft, as requested by appellant here, seems a sensible way forward. BTW, I agree with the commentary above that closers should be careful about delete-then-redirect closes. A preponderance of !votes arguing for either delete or redirect should not imply delete-and-redirect is necessarily the consensus outcome; it's quite possible many of the delete !votes merely mean "should not be a standalone article" and would not object to a redirect instead, exactly as the redirect !voters are saying. BTW, I know nothing about independence of various sources in Portuguese, but the sources provided at the end of the AFD seem not unreasonable. Martinp (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn I think NC and redirect were both valid outcomes based on the discussion. This was not. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Just to re-iterate what I've stated above, I was not asked to restore it as a draft before this drv was opened. If I had I would've done so. I'm pretty much always willing to do that, as are most admins, but drv shouldn't be the method for asking for it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the page should be restored to draft. The three sources presented by the appellant are weak, and likely won't survive AfC or a second AfD anyway. Your Redirect close was correct. It's the history deletion I and others here find questionable. Self-revert that deletion, and we can probably close this DRV with a broad endorsement. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not that I necessarily disagree but I'd rather let an uninvolved admin close in the usual manner. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. It was not unreasonable to find a rough consensus to delete, and the specific "delete and redirect" outcome is just "delete" with the deleting admin noting that they are also creating a redirect (which anyone else could do). "Delete and redirect" may look unusual, but that does not matter when it's really just a "delete" close. The real "redirect" outcome as an ATD was certainly an option but it was not a requirement; I particularly lean toward not seeing it as a requirement when a BLP is concerned, and in the AfD it was said that the content is weak due to poor sourcing and that there is recycled information from articles about other people, which really makes for something I'm fine not using an ATD on. The "new sources" are bad and I don't like the idea of a draft, as no amount of drafting can make a non-notable topic notable. Still, restore to draft, per the usual practice in this situation.—Alalch E. 02:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Despite DrKay's disturbing revelations about this subject on other wikis, no serious issues have been raised about this article in this discussion yet, so deleting and redirecting was highly inappropriate. I don't particularly care what happens in this case but I am shocked to hear from JSS that they deleted and redirected simply because a few people !voted delete and a few people !voted redirect. Unless a CSD applies, delete and redirect is never a valid alternative to deletion. Never! Toadspike [Talk] 21:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• My first choice would be to relist (even though third relists are frowned upon) and ping the previous !voters; I can't see a consensus to delete when unrebutted sources are on the table, but I'm not sure no consensus would be a fair closure in this situation either. At a minimum, though, overturn to redirect—deleting the history when no one has offered a reason why is neither policy-based nor a good idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. Deleting and redirecting is not unheard of, and especially for regular targets of aristocracy fans simple redirection just makes it easier for LTA accounts to recreate the article in the future while avoiding NPP. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • For the benefit of any would-be spammers reading, articles created from redirects do go back into the NPP queue—there's no getting around it quite that easily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. It is not the closer's fault that possibly relevant sources were offered too late in the discussion to sway consensus. The two other "keep" opinions offered no policy-based arguments, and none of the "redirect" opinions makes an argument for why the history should be retained. The "delete and redirect" closure therefore reflected rough consensus in the discussion. As ever, all are free to recreate the article if proper GNG-compliant sources are found. Sandstein 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not the job of the redirect voters to explain why the history should be retained, as that is standard practice for a redirect. However, as several people brought up already in the DRV, no voter brought up a valid reason to not retain the article history. Frank Anchor 18:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

8 November 2024

2024 Duki coal mine attack (closed)

2024 Duki coal mine attack – Closing early as the applicant has been blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet. Socks don't have standing at this venue. Per a couple of comments below, there is some level of support for allowing recreation as a draft (Draft:2024 Duki coal mine attack), and if any established good-faith editor wishes to do that, they can find the content of the article in the history behind the redirect. (non-admin closure) Daniel (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2024 Duki coal mine attack (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Firstly, AfD is not the right forum for MERGE or REDIRECT discussion. Let me also remind that it's WP:NOTAVOTE. Secondly, the over a dozen references within the article itself assert notability while fulfilling and meeting the WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:NEVENT which reads: "Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." Thirdly, at the expense of being called out for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'll still say that having articles on street brawl and stabbing incidents in the West but not one on a terrorist incident that occurred outside of an active warzone in the Global South is a pure example of WP:GEOBIAS. — Mister Banker (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Weak endorse Restore/allow recreation First, AfDs frequently result in outcomes that are short of deletion, such as merges or redirects. Second, I agree with you on the WP:GEOBIAS. However, I'm not voting to overturn for two reasons: first, consensus was generally against keeping by a 2:1 margin, and second, it's difficult to distinguish this from an event which doesn't qualify for its own page, because WP:LASTING was not clearly met. I don't think it's that far away from a keep, though, and it can be merged into the target article and spun off again if additional coverage is found. SportingFlyer T·C 00:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Where does it say that WP:LASTING is a mandatory criteria that must be met? — Mister Banker (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. "Enduring" is often the key word in deletion discussions for articles about temporal events. SportingFlyer T·C 18:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC) I've updated to "restore/allow recreation." There's nothing wrong with the AfD, but I'm satisfied there's been enough continued coverage that this no longer fails WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Endorse. AfD a poor forum for a merge discussion, but is not the wrong forum. AfD is the right forum on whether to turn a page into a redirect. Sources can assert notability but that notability, i.e. real-world notability, is not wiki-notability. There was a rough consensus to stop the article from being live, redirecting was a valid WP:ATD, and the closer noted that the content can be merged from history.—Alalch E. 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC) As far as the consensus is concerned, there were 4 Keep, 2 Merge and 2 Delete !votes (excluding the nominator) before @Liz: decided to re-list the AfD discussion for the second time on 28 October. So, there was a rough consensus to Keep the article at that point in time. — Mister Banker (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Youre actually admitting there was not consensus to keep at that point. This is based on numbers and not looking into the reasoning (since AFD is not a vote). Four keep !votes and five delete/WP:ATD !votes (including the nom) is not consensus. A relist at that point was a reasonable choice. Frank Anchor 13:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Endorse. It was a poor nomination, people should not go to AfD with a vague merge proposal. And doing so is usually a train wreck. However, in this case the discussion recovered and I agree that it is a consensus to redirect. AfD is not not good for merges, but is perfectly good with redirection. Elements in the discussion were strong on the points that the article should not continue, and that there is no great ongoing need to merge anything, as the content is already at the target. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Endorse. AfD is the perfect place for redirect discussions. For poorly sourced articles that have a natural redirect target, a redirect is the best outcome. Once you discard the VAGUEWAVE !votes in this AfD, the redirect result reflects consensus well. Owen× ☎ 11:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Care to clarify how the article was poorly sourced? — Mister Banker (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC) I would gladly do so if this were AfD. But this is DRV, where we are asked to review consensus among AfD participants, not to rerun the AfD. Owen× ☎ 07:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Endorse. Many of the keep !votes were weak while the redirect/merge !votes were more based in policy. Consensus to not keep appeared to form after the final relist. Frank Anchor 15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Question for User:Mister Banker - What is the right forum for redirect discussions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC) In my opinion, the article's talkpage. This attack has also received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, thus merits an article. (see: ANI, DAWN) — Mister Banker (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC) I personally think those articles clear the continued coverage issue, and would vote to restore. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Endorse - Nominator's statement Where does it say that WP:LASTING is a mandatory criteria that must be met[20] makes it clear to me that they do not understand that routine events like this do not have or get enduring coverage, AFD is often the venue where the consensus for merging/redirection emerges so the closer was correct in redirecting this article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC) Speedy Endorse - Appellant has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but ... Allow Submission of Draft by a good-standing editor for review, using additional sources listed above. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2024 (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
2024	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2023	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2022	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2021	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2020	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2019	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2018	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2015	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2013	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec