Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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

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


Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

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

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


Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2021 June 20}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2021 June 20}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2021 June 20|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Active discussions

20 June 2021

Nicolás Atanes

Article already deleted 6 times on WP: es. Tomaatje12 (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Nijat Rahimov (actor)

Nijat Rahimov (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I make this listing on behalf of User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman), who asked me to do so on my talk page; I expect that he did this because he needed support with the technical process of opening a DRV. The reasoning that Mr İman supplied was: says that the person is from the TOP-10 comedians of Azerbaijan. es-wiki, de-wiki, az-wiki, film-1, film-2, film-3, film-4, film-5, The Azerbaijani actor received the main role of a crime comedy.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Mr İman asserts on my talk page that he has already contacted the deleting sysop. There were in fact several deleting sysops, but I can see from User_talk:BD2412#Nijat_Rahimov_(actor) that he has indeed made a good faith attempt to speak to them.

Although I have opened this DRV, I take no position on it. Please would the closer assess my view as neutral. —S Marshall T/C 09:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Well, the first deletion (as a redirect from mainspace to draft) and third deletion (of an article containing only {{tempundelete}}) were of course correct. The only deletion of content was the second, Jeepday's G5.
    I don't see any allegation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sabuhiguseinov064/Archive that the creating user was banned before creating this article; but given that they'd created their supporting socks months before and could just as easily have been discovered and banned just before creating this article instead of just after, I find it difficult to have any sympathy. The article did a much worse job of explaining the subject's notability than Elşad İman does above anyway. —Cryptic 09:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
  • On my talk page, Mr İman requests a tempundelete.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@SportingFlyer, If the page was restored, I would make major changes and edit it. If I'm not mistaken, the restoration should have been done by one of the admins, I have no right to restore.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

17 June 2021


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

Subject is a well known former advisor to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and now a DC based political commentator on Fox News. Passes GNC.

Deletion seems to have happened immediately after the subject most recently appeared on the Tucker Carlson show discussing Joe Biden meeting the Queen in the UK. Therefore I imagine the deletion was something to do with him being on Fox News, rather than a legitimate reason for deletion. There was no discussion before deletion, the page was then salted, and "protected" to stop anyone from recreating it, which is madness and not how Wikipedia operates.

The fact that previous versions of the page and its sources cannot even be viewed anymore, means I do not see how we can have a fair and informed discussion about the legitimacy of this page.

The original page was well sourced with multiple links to reputable media articles about this subject including from The Times, The Telegraph and various others. The subject also makes regular appearances on Fox News, Sky News, BBC News and CNN, and there were multiple links to verify this.

He definitely passes the general notability guidelines. I understand the page was nominated for deletion in 2016, prior to his work with the Prime Minister. Now it doesn't make sense for him to not have a page, when he is clearly notable, whether you agree with him or not.

I also note the article included details about his previous career, he was a journalist at Sky News, again with multiple sourced articles and interviews focusing on him. He then advised multiple senior UK politicians, again well sourced, and there is a large amount of press around him being the first person in the UK to be tested for Covid-19 while he was working with the Prime Minister back in January 2020.

I call for the page to be reinstated and a nomination for deletion to be fairly debated, as is customary. T.corbett (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment @Ponyo: My apologies, I was not aware of the canvassing rule. I will remove. [[User talk:T.Corbett 1, 19.16 June 2021 (GMT)
  • Comment I also note the first article for deletion is from 2006 and referencing a different Craig Dillon - this subject is not a musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.corbett (talkcontribs) 18:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse an article on this person has been deleted at AfD three times now. Given that any attempt to recreate it should at least come with convincing evidence that the subject is notable. I've had a look at the last deleted version and I can't say I agree with the OP's claim that the subject clearly passes the GNG. The article was refbombed to try to shore up claims to notability. He is quoted or mentioned in numerous articles about how British politicans are using the internet, but they don't constitute significant coverage. Several sources are about a time he was interviewing a famous actor and the actor said something controversial. Several sources are about the fact that he was briefly quarantined in a hospital in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, but they just cover him as a normal person and scarcely mention any of the reasons this article claims he's well known. This source is a local UK newspaper talking about how a local teenager has got lots of views on YouTube. Hut 8.5 19:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: in my opinion, these edits are still canvassing, given the filer does not contact everyone who !voted 'delete' but only those who !voted 'keep'. Further, endorse deletion and salt as closer, deletion was fairly debated over the appropriate period (despite what the nominator appears to be suggesting in the final line of their statement above), and for not the first time this "fair debate" reached the same end outcome of 'delete'. Daniel (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse I wish the AfD had been better attended, but it seems to have come to the correct result. I would salt the article as well given the promotionalism, its number of times at AfD (even ignoring the first one), and canvassing. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn: I understand there have been a few Afd, however the last one was over 4 years ago, and the subject has clearly increased his notoriety in that time, for example, he is the entire subject of this article from The Telegraph ( about how he has been advising senior politicians including Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Here is another source for his recent appearance on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox News - As noted above, "He is quoted or mentioned in numerous articles about how British politicians are using the internet", with the majority of these articles being about him and his work advising these politicians. I think we are being misguided by some of his previous sources - the articles about YouTube and asking a question to Daniel Radcliffe. I agree these alone don't warrant a page, however given that he is regularly appearing on my TV, and with his past work advising Prime Minister Boris Johnson, we should have a page to document him. Maybe the case is that the article needed to be tidied up, but certainly not deleted and salted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by T.corbett (talkcontribs)
    • Because you're the nominator, our convention is that you don't get a !vote as well. I've struck the "overturn" but left your reasoning.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 10:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't disagree with most of my colleagues above about this person's notability as an individual, but I would note that I think there is an encyclopaedic article to be written about the eclectic and motley colletion of individuals who have the honour or disgrace (depending on your point of view) to have been Boris Johnson's advisers. Dominic Cummings,Alex Allan and Jonathan Jones are independently notable, but there will be scope for an article that covers Jayne Ozanne, James Morton, Ellen Murray, and Samuel Kasumu. You could make an arguable case for covering Craig Dillon there.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • There's a good merge availabel to his firm, Westminster Digital., which is ever weaker than this--or if this should be kept, vice versa. . The two put together might make an article. I dont wsee how the articles uggested ksu above could possible avoid POV/ DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It's certainly true that each of the sources has a political point of view. But NPOV explains how to construct neutral articles from biased sources in its first sentence.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse:
      • The close of AFD 5, which is what is being appealed, was a good close, with no error by the closer.
      • Is the rule against canvassing sufficiently well-known, or do we need to publicize it more?
      • The decision by the closer to Salt after very limited discussion on AFD 5 is supported by the previous discussions, including previous recommendations to Salt.
      • The title has not been salted in draft space, so a draft can be reviewed, and the salt dissolved if appropriate.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

16 June 2021


Draft:VSPN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The texts are backed with notable resources and citations. The content is not promotional and states merely facts. I doubt people are casually deleting pages and it definitely hurts the environment. Please bring the article back, thanks. Crazyharlem (talk) 03:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse if you genuinely don't think that was promotional then I suspect you may be too close to the subject to see the article objectively. I might as well have been reading the company website. Hut 8.5 07:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse having not seen the deleted draft, but having seen that multiple editors said that it was promotional, and having not seen a reply to the question about conflict of interest, and noting, as is noted elsewhere in DRV, that promotional material is deleted regardless of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

15 June 2021


Solita_(company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
A week ago I created an article about Solita company and it was speedy deleted on the same day. See an early version of the article on my sandbox. The article was deleted because of "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion". The documentation says that "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So even though some editors think the article was promotional it should not have been deleted as the subject is notable. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There were 42 references on the article and only 2 of them were company internal. On my talk page I asked two active Finnish editors, DoubleGrazing & Finnusertop, to comment my referencing and it seems to be ok. There's also a Wikipedia article about the company in Finnish, started on 2010. I've asked both the SD nominator and SD moderator to comment their decision (Athaenara[36] and GermanKity [37]) but as they've not answered I'm bringing the case forward. Jjanhone (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Move sandbox version to mainspace, but stub and possibly send to AfD or incubate in Draft. While some of the writing isn't encyclopedic Solita’s company cultures highlights the company values, people-oriented approach, and self-management. For example, Solita has hired a coach to not only coach individuals and teams but also to develop and promote culture and management. there's a sandbox version that isn't as clear-cut a G11 as the article that was G11ed. The article as it existed for the tag was in no shape for mainspace: company culture, for example, is entirely unencyclopedic. Star Mississippi 14:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse it is not true that having a notable subject exempts an article from G11. G11 does say that if an article can be improved through editing (short of a complete rewrite) then that should be done instead of deletion, but that's not the same thing. If a promotional article on a notable topic would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic then the article is a G11 candidate. This article was promotional and would have needed major surgery to make it neutral. The sources cited don't affect whether something is neutral or not. I'd be happy to support it being moved to a draft version for improvement but I don't think it's suitable for mainspace. Hut 8.5 17:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the speedy deletion. I don't know if the sandbox version is the same as the deleted article or an effort to neutralize the deleted article, but it is blatantly non-neutral. The Company Culture section is marketing buzzspeak, which is one of the two quick ways to get me to tag an article for G11. (I won't say what the other is.) I wouldn't have tagged the sandbox for G11, but I would have rejected it. The admin was justified in deleting it if it was as spammy as the sandbox or worse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment (and thanks for asking): this is a situation frequently seen, where a paid advocate claims that their client is an important company, and yet no one who isn't paid by that company to do so has written an article about it on Wikipedia. The sandbox is no better. – Athaenara 04:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Reads like a pamphlet in the firm's waiting room. Yes it might be replaceable with NPOV text, but just finding out will take hours of volunteer time checking through sources in Finnish. The creator has a history of claiming significant coverage that completely evaporates when someone who hasn't been paid to find it looks more closely. She can't keep expecting others to clean up after her just so that she can collect her commission. – Joe (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • That's a brochure or prospectus, not an encyclopaedia article. It focuses on developing IT services, e-services and knowledge management solutions... I mean, it literally reads like its content has been agreed with marketing.—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I had worked on the article after I saved the version for myself so I'd like to get access to the latest version so I could continue working on that on a Draft space (?) paying attention to your comments. Jjanhone (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    WP:REFUND provides encyclopaedic refuse management solutions. – Joe (talk) 12:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks Joe! As I've already started this process, should I wait for 6 days more to get a decision? Jjanhone (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If the mainspace version is anything like the sandbox version, that's a clear G11. I don't mind restoring the content to draft space as it's possibly notable, but I agree it needs a lot of work to become neutral. SportingFlyer T·C 12:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Notability does not override WP:G11. If the overly promotional article needs a fundamental rewrite to function as a neutral article, then deletion is necessary. --MuZemike 16:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Edit history temporarily undeletedfor the purposes of deletion review}} DGG' ( talk ) 23:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

14 June 2021


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

The result of the discussion was "speedy keep" yet the sources and the article itself was never paid attention to. The discussion should have carried out till due time. Looking at the history of the article, somehow at times saved by only removing tags/promoting, instead of looking at the issues that the article faces. These links are broken and promotional: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Wordpress link: 10. Black-listed links: 11 12. Press release: 13. Not only are the references not reliable and the page poorly written, but the votes for "keep"; no reasonable logic was provided. Would request someone to actually pay attention. The article should be deleted. A few Turkish links, do not make the article notable, the article does not fall under WP:NOTE; I think it falls under WP:G11. Nudgepath (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I suggest you just renominate it. It was nominated by a now-blocked sockpuppet who didn't exactly articulate a valid reason for deleting it. If you nominate it with a coherent rationale for deletion then it will get a proper discussion. Hut 8.5 19:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above, feel free to renominate it without prejudice as sockpuppets have no standing to start or engage in deletion discussions. Having said that, addressing the 'Keep' rationales from that AfD proactively may strengthen your case. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with that close and no problem with a speedy renomination, and am happy that consensus for a renom is being discussed at DRV to prevent any downstream issues. SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse I actually have taken a look at the sources in the article and made search on Google (kinda ironic) and ignored the ones connected to Geliyoo (Forum.geliyoo, geliyoobilisim etc.) and promotional pieces. What I'm left with is this: criticism from Yeni Şafak, report by Milliyet, report from Sputnik about the search engine using data from Google, report from Cumhuriyet, report from Hürriyet, report from Sabah. Not all of them are related to its opening: Geliyoo has been involved in some controversy and there are also sources about that. I still think there are enough sources to warrant notability. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 11:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Nana April Jun

Nana April Jun (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The artist is released by one of the most influential publishers of the sound art genre (Touch). The artist albums has been reviewed in over 50 different magazines worldwide, as well as been performed on noteworthy genre specific festivals around the world. Here are a large collection of reviews on the publishers web site: (talk) 07:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This article was deleted almost a year ago. If you can overcome the reasons for deletion, such as by presenting citations of reliable sources that prove the artist is notable, then you can look to recreate the article.
    To set that ball rolling, please provide the best three sources which cover this musician. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - This appears to be one of those point 3 requests, where there is new information, in that time has passed and the artist may now be notable. The can't-be-wrong course is to submit a draft for review via AFC. You can alternatively create the article in article space. The disadvantage to creating it in article space is that a reviewer might tag it for G4, and the G4 should be declined by the admin (who can compare the deleted article and the article), which is an annoyance that can be avoided by submitting a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 10:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the deletion, but I do not mind if the content gets restored to draft space for more reviews to be added. I do not think notability has been so clearly demonstrated to restore it directly to mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 12:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • endorse and allow recreation sources described on the publisher's website seem well over the WP:N bar. But we'd need cites to the actual sources in the article. Deletion at the time seems correct. I see no reason to requite a stop through draft space. Hobit (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse and allow recreation (or, can we clear up DRVPURPOSE, please?) per what Hobit said. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the close and the opinions of the Delete !voters, having seen the deleted article. The proponent will need to submit something better if they want a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Properly deleted. The sources in the deleted article appear useless. Encourage the IP to edit existing pages and get some experience first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

13 June 2021


BADVOID (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page has been updated and meets criteria to be a page, following previous deletion logs that are stated here:, you can see that at this time the article was clearly not ready to be made, however after the artist Notorious Chris changed to "BADVOID", you can see in this draft for example ( that the article is ready to be moved into mainspace so this can be built. The coverage of this artist is no longer on a local scale but now on a global scale, just by a simple google search of the artist "BADVOID" you can find over 50+ highly reliable and reputable sources. BADVOID meets multiple criteria for Wikipedia notablity including: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. 5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable. 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. 12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. (

Therefore all reason outlined that got the article deleted in the first place has been fixed and has been over the course of a few years now. GenesisGSE (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The new article that is proposed in draft, is not similar at all in any way to the previously deleted versions of the BADVOID / Notorious CHRIS article so it is not a copy of the old article but it is a new written draft on the artist, including all new sources that are independent, respected and reliable. This show's all previous concerns of deletion has been fixed GenesisGSE (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I've looked at the article and am treating it like I would review a draft at our Articles for Creation - since there are a number of sources which all look specific to the music industry, which three or four sources do you think best demonstrate notability? (I'm not sure a Central Queensland local news story counts for #12, unfortunately.) SportingFlyer T·C 14:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Since WP:MUSIC states "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria", this draft article appears to meet multiple criteria stated by WP:Music. In terms of sources I think I would say these 4/5 [1] , [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , I would say all articles on the draft demonstrate notability as it is but I think those 5 may be the best. SportingFlyer GenesisGSE (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Both record labels recently released on also meets WP:Music 5. (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable). As the roster has a highly successful list of top tier electronic music producers with multiple artists on each roster having their own Wikipedia page [6] , [7] , Borgore's record label Buygore & Yellow Claw's (DJs) record label Barong Family SportingFlyer GenesisGSE (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • At least one of those is a sponsored post (disclosed by the publication), and I'm not certain how many of those sources you presented are reliable per our guidelines unfortunately, several at least look like self published blogs. I would not pass this if I saw this at articles for creation, but I would not decline it either. SportingFlyer T·C 08:03, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If you look at the likes of these [8] , [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , [13] , they are all highly reputable, independent & notable sources of the artist. I did not realise that one source you noted was a sponsored post but if you look at all the sources listed on the draft page for example ( at least 20+ of these are high reputable sources that meet the guidlines. This artist also meets more than one criteria for WP:MUSIC. Including WPMUSIC: 1, 5, 11 and arguably 12 (being featured on Australia's number one news broadcast Seven News [14]

SportingFlyer GenesisGSE (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Again, these are all industry publications, some are clearly sponsored, and the Seven News broadcast was regional. He may very well be notable based on these sources, but to me he's not clearly notable, since I'm not sure which industry sources are reliable and which aren't, and I have nothing more to add here. SportingFlyer T·C 09:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for replying and also your feedback SportingFlyer, I could only see one sponsored post that was brought to my attention from you but yes I agree with you in some aspects, the reputation of these sources may be unknown to someone who is not actively engaged in the music side of Wiki. GenesisGSE (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm on the fence on this one. Looking at the article I don't see too much difference between this version and the earlier deleted ones, and A7/G4 deletion has been a constant issue here. In the spirit of AGF, I suppose we owe it to the article to try again, however I am uncertain if enough has changed between then and now to persuade the community to try again. On a related matter, in the event that the discussion comes own in favor of overturning and recreating the article, it should be noted that there are two other pages under which the artist's article was (re)created that were administratively locked and they should be released for redirection to wherever the article is to go (BADVOID I think?) so as to maintain consistency. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • thank you TomStar81 , I feel if the draft was to be changed much more it would completely strip the draft of any reputable information, however if the decision does get overturned the article would go to BADVOID. GenesisGSE (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, so I took ten minutes to look at it. I began with the credible claim of significance, and yes, there is one: He rose to fame in 2020 with the release of "I Would Never", featuring Myanmar based producer "Jerry Jay". The source is here, and the problems with it are (1) it doesn't say he rose to fame, and (2) this is a source that charges people to promote their music (here). I could literally write a track myself on my computer, pay my subscription, and get a rave review from this source. I'm afraid I have not bothered to check any further. Leave as draft until this article consists only and entirely of statements that I can verify from properly independent sources.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I feel a minute read wont do it justice? If you have not bothered to check any further how can you discredit any further references? although the website "EDMSauce" say's they do sponsored posts (which I was unaware of), the article on EDMSauce does not state anywhere that it is a sponsored post which im sure it would if it was? Even if we are to remove this article/source from consideration, if you look at the two other articles on this song alone and do some research you will know these are two of the highest reputable sources in dance music today coming from highly respected writers with a portfolio that stretches back. [15][16] Not disagreeing with you on your whole statement but I feel a thorough read is at least needed before making your mind up User:S Marshall GenesisGSE (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I updated the draft and removed He rose to fame in 2020 with the release of "I Would Never", featuring Myanmar based producer "Jerry Jay". The draft now states He first gained international recognition in 2020 with the release of "I Would Never", featuring Myanmar based producer "Jerry Jay"., This cant be argued with multiple international sources on the song "I Would Never" alone. User:S Marshall GenesisGSE (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Promotional content on Wikipedia is being written so prolifically that we've learned to be efficient and effective in how we deal with it. This is why editors get as far as the first unsupported statement or the first blatantly unreliable source and then stop: volunteer time is our only scarce resource, and we do not have enough of it to give promotional content the "thorough read" that you request. You have not even removed the unreliable source that I mentioned, let alone taken the time to run the article through a spellchecker, so I shan't spend any further time on it.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • S Marshall's approach is as charitable as you're going to get, and rightfully so. GenesisGSE If you're going to clean up the article for someone else to take a look at it, really clean it up, don't wait for the next volunteer to find the next egregiously inappropriate statement, fix it so the next editor finds nothing objectionable about it at all. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • My apologies to User:S Marshall & Jclemens, I did not mean to come off rude when posting that, I will have the draft fixed up in the next 24 hours, once again I'm sorry for that! GenesisGSE (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Draft has been updated, all the sources should be good now. GenesisGSE (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It's certainly less bad. It now says that he "gained international recognition" based on this source; my problems with that are (1) the source doesn't say he gained international recognition, and (2) someone has added the title parameter to {{cite web}}, saying title=These Two Rising Artists Just Put Out A Massive Banger On Barong Family's New Compilation, when that's not the title and doesn't have anything to do with the content. In my opinion this draft, while improved, does still misrepresent the sources for promotional reasons.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • In terms of the first issue, that will be removed and for the second issue, I used Wiki's visual editor to add that source, when I added the link it automatically put that title in so my guess is that was the original title for the article? Im not sure, however I will fix that up now as well. User:S Marshall GenesisGSE (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notorious CHRIS (2nd nomination) to delete. It is not the role of DRV to judge a new draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with this discussion taking place here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes there is. DRV doesn’t approve drafts, and if he boldly re-creates, DRV doesn’t AfD-proof it. This is just forum creep. It could just as easily been at WT:AfC. This is typical of a new account and the poor DRV instructions that you’re soft protecting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
First, the title is salted. Second, the page has been recently deleted, and restoring may be controversial. Those are two excellent reasons why this is a good forum for this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 13:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the WP:SALT. The draft is referenced bombed, and the first three sources are not independent, and so I personally do not accept the draft. However, the draft overcomes G4, and looks worth a debate at AfD, so I support deSALTing. Desalt. Allow any editor to mainspace the draft, and for it to be AfD-ed, but advise the proponent to follow the advice at WP:THREE SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
This draft is a hard case. The subject is probably notable, but not surely. There is a huge amount of promotion at play, and it is hard to find independent comment amongst the non independent comment. DRV is not the right place to do source analysis, even though we sometimes do. Maybe if WP:THREE sources were presented, but they have not been, and the draft is littered with non independent sources. Short of de-SALTing, DRV should not be perceivable as the gatekeeper for acceptance of the draft. The details of sources should be discussed on the draft talk page. I recommend use of the table at WP:SIRS. The subject is promoting and for profit, and should be held to WP:CORP standards of sourcing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent discussions

12 June 2021

Sacred Microdistillery

Sacred Microdistillery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 2#Sacred Microdistillery. I discussed the "No consensus to take any action" close with Sandstein. I am creating a more succinct deletion review after Sandstein wrote "there was not so much disagreement as general confusion as to what happened and why - perhaps also because of your walls of text".

In 2010, Sacred Microdistillery was restored at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 20#Sacred microdistillery. Since deletion review concluded that a previous version of the article did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, Deb's 2021 speedy deletion under WP:G11 was incorrect.

Deb restored one revision of the deleted article to draft. I used that revision as the basis to add more sources to establish notability before restoring the article to mainspace at Sacred Spirits. The other revisions of Sacred Microdistillery, which have contributions by other editors, remain deleted. The current state violates Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Overturn the speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - I doubt that anyone can be expected to make a judgement call on this without reading the previous discussion. Deb (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Which really isn't that big of an issue, either - per my comments in that discussion, what we really need is for an uninvolved admin or two to come in and take a look at the history. SportingFlyer T·C 16:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Undelete the history, unless there is a clear precise reason not to. If any editor authoring Sacred Microdistillery even read the old article, then every author of the old article should be in the attribution history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • According to the original DRV, there are G11 issues. Unfortunately, this is not a straightforward request. SportingFlyer T·C 14:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that we have a non-G11 article in place now, why would having G11 revisions in the history pose a problem such that we would want to keep those revisions deleted? G10 or G12 I could understand, but I'm not feeling the insurmountable tragedy if an old G11 revision exists in history. Am I missing something? Jclemens (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Apologies, the history of this thing along with the request is actually rather confusing especially to someone like myself who can't view exactly what the heck happened here. I don't really have any issue with restoring G11'd material to an article history - my concern comes from the fact this was deleted twice, DRV'd, et cetera, and wanting to make sure this isn't a request to undelete material which should remain deleted and providing copyright attribution through a dummy edit. Though since another uninvolved editor has tagged with this an advertisement tag in the meantime and NORG may not be met, maybe we should just see if it survives a fresh AfD? SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • No one has explained why the article reads like an advertisement or is non-notable. I do not think the article reads like an advertisement. I do not think the article has notability concerns. I provided a list of three book sources at the previous deletion review that strongly establish notability. Notability concerns can be discussed at AfD. Advertisement concerns can be discussed on the article's talk page and through regular editing of the article. This DRV should be focused on evaluating whether the speedy deletion under WP:G11 was correct. My view is that it is incorrect because the deleted revisions were not "exclusively promotional" and did not "need to be fundamentally rewritten", and a 2010 deletion review concluded that a previous version of the article did not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Cunard (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps I should clarify how I see the course of events:
  1. I deleted the article as G11, and I don't accept that there was anything wrong with that deletion.
  2. Cunard asked about the version he had produced in 2010 and questioned whether it was promotional.
  3. I checked the 2010 version - the only half-decent version I could find, and restored this version only to draft, in order that he could look at it and see if he could find material in it that could be used as a basis for a new article.
  4. Cunard made some amendments and moved the draft to article space, something I would not have done under the circumstances (the article having been created several times under different names and been the subject of deletion discussions).
I believe two things are being confused here:
  • Whether the article met the criteria for G11. This is where "deletion review" comes in. If the article didn't meet the criteria, then all versions subsequent to 2010 should also be restored, though presumably the later, more promotional versions would then be reverted.
  • Whether all versions that preceded Cunard's 2010 version should be restored. This is actually a request to restore other articles that were deleted, one as a result of this deletion discussion, a deletion that was later endorsed, and Sacred microdistillery, which was deleted in 2010 by User:Accounting4Taste with the summary "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion", referring to that same discussion. Deb (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
We don’t need to call the G11 incorrect to call for undeletion. G11, like most speedy criteria, is for things for which there is no conceivable discussion. Now that someone wants to discuss it, undelete it and allow the discussion, at AfD if someone thinks deletion is required. Cunard are more than good enough standing to be given this undeletion on request. It should be granted near automatically, and followed up by AfD or WP:REVDEL if required.
It just so happens to be now at AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Spirits. Let it all play out there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

10 June 2021

Christian Saunders

Christian Saunders (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The nomination argument was Gets some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Five editors participated in the discussion. Two !voted delete. Three !voted keep, two of whom said there was enough coverage to pass WP:GNG (this gentleman, incidentally, headed a major organ of the UN and has been described in one article cited on the page as one of the most senior British officials of the UN). The closer, however, went with "delete", with the comment The "keep" opinions are weaker because they do not address the sourcing problems. But they did. It is an opinion that sourcing is not sufficient; it is an opinion that it is. There was no reason to give less weight to the arguments of the keep !voters, who were in the majority, given they had addressed the concerns of the nominator (and did not agree with them). With all due respect to the closer, this appears to be a supervote. It should have been a no consensus at worst, a keep at best. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Endorse I think that was a reasonable close. The Keep comments focused on him being notable by virtue of holding certain positions. Two of them mentioned the GNG but they didn't provide any supporting evidence or argument ("Clearly enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG" and "Easily gets enough coverage in reliable independent sources to pass WP:GNG"). The debate was relisted with a request for the Keep side to point to specific sources, nobody did. And the OP seems to be ignoring the nominator in concluding the Keep side were in the majority (the debate was tied). Nor is it exactly obvious that the GNG is met based on the sources in the article. While the article did cite plenty of sources, almost all of them were published by the United Nations and therefore aren't independent. The only ones which don't originate with some part of the UN are [38] (doesn't mention him) and [39]. I'm not surprised the participants didn't think those constituted significant coverage. Hut 8.5 12:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn Yet another Sandstein supervote. It's not the closer's job to frame the debate, decide what issues are or are not vital and then make a casting vote. The !voters were reasonably experienced and knowledgable editors and the purpose of the close is to establish whether the particpants arrived at a consensus or not. In this case, they did not and so the correct close is therefore no consensus or a relisting to get further input. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm clearly involved (and had I participated later in the discussion, probably would have made a more substantial argument to !delete, since I thought this was a pretty easy call) but considering the relist came with the note "are there any sources which show the GNG is met?", the delete !vote after that didn't think so, and the final keep !vote just made another "must be notable" argument, I don't think this was an unreasonable close - and I also think it's the correct result, based on the sources I've been able to identify. SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As closer, I stand by my assessment and refer to my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Saunders. Sandstein 19:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse one side making vague waves that the person must be notable and the sources meet the GNG without any description of how they do, on the other you have claims that the sources aren't upto the requirements of the GNG as being passing mentions. Given the keep opinions stated there was "easily enough coverage" and "clearly enough" I would seem absolutely trivial to refute the delete arguments so I don't see that a fault of the close that they didn't (particularly in light of the relist comment). Delete opinions cannot prove the negative (sources absolutely don't exist), keep opinions on the other hand can demonstrate the positive by citing those sources and how they meet the requirements of GNG. -- (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse The Keep !votes largely amounted to "he's a notable aid worker" which is not a qualification listed in the subject-specific notability guidelines. The Delete !votes were "does not pass GNG" which describes a WP policy or guideline. (Two Keep !votes referred to the GNG and suggested a multitude of sources existed, but didn't demonstrate such; the existence of sources must be demonstrated, not merely declared. Meanwhile, extant sources were rebutted by Delete !votes by pointing to WP:SIGCOV without challenge or surrebuttal by the Keep !voters.) Because "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (WP:CON), the close delete was an accurate application of our consensus-determining policy by weighting several quality arguments against several non-quality arguments. Chetsford (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to No Consensus or to Relist - The error by the closer was in stating that the Keep entries had not addressed sourcing, but one of the Keeps had referred to sourcing, and had been made before the Relisting admin requested more input on sourcing. The closer should either have said that there was no consensus, or relisted again. Relisting again would have been the best option, but we do not ask whether the closer chose the best option, only a reasonable one. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    The close states "do not address the sourcing problems" not just sourcing. None of the comments address the issue of depth raised by the nominator, none of them address that other than assertion about quantity - no mention of suitable depth. -- (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC or relist per Robert McClenon. It's one thing to evaluate which !votes are policy based and which are not--that's a closer's job. It's something else entirely to judge the strength of opposite policy-based arguments. This would have been a perfectly fine relist or a textbook no consensus, but I agree--there should not have been enough difference accorded the !votes to swing this one to either a keep or a delete. Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse as within discretion but I would have preferred no consensus. Worthwhile discussion now at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2021/June#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Saunders. Nomination: inadequate sources; keep adequate sources; delete inadequate sources with reason given for one source (the rest?); keep adequate sources; delete inadequate sources; keep topic important. I am unhappy when people !voting keep are expected to point to or demonstrate the sufficiency of sources when those !voting delete are not expected to itemise why none of the sources are adequate. I would let both sides take their individual subjective opinions and so would have closed no consensus. However I think closers should be entitled to take a sterner line. I have not seen the article (and I don't think I need to). Thincat (talk) 07:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • My view of this discussion changes depending on the height from which I look at it.
Seeing it from ground level, I note that the keep side of the debate made assertions about sources, whereas the delete side of the debate gave an analysis of the sources. With all due respect for Necrothesp's nomination statement, if there was a Masloe's Pyramid of AfD Arguments, the delete side would be higher up the pyramid. If more closers took the kind of view that Sandstein did there, then the quality of AfD would be improved.
Looking down on it from 5,000 feet up, it looks a bit different to me. By a strict application of our rules, we're not allowed to delete articles about people who once played professional-level cricket for 15 minutes in 1973. We're not allowed to delete articles about townships in Where the Hick, Idaho (pop. 80), or articles about individual episodes of Star Trek, or that article about the precognitive octopus. But the strict and careful application of our rules does require us to delete an article about this accomplished and successful man who rose to the top of his profession and whose decisions profoundly affected the lives of many.
Looking at it from 30,000 feet, I find that I would be unable to explain to a non-Wikipedian why we had to delete this article without making our rules sound pretty badly thought out.—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't really agree with your conclusion. It's really not that hard to be eligible for a Wikipedia article, but the guidelines don't include being accomplished and successful. SportingFlyer T·C 09:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
But our guidelines advise us to allow for exceptions and use common sense. And our WP:NOTBUREAU policy (what a terrible shortcut) tells us no policies or guidelines should prevent us from improving the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Common sense dictates that if you can't use reliable secondary sources to source an article, especially a BLP, then they shouldn't be eligible for an article. As soon as we start chipping away at that, we get into WP:ILIKEITisms and value judgements. SportingFlyer T·C 09:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
And that's my exact position. This outcome is in accordance with the rules, and I don't like it.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Then I can't say much more apart from cricketers who spend 15 minutes on a pitch are actually allowed to be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 14:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
I have occasionally mentioned the concept of Wikipedia notability to non-Wikipedians, and they do usually appreciate the principle of "you're notable if people have written about you". In an ideal world there would be as many people writing about a senior UN aid worker as a Star Trek episode or an octopus predicting football matches, but that's a defect with the world in general, not just Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 16:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 10:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I should have asked to see the article (but I was assessing the AFD not the article). At the AfD no one mentioned reliable sources. It was entirely about significant coverage, even the close. Thincat (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
For deletion, a strong argument would have been that our verifiability and BLP policies require reliable sources and without these no substantial material remains. Why were we wasting our time on notability? Thincat (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • (involved) Comment The closer here presumed assertions of a lack of notability to be correct, while assertions of notability were denied ... at the very least the closer in justifying delete needed to provide analysis of *why* they presumed assertions of a lack of notability to be correct; as such, I concur with the nomination, the closure is a supervote and not an assessment of the discussion. I also respond to SportingFlyer's characterisation of my !vote as "another "must be notable" argument" ... I think a good faith assumption here would be that we're all capable of making qualitative judgments on a case by case basis regarding inherent notability (which is what I was calling for) and this case is a particularly useful demonstration of the peril in applying black letter law to the GNG. It's not as if we're discussing Bjarni Prior, the Mayor of Vágar and former B36 Tórshavn player. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse but allow recreation as draft with better sourcing. Arguments for keeping seem primarily based on the presumption of sources existing, which can only go so far when sources aren't really provided. This can (and should) be recreated if someone turns up these presumed sources. Hog Farm Talk 16:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As a delete !voter in the discussion, I completely support this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2019_in_the_United_Nations#November per WP:ATD-R. Not meeting the GNG does not mean deletion if there is a redirect target. Undelete the history. Consensus in the AfD was that the existing sourcing did not support a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    The 1973 15 minute pitcher should be redirected too, to the team, or the list of players in the season. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    I wouldn't call bowlers pitchers, you'll trigger the cricket nuts. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Keep votes amounted to "there are definitely sources go find them and use common sense". That's not how things work round here. No objection to redirection, or to recreation as draft, or to restoring if someone actually provides the sources rather than hand-waving. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • No they didn't. They said "there are enough sources in the article already". Completely different thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

9 June 2021


Draft:Sourav_Paul_Datta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) ([[<XFD PAGE NAME>|XfD]]|restore)

This page is deleted and moved to draft though citations are added from trusted sources. I can see there are enough citations added. There are other pages with similar citations and from similar sources. Even less citations. please clarify. It is deleted by Nomadicghumakkad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilian98 (talkcontribs) 16:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Moving a page to draft space isn't a deletion and was done instead of sending the page to a deletion discussion, where it's likely to be deleted based on the state it's in. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Out of scope. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, you have the ability to object to the deletion by simply moving the article back to mainspace. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - As User:SportingFlyer and User:Extraordinary Writ have said, a draftification is not a deletion. The appellant can contest the draftification by moving the page back to article space, but if they do that, an AFD is probable. I suggest that they improve the draft first. The subject likely is notable, but the draft in its current state does not speak for itself. I would Endorse the draftification if this were an appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment looking at the draft the sources are pretty inadequate since they seem to only be mentions, so say nothing substantial about the topic of the article. The WP:OTHERSTUFF argument wouldn't sway a deletion discussion should it occur. To echo the above sending to draft isn't a deletion, if there are no better references out there (I haven't looked) I suspect it would be deleted at a deletion discussion, so best to take this as an opportunity to hunt down the better sources and improve in draft. -- (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Move back to mainspace. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, if anyone object to draftification, it must be moved back. Draftspace is optional. If the author doesn't want it draftified, then use AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Out of scope. Nothing has been deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

8 June 2021

  • Marek Kukula – Sockpuppets do not have standing to raise deletion reviews. —Cryptic 05:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Marek Kukula (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Had I thought for a second that Wikipedia editors would subsequently be so determined to hold to their prejudices regarding tabloid reports, even in a case like this, where there is literally no reason why anyone would ever suspect these reports to be false (bar their deeply held prejudice), then I most definitely would have said the better outcome was for Wikipedia to choose not to be the official host of a ridiculously incomplete alleged biography. I suspect others would have too. This man's career is over. He was convicted of a serious crime. A crime that was majorly pertinent to his career. Pretending it never happened, is unconscionable, especially if the outcome is ironically to ensure that reading tabloid reports with loaded terms like vile and disturbing, now becomes necessary companion reading alongside this Wikipedia page. It didn't need to be that way, there is a low risk, high reward way forward, but to a man, Wikipedia editors refused to see reason. So be it. Their actions must have consequences. Wikipedia does not get to pretend here, that their supposed act of responsibility, hasn't led to a hugely irresponsible outcome. They have made a choice, on the presumption the original decision to keep it, was correct. There is a less damaging choice, once the presumption that the original decision was wrong, due to a lack of foresight, is seen. Simply delete it. I must share blame, I did not foresee this intransigence. I assumed Wikipedia editors were rational, and well able to deal with complicated scenarios where issues must be carefully balanced, with prejudices left at the door. Evidently they are not. There is a serious child safety issue here with regard to Wikipedia hosting an incomplete biography, one that I suspect was not properly foreseen in the debate. I hesitate to specifically lay it out, because it would rather unfairly suggest things about this man, who by those tabloid accounts, may well now be completely contrite and a model prisoner and indeed citizen, going forward. But to those with sufficient life experience, who read all the available material, the reliable Wikipedia biography and its unreliable companion reading, you should be able to see what the risk is, going forward. It might seem small, almost inconceivable, but do you want to take that chance? I don't. Deal me out. I officially disavow any part I might have had in any such future tragedy. I am not buying the claims that this risk is adequately covered by the disclaimer either, and I suspect others won't be too, especially when the overall reason given for this ridiculous prejudice holding sway here, is making people think Wikipedia really is all about being responsible. Children are certainly ill equipped to appreciate what most adults probably don't even realise is the horrific reality of that disclaimer, in scenarios like this. Which may well even be unique. Who knows. I doubt Wikipedia is keeping score. To sum up, it is the height of irresponsibility, to put a prejudice against tabloids, above the interests of child safety. If this page is deleted, who is harmed? Nobody that I can see. Do no harm. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Close as a bad-faith purely disruptive nomination that is yet another attempt at forum shopping by this editor. There have already been threads at RSN, BPLN, AN, the article talk page and two user talk pages (1 2) where this editor has been repeatedly told that we cannot source information on crimes to unreliable tabloid journalism. Nothing in this deletion review is remotely relevant to the decision to keep the page - the page was kept on the basis that there were multiple reliable sources found that discussed this person in depth and in detail, the fact that there are no reliable sources discussing the content this editor wishes to include has no bearing on that. Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs, and it is not our job to publish criminal allegations sourced to rubbish because "it is in the public interest". (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
"you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media" is a direct quote from "Right Great Wrongs". You should not try to so blatantly deceive people, while trying to claim other people are engaging in bad faith. It is not Wikipedia's job to pretend things haven't happened just because their editor's naked prejudice teaches them they can't have happened, they mustn't have happened, otherwise everything they hold dear about Wikipedia must be wrong. If Wikipedia can't accurately judge when a tabloid story is more likely to be true than false given a particular set of circumstances, then what is anybody even doing here pretending that they know anything at all about how the mainstream media works? I bet there are a good few people here who perhaps genuinely believe the broadhseets never make mistakes, which is about as believable as the idea the tabloids only ever write about celebrity gossip. Dogma is useless. Prejudice is useless. If of course, the goal is to write an encyclopedia. It is actually your job to do more than separate sources into good and bad, copy the good, and reject the bad, and divorce yourself from any and all consequence of such an unreal approach to the messy business of reality. You would know that, if you had read the relevant policies. You're not going to be able to blame this one on the BBC. Definitely not their job to tell you when you have screwed the pooch. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This particular request isn't in the purview of DRV, per the current "DRV is not" #1, #6, maybe #8. Suggest an RfC on the matter if it continues to be contentious. SportingFlyer T·C 18:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I was told by Missvain to request a deletion review. It seems to fit the "new circumstances" clause. Happy to put it up for deletion again, making my changed views known, if people think that is the more proper way forward. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I don't know what policy says, but it seems to me that this discussion should be speedily closed as there were no supporting statements from others. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree. The consensus to keep the article was pretty hefty, even though I initially opposed it. I actually had high hopes for the OP, whose efforts to track down sources and improve the article formed the proverbial straw for me, but a sock is a sock, and there's nothing to do but launder it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a blocked sock, so I don't see the need to proceed here given that the request could simply be reverted at will. However, it does appear that at least one reputable law firm includes Kukula on a list of convicted sex offenders (though it cites The Sun), though this would best be argued on the talk page itself rather than here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 June 2021

Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis

Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This deletion discussion for Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis was roughly concurrent with some edit warring at COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, which ultimately was redirected to COVID-19 misinformation#Lab accident. The deletion discussion of the the draft looked to me to be a pretty clear no-consensus, but it was closed with what I would characterize as a supervote that left much to be desired in the way of explanation, particularly given the importance of the topic and the volume of participation in the discussion: "The result of the discussion was: delete. The arguments for delete outweigh the keep.". I had considered initiating a deletion review back in February on the weight of mainstream, reliable coverage of the lab leak hypothesis presented not as misinformation that existed at the time (e.g. [40] and [41]). Now, given a slew of additional mainstream coverage (e.g. [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]), I think we're compelled to review this matter. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I'd appreciate a temp-undelete. I'm also a bit curious as to why this is worth fighting over. Is there genuinely something in these pages that you want back, or is this simply a proxy for the broader debate over the lab-leak theory? If it's the latter, it would seem that your time would be better spent arguing over mainspace content (e.g. by participating in the pending talkpage discussions, RfCs, and ArbCom case) than relitigating the debate over these user- and draft-space pages. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ, The point of this review is that COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis should be its own article that presents the subject in a neutral fashion, rather than a redirect to COVID-19 misinformation. A starting point for this article would be either 1) a restoration of this version of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis or a similar version, 2) a restoration and publishing to the mainspace of the draft in question here, or some 3) some hybridization of the two. Rather than simply continuing the edit war in February, isn't the proper course of action to acknowledge the concurrent and related discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis and reverse the decision that was made there? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
But even if we give you everything you want here (by overturning the MfD to keep), you won't be any closer to getting that. All you'll have is a draft in draft-space; getting that draft into article-space would still require all sorts of additional discussions, probably including an RfC. My point is that you might as well go straight to the RfC, since this DRV won't make a difference one way or another. In other words, there's really nothing that we can do for you here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, it will restore the draft if this review concludes in an overturn. At that point, it would make sense to review the draft and this version of "COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis" and see about pushing some combination of the two to the main space. If there's pushback on that, we then could do an RFC. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
S Marshall, thanks for noting. I was previously unaware of this arbitration request. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As the deleting admin I really don't care if it's revived or not. The comment was not a "supervote" but an evaluation of what people had said in the discussion. The explanation of closing isn't mandatory, just customary. Nor is a longer explanation required just because the discussion is long. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. While the participants were evenly divided numerically, a proper closure must discount !votes made by sockpuppets, canvassed users, SPAs, and those whose arguments are not policy-based. There are by my count at least a half-dozen keep !votes that fall into one or more of those categories, while the delete !votes do not appear to be similarly afflicted. While there were obviously plenty of reasonable, well-argued keep !votes, they seem to have been exceeded (both numerically and by weight of argument) by the number of reasonable, well-argued delete !votes. Additionally, the delete side's TNT argument – that this draft as written was useless for mainspace purposes regardless of the topic's merits more generally – seems to have never been rebutted at all. In light of these facts, as well as my careful review of the discussion, I believe the closer interpreted the consensus reasonably. (A more detailed closing statement, while not required, would have made everyone's job here a lot easier.) That being said, this MfD was obviously not a total or eternal prohibition against lab-leak-related drafts. Things have (to put it mildly) changed a lot since February, and I find it improbable that a well-written, well-sourced draft written today would be referred to MfD at all. I, of course, express no opinion on the merits of the content dispute here. But if a solution to that dispute exists, it won't be found by relitigating a months-old closure of a months-old discussion of months-old drafts written with months-old sources. It will be found by more talk-page discussions (perhaps in the form of an an RfC) about how we ought to cover this complex, multifaceted, controversial, and difficult topic. But we needn't resolve all that today. As explained above, this closure was the scope of the closer's discretion, and so it ought to be sustained. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation in draft of an article epitomizing the best of core Wikipedia policies. Draftspace is indeed the most proper place to deal with highly controversial political topics when there's no clear consensus to present them as standalone articles or not. Personally, as someone who had spent a career investigating people doing stupid things, the idea that the idea that "someone screwed up" would itself be labeled a conspiracy theory seems farcical. (shrug) But it is what it is. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    Draftspace is far from a good place for challenging topics, because in draftspace individual editors work in isolation. Wikipedia's success on controversial topics depends on many editors, even readers, watching, and stepping in when it goes bad. I believe that FORKing to draftspace should be forbidden, unless done with consensus at the talk page of the article currently covering the topic. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    Userspace sandboxes are where individual editors work in isolation. If draftspace is the same exact thing with a different name, why do we even have it? Seriously, even though I don't use draftspace, I do expect it to be a more collaborative space, and if I'm wrong, we're (Wikipedia as a whole) being stupid. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
    Eg WP:DUD. Draftspace is sort of mandate for COI article writing, although they are perfectly welcome to use userspace. Apart from that, draftspace is a holding trap for junk. It is possible collaboration happens in draftspace, but I think it doesn’t, and the pretence that it does does harm, people drafting think they are contributing, but they may as well be working offline. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • temp undeleted for this discussion' WilyD 10:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Draftspace is not for POVFORKing. The topic is already covered in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse for a start many of the Keep comments came from SPAs and the closer would have been entitled to downweight or disregard these. But even apart from that the strength of argument was on the side of those arguing for deletion. The justifications for keeping were largely based on the existence of sources about the topic, the topic passing notability guidelines, and the general topic being encyclopedic. None of that rebuts the arguments for deletion - that the draft was a POV fork and that it gives undue credibility to a fringe theory. Even if it is possible to write an appropriate article about the topic, that doesn't mean these particular drafts are worth keeping. Hut 8.5 11:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation per JClemens. Also, given the fundamental change in circumstances, WP:IAR. The whole Wikipedia project looks ridiculous not giving this matter the substantive coverage that is widely available today on reliable sources. Loksmythe (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Is WP:POVFORK even a reason to delete a draft? The arguments for deletion were largely applicable to articles, not to draft space. And given that there is a large contengent of serious scientists in the area who think this is worth looking into, I don't see how we can justify not having an article actually on this topic in mainspace. Overturn.Hobit (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    “ Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.” SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
    Is working on a topic in draftspace even within the understanding of WP:CFORK? I suggest not, because that page both precedes its existence and doesn't appear to have been updated to engage with it. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    The only acceptable FORK is WP:SPINOFF; take a large section from a large page, expand it as a spinoff, condense what is left behind, and put a section hatnote pointing to the spinout. This clearly can't with draftspace. Mainspace to draftpace links are forbidden. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    Right, and where is it said anywhere that part of that process cannot include copying the large section in question to draftspace, working on it there, and then later proceeding with the rest of the spinoff process? Again, the directions do not comment one way or another on draftspace and it seems to me to be because they haven't been meaningfully updated since draftspace was initiated. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    POVFORK is a reason to delete because in the mfd it was given as a reason to delete, and the closer found it was the consensus to delete. Looking over it all again, I think the draftspace and other forks are the wrong battle. Instead, the bold redirect should be reverted, per User:Peregrine Fisher. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    RE. process cannot include copying the large section in question to draftspace, working on it there, and then later …. Not everything is documented, and more detail would be needed. My problem with this sort of thing is if it happens unilaterally and in secret, not even a note on the relevant article talk page. Also, I don’t think it is normal, instead, redrafting editors prefer to use an article talk page subpage. I think, POVFORKS are always bad, and CFORKS are also bad but without bad intent, and that wholesale redrafting should only be done with article talk page discussion. However, we are in a difficult awkward position here due to a bad pseudo-delete redirect to a “misinformation” article. The answer is to revert that bold redirect in favour of an AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • You do all realize that this is one of the things that only Americans believe, right?—S Marshall T/C 22:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • To my knowledge few serious people believe this. But lots of serious people think it worth understanding. Hobit (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
      • What, have none of you ever internalized Hanlon's razor? People screwing stuff up is what makes the world go round! :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Endorse This seemed like a difficult one DRV at first, but after a couple rereads, the restoration of the draft should be declined per Hut 8.5 - this wasn't a supervote and we are in WP:FRINGE territory. SportingFlyer T·C 12:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Allow Re-Creation of a new draft. I was mistaken in casting a Weak Delete, and should have said Weak Keep, although it is a content fork, but it was in draft space. No error by closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Revert the redirect of COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis. The redirect is a pseudo-deletion, to a POV article title, and it was edit warred when it should have been take to AfD. The MfD discussed here is a downstream problem. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Revert the redirect and return to mainspace; overturn the delete closure as a POV close. The classification as misinformation is patentently prejudicial, in ignorance of, or deliberate rejection, of all recent reliable sources, including the NYTimes and the CDSC. This is an unproven hyporthesis, not misinformation. I would classify the original right wing conspiracy theory that it was a deliberate release as misinformation, or worse, , but that it may have been an accidental lab leak is on the contrary perfectly possible by common sense, and the possibility is in full accord with what is known about laboratory accidents with dangerous biological agents. . It's just a possibility, and, I expect, it will be disproven by biolgoical analysis; but it will rmain notable , because it has been discussed seriously by major RSs. This is the way redirectw\s should not be used. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    • DGG. Why was my closure of the draft "POV"? What in my editing history leads you to think that I was against the draft and wanted it gone prior to my closing it? I know I made about 12 edits to COVID-19 pandemic in Nunavut but that was a while ago, and that was basically adding images and updating numbers, and I don't recall anything else, but there may have been something. I'd like to understand why this was a POV so I can avoid it in the future. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva
perhaps I should have said , emphasizing a particular POV. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • DRV isn't the place to further a content dispute. That said, endorse (since I see no credible arguments that the closure of the discussion was wrong - which was heavily affected by off-wiki canvassing and single-purpose accounts, I assume rightfully ignored by the closing administrator) and allow recreation if there is consensus via the regular editing process for a spin-off (which I do not see at this moment). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: I don't think any of the commenters here who have endorsed the original decision have addressed the myriad of new (newer than February), reliable sources that establish the lab leak hypothesis as a notable subject (i.e. point #3 in which deletion review is intended to be used). Jweiss11 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

That's an argument for creating a new version, ideally via the regular editing process (by demonstrating there is a need for a split). Not for recreating a dubious, slanted POVFORK. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

6 June 2021

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
YouTube Movies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

how can this be deleted? it is a major service, at one of the most active websites in the world. -Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 13:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
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
  1. ^ "BADVOID puts an incredible unique spin on Nero's 'Satisfy': Listen".
  2. ^ "LISTEN: Rising Producer BADVOID Shares Scorching Flip of Nero's 'Satisfy' Classic".
  3. ^ "BADVOID deploys menacing 'Paper Thin' remix".
  4. ^ "Notorious CHRIS & Jerrÿ Jay Team Up For "I Would Never" On Barong Family Matters Vol. 7".
  5. ^ "Introducing Australia's next EDM star Notorious CHRIS".
  6. ^ Missing or empty |title= (help)
  7. ^ Missing or empty |title= (help)
  8. ^ Missing or empty |title= (help)
  9. ^ Missing or empty |title= (help) ,
  10. ^ Missing or empty |title= (help)
  11. ^ Missing or empty |title= (help)
  12. ^ Missing or empty |title= (help)
  13. ^ Missing or empty |title= (help)
  14. ^ Missing or empty |title= (help)
  15. ^ "These Two Rising Artists Just Put Out A Massive Banger On Barong Family's New Compilation [LISTEN]". Your EDM. 2020-05-16. Retrieved 2021-06-10.
  16. ^ Kassam, About the Author / Alshaan (2020-05-15). "Notorious CHRIS & Jerry Jay – I Would Never". We Rave You. Retrieved 2021-06-10.