Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
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:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, 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:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{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:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
- Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.
| Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted |
| *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~ |
| *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~ |
| *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~ |
| *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~ |
| *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~ |
| *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~ |
| *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~ |
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
- Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
12 January 2024
10 January 2024
Claude J. Pelletier (closed)
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
|
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claude J. Pelletier was closed in 2016 by User:MelanieN as "Userfy" to my user space, and I moved it to Draft:Claude J. Pelletier with the intention of improving it over time (better late than never, maybe). I asked User:Cunard to see if Pelletier had any additional reliable sources, and these are the results:
I would like to see if this is enough to get the draft moved back into article space. I am going to continue to work on the draft article as time allows (although I admit I will struggle with incorporating the French sources). I am sending a courtesy ping to all the AFD participants to allow them the chance to review the new sources: User:SephyTheThird, User:AngusWOOF, User:SwisterTwister, User:Jclemens, User:Atlantic306. BOZ (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
| ||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
8 January 2024
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
New credible sources have come to the fore from main independent news ~ https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/brandvoice/efs-facilities-services-group-1 https://www.khaleejtimes.com/corporate/dubai-top-companies-for-workers-honoured https://www.gdnonline.com/Details/632838/EFS-Facilities-Services-wins-over-$46m-contracts- (120.89.74.94 (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC))
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
6 January 2024
User:Somers-all-the-time/MyMilitia (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
If my memory serves correctly, this draft in my userspace contained a list of citations and notes on those citations. I intended to use these in the future to write out a full article. No further information was given when I reached out to the deleting admin User:Anthony Bradbury when I contacted him on his talk page. Further the admin who took the action originally is now deceased. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Category:Queer Wikipedians
The last decision on this category was made over 15 years ago. In that time, there has been consensus to bring back Category:Asexual Wikipedians, Category:Pansexual Wikipedians, Category:Bisexual Wikipedians, Category:Gay Wikipedians, Category:Lesbian Wikipedians, Category:Genderqueer Wikipedians, and (spiritually) Category:LGBT Wikipedians. The original deletion decision is questionable as well, as the admin closed the thread based on their subjective view of the "strength of arguments", despite there clearly being no consensus. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Allow recreation That AFD close was dubious, and could be a no consensus, but after all this time probably not worth overturning. My opinion is that users should be able to categorise themselves, so reasoning here is just opinion. Categories for users are not just about collaboration. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Procedural close and allow recreation - I see no point in re-litigating a 2007 decision, BOLDly recreate it and see if there's any objection. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's been salted since 2008 (and the protecting admin is not someone I recognize as one of the user category police of old, oddly enough). * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- All of the above violate WP:USERCATNO in at least one way. If the LOCALCONSENSUSes in such discussion are really a global consensus that USERCATNO is out of step with the will of the community, then USERCATNO should be altered appropriately by RfC. Until there's an appropriate discussion, then G4 appears to apply. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- What part of USERCATNO do these categories violate? The Midnite Wolf (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm against all user categories, but I don't see USERCATNO applying here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- While the individual criteria are not numbered, criteria 6-8 of the 9 enumerated would be the ones at issue. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me like OC/U intentionally avoids taking a stance on the above categories. Being LGBT isn't a like, an advocacy of a position, or inherently provocative. I agree with the editor below who said that an RfC is needed to amend OC/U and clarify whether or not identity-based categories are allowed. For the time being, they're not discouraged by any policy and consensus seems to be in favor of them. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- I honestly have no idea how you're applying any of those criteria to the category at hand. SportingFlyer T·C 10:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- While the individual criteria are not numbered, criteria 6-8 of the 9 enumerated would be the ones at issue. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm against all user categories, but I don't see USERCATNO applying here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- What part of USERCATNO do these categories violate? The Midnite Wolf (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Allow Recreation - I personally think that these user categories and most user categories are undesirable, but policy allows them, and a deletion debate 16 years ago should not be decisive because consensus can change. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Gender- and sexuality-based user categories and userboxes are among the most popular with Wikipedians. It makes no sense for us to try to second-guess the intent of whoever penned WP:USERCATNO item #6 (
any grouping of users on the basis of shared preferences that are irrelevant to encyclopedia-building
) to figure out whether it applies to things that aren't a preference, but are still in most cases irrelevant to encyclopedia-building. This issue is important and widespread enough to be properly handled via an RfC to amend WP:USERCATYES and WP:USERCATNO, and spell out whether categories such as Category:Queer Wikipedians are welcome here or not. I can see valid arguments for both sides, but CfD or DRV is not the place to debate the issue. Owen× ☎ 20:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC) - Allow re-creation. Who are these shadowy userspace category police anyway, and how are they helping us write an encyclopaedia? Can we refocus them on something more productive?—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- The CfD regulars of old.
- What is the role of categories? To categorise? To navigate? To help organise maintenance? Pageviews indicate that no one uses them. (Like Portals).
- A huge amount of maintenance goes into categories, from a very few volunteers. Non category wonks fiddling with categories adds to the maintenance load, and user categories encourage editors to play with categories, and so the category wonks merged usercategories into all categories and have enforced extremely esoteric and restrictive usage criteria. For trails to stories and evidence of attempted resistance, see Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, personally I'm a member of Category:Wikipedians who think the userspace category police could probably be doing something better with their time. This disruptive pointy gatekeeping rubbish has been going on at CfD since forever. Remember Wikipedians who say CfD is broken from 2009?—S Marshall T/C 23:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. After being told I need to participate at CfD, I put in a few years of at least reading the nomination of every CfD. I feel I learned a lot about categories and category policy. I think the category system is more work than it’s worth, that it burns more users than it helps, that no reader uses it, and that it (like Portalspace) should be deleted, barring some creative large scale renovation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, personally I'm a member of Category:Wikipedians who think the userspace category police could probably be doing something better with their time. This disruptive pointy gatekeeping rubbish has been going on at CfD since forever. Remember Wikipedians who say CfD is broken from 2009?—S Marshall T/C 23:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- What's the point? Why do we need three separate categories for "LGBT", "Non-binary", and "Queer"? Regardless begrudgingly allow recreation since I can't think of any actual refutation to the nominator's argument, although I would definitely advocate for a merge or deletion at CfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- People identify differently, I don't see that as being the reason to begrudge anything. SportingFlyer T·C 04:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Some of us grew up during a time when the term in question was clearly and only a slur, and are unimpressed with the efforts of some to rehabilitate it as empowering. Thus, divisive and clearly USERCATNO, no matter how noble the intentions of those desiring to so self-describe. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang in 1937 suggests it had been a claimed term for self identification since 1914.
- The claims that usercategories can be divisive, I have always found very weak. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- We were once told (and I see you were also involved slightly, SmokeyJoe) that to categorise yourself under Category:Logical positivist Wikipedians or any of 155 other categories was to be "divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive".[1] Thincat (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- That misrepresents the linked nomination. It claims that the creation of Category:Logical positivist Wikipedians and other categories like it was the divisive action, not the decision of any one user to add themselves to those categories once they existed. Adding oneself to a category is not an endorsement of its existence, and in fact my userpage is in at least one category that I would probably support deletion of if it were nominated at CfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Thincat. The Usercat police were pushing logically contorted arguments that were in that discussion properly ridiculed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- We were once told (and I see you were also involved slightly, SmokeyJoe) that to categorise yourself under Category:Logical positivist Wikipedians or any of 155 other categories was to be "divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive".[1] Thincat (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Some of us grew up during a time when the term in question was clearly and only a slur, and are unimpressed with the efforts of some to rehabilitate it as empowering. Thus, divisive and clearly USERCATNO, no matter how noble the intentions of those desiring to so self-describe. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- People identify differently, I don't see that as being the reason to begrudge anything. SportingFlyer T·C 04:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
5 January 2024
TV Tonight Awards 2020
I believe this award list's AfD deletion discussion, which was nominated by @Boneymau, was closed in the wrong way, as both the 2021 and 2022 awards list pages, which I nominated for AfD in the first place, for failing notability guidelines ("having no significant coverage outside of the TV Tonight website itself, failing WP:NTV and WP:GNG"). Those award list pages were properly deleted, while this award list page was redirected to TV Tonight, by @Liz. I believe that this page should be deleted, for my reasons. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- TechGeek105, please advise the administrator who closed the discussion, Liz, as required by Step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse redirect was a viable option (and in my opinion, the correct option). While there was consensus against keeping the article, there was certainly not consensus against a redirect, as neither delete vote stated an opposition to a redirect (and the nominator even supported a redirect as a WP:ATD). I also support restoring the history of the 2021 and 2022 pages as redirects, but DRV is not the place for that argument. Frank Anchor 01:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The appellant mentions "reasons" for the appeal, but doesn't list any. Having two other pages deleted isn't a valid reason on AfD, and certainly not on DRV. The AfD had two Delete !votes, and two Redirect, including the nom. Redir was the natural, correct way to close it. At this point, the appellant's petition amounts to an RfD, which is even more unreasonable. Owen× ☎ 02:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator comment: My reasons why I support a deletion of the page, include having no significant coverage outside of TV Tonight itself, hence no secondary sources, and the TV Tonight Wikipedia article does not mention the awards at all. I will let the AfD closer admin, Liz know about this discussion, because @Daniel, said it is required by Step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 04:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is an argument for an WP:RfD, not a DRV. DRV is not AfD/RfD Round 2. You haven't suggested that the debate was closed incorrectly based on the consensus evident in the discussion, just that you disagree with the arguments levelled in the debate and therefore the end result. I fail to see which of the five DRV purposes listed at WP:DRVPURPOSE apply here. Specifically, "Deletion review should not be used...because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". Daniel (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel, I have let Liz know. I agree that the discussion was closed incorrectly, because the consensus in the discussion was redirect. I believe a delete consensus would work just as well, because the awards are not notable to add to the TV Tonight article and there are no other secondary sources. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 04:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, the statement "I agree that the discussion was closed incorrectly" is confusing; it indicates that I said the discussion was closed incorrectly and the editor is agreeing with my statement, which is patently incorrect - I said no such thing, and (given my endorse below) clearly do not think the discussion was closed incorrectly. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel, I meant, I believe that the discussion was closed incorrectly, because the discussion consensus was redirect and that a delete consensus would work just as well, because information on the awards is not on the article TV Tonight, and there are no reliable sources besides TV Tonight. Hence why I support an overturn, as the DRV nom. I will go back to editing and reading other articles now. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 04:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, the statement "I agree that the discussion was closed incorrectly" is confusing; it indicates that I said the discussion was closed incorrectly and the editor is agreeing with my statement, which is patently incorrect - I said no such thing, and (given my endorse below) clearly do not think the discussion was closed incorrectly. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Daniel, I have let Liz know. I agree that the discussion was closed incorrectly, because the consensus in the discussion was redirect. I believe a delete consensus would work just as well, because the awards are not notable to add to the TV Tonight article and there are no other secondary sources. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 04:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- That is an argument for an WP:RfD, not a DRV. DRV is not AfD/RfD Round 2. You haven't suggested that the debate was closed incorrectly based on the consensus evident in the discussion, just that you disagree with the arguments levelled in the debate and therefore the end result. I fail to see which of the five DRV purposes listed at WP:DRVPURPOSE apply here. Specifically, "Deletion review should not be used...because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment". Daniel (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator comment: My reasons why I support a deletion of the page, include having no significant coverage outside of TV Tonight itself, hence no secondary sources, and the TV Tonight Wikipedia article does not mention the awards at all. I will let the AfD closer admin, Liz know about this discussion, because @Daniel, said it is required by Step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 04:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse closure as a viable AtD that was proposed by two editors and not objected to by the other two. I would go so far as to say that the close was clearly the best close, and any alternative may possibly have been deemed as not ideal. No procedural or other DRV-applicable argument has been advanced by the applicant, as per OwenX. Daniel (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I don't have much to add but if you disagree with the closure to allow a Redirect, I'd suggest taking this to RFD. It's much simpler to get a Redirect reevaluated than to overturn an AFD decision at Deletion review unless there is a groundswell of support for your stance (or unless I seriously screwed up which I don't believe is the case here). Liz Read! Talk! 04:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse as well within the closer's discretion given the status of the discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse as a reasonable action by the closer. When the responses are split between Delete and Merge, Merge is less drastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse as within discretion, but there's no mention of "TV Tonight Awards" at the target, and if someone were to try adding that mention they would find that it is not trivially easy (I tried).—Alalch E. 09:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse with limited participation, redirect was clearly a harmless option for the closer, and a "redirect versus delete" outcome is a lot less worrying than a "keep versus delete" debate as they both functionally lead to the same result. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- (None at this time)