Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
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, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- 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.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
- Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".
Extra Credits (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please can I have the Extra Credits article restored into my personal draft space? The article, in the form it was deleted, was awful but there was at least one better version in the history. I found quite enough valid sources to make a decent short article about it (slightly more than a stub) and having the old article and it's history, poor though most of it was, would make that easier than starting from scratch even if the new article would need to actually follow the sources and not bear much resemblance to old one. Thanks. DanielRigal (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- File:Haldhar Nag Kutir before renovation, in June 2005.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
This image was deleted because it was placed in an inappropriate location. In this revision, I have placed it in the correct location. Please undelete it. Thyj (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Dismiss the appeal as a misrepresentation of the facts. The image was deleted per WP:NFCC#8. The misplacing of the image in a gallery was only brought up as an aside, and was not the reason for the deletion. Will reconsider if the appellant amends their appeal to state the facts honestly. Owen× ☎ 12:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the fact it was in a gallery was only a subsidiary point. The main problem was the fact it's not contextually necessary, and that's plainly correct, and I don't think it's even arguably wrong. It can be adequately explained in text. I don't think it's ideal to direct link to a copyrighted photograph as a reference either, per the external link policy, the reference should be to the web page it's hosted on. Local Variable (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- The non-free-use rationale was invalid too; it was largely cut-and-pasted from a rationale for a website screenshot. —Cryptic 00:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The Electroimpact article was deleted on March 31, 2025 after an AfD discussion concluded that it lacked significant, non-local coverage and did not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Since that time, a completely rewritten draft has been prepared using only independent, reliable sources from national news and aerospace industry publications. The draft addresses both achievements and controversies in a neutral tone, resolving previous concerns about neutrality and conflict of interest. The draft can be reviewed here: User:Pollluxo/sandbox Independent sources now establishing notability:
With these sources, the article now clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT and demonstrates broad, non-local coverage. I am requesting that the deletion decision be overturned or that the page be restored to allow recreation using the new draft. Pollluxo (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
| ||||||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
| ||||||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This AfD was closed as Keep, but I believe it was unduly critical in dismissing the Delete/Redirect arguments. By my count, 8 of the 12 participants support deletion or redirecting, with 5 of those 8 describing this as some type of problematic fork or endorsing a !vote that did so. Identifying an article on LGBTQ issue as an undesirable fork of the existing broad-concept article on topics related to LGBTQ people or the article on LGBTQ rights is a reasonably sufficient and straightforward policy-based rationale that should have been given weight in the close. The close found that no policy-based arguments for deleting or redirecting were put forward. All of the arguments that it is a fork were faulted for failing to explicitly cite CFORK, or failing to specify or prove exactly which type of unacceptable fork it is. It should be clear that those describing this as an undesirable fork meant it is an unacceptable CFORK, whether they explicitly linked to that guideline or not, and whether they reached that conclusion by way of it being a POVFORK, redundant content fork, or both. By contrast, the four Keep !votes are not subject to any similar scrutiny in the closing analysis, despite one offering no clear rationale at all. A consensus of Keep simply does not reflect the discussion. Trystan (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
incorrect interpretation of consensus Nire46 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_9#Call_of_the_Void
Hi, apologies, as I'm new to this process, so help me if this isn't the place for it-- but I think the original page should be kept intact, as it's a separate concept that isn't mentioned on the Suicidal Ideation page, that specifically is noted as NOT being Suicidal Ideation. It's an important concept with a well-known phrase used in many places and culturally important. Naturally, the French page for it is still up. I also believe the original consensus was interpreted incorrectly, as it seemed to be a discussion if it was a suitable fit for redirect, and seemed to migrate topic when the page to which to redirect had been decided. I have informed the original administrator here.
Nire46 (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Deleted as G4 recreation, but the AfD was in 2017 and the creator of the new article claims to have started from scratch (as a non-admin, I can't check). Deleting admin User:UtherSRG has been asked to undelete, but to no avail (User talk:Mokarapedia#Speedy deletion nomination of Androphobia). No objection to undeletion + draftification if the article isn't up to our standards of course. Fram (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've temp-undeleted. The last versions before deletion at each afd were 1st nom, 3rd nom, 4th nom; diff for last week's recreation, initially in draft and mainspaced by a third party, albeit outside of the AFC process. Lot of revisions to look through, but if there's a pre-afd one that's anywhere near the new version, I'm not seeing it. —Cryptic 10:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. At the very least the sources are more recent than the last AfD... Fram (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Draftify and keep SALTed to force going through AfC. I don't fault UtherSRG for deleting this perpetually recreated page, even if it did technically extend beyond the "sufficiently identical" scope of G4. But this drama should not be staged in mainspace. I don't want the community to waste more time on this at AfD until an AfC reviewer decides it warrants another look. Owen× ☎ 11:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Technically overturn G4 as it is not close to being
sufficiently identical
to the previous version, a requirement for G4 deletions. I do think the recreated version suffers from a lot of the issues that caused its initial deletion, though it is further expanded. I would vote to not keep this article in an AFD and I do not believe it has any chance of being kept in this state, so restore to draft to allow for improvement. No opinion on salting. Frank Anchor 12:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC) - I'm the deleting admin. I was not asked to undelete, though Fram inquired about the deletion. I would have draftified instead of deleted, but I'd already draftified it once and the author restored it to main article space, so WP:DRAFTOBJECT came in to play. I agree with OwenX on the course moving forward: draftify and retain maintain SALT. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Draftobject is an essay, G4 is a policy. And you were explicitly asked to undo your deletion ("Please don't delete the article. ", "Is there any way the article deletion undo?", and I said "was the deleted article really identical or nearly identical to the one deleted 8 years ago, or was it a new creation? Because G4 would only apply to the former, not to the latter." and later "please follow policy". You did not reply whether the pages were identical or not, and showed no intention to follow policy here. Your defense that you "were not asked to undelete" rings hollow. Fram (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn speedy Should probably have never been recreated while under sysop protection, but it was. G4 is clear. It isn't identical. Speedy criteria should be strictly enforced. DRAFTIFY is one shot. Local Variable (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- This hasn't been protected since mid-2018, when it was created as a redirect to List of phobias#A.That redirect survived more than seven years without controversy. Its history is now at Draft:Androphobia, interleaved with at least one other draft that was never moved. Its most recent revision is here; if we endorse this deletion, the page should be recreated with that in place. —Cryptic 16:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for this chronology. I was struggling to work it out. Local Variable (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- This hasn't been protected since mid-2018, when it was created as a redirect to List of phobias#A.That redirect survived more than seven years without controversy. Its history is now at Draft:Androphobia, interleaved with at least one other draft that was never moved. Its most recent revision is here; if we endorse this deletion, the page should be recreated with that in place. —Cryptic 16:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn speedy & draftify The G4 is incorrect, as the deleted articles were all stubs and the current version is not. But the article title was supposed to be salted per the last AfD, but it seems it got lost when a redirect was created. Apply the SALT and require AfC approval for re-mainspacing. Jumpytoo Talk 16:35, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn speedy, unsalt, and handle as part of GENSEX The latter is important, because it's hard to imagine why it would be so controversial otherwise. I took a look at androphobia in Google Scholar, and it's in use if not widespread use, so something should exist here: either an article, or a redirect to something appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I’m unsure what to suggest here. It seems to me that speedy delete is wrong because sources do exist and the page is not just a recreation. However the available sources do not appear to me to meet WP:MEDRS and the page is explicitly framed in medical language, which I doubt would be acceptable to medical-focussed colleagues. If we are going to undelete, it seems to me that it should be tagged for their attention and will likely be deleted at AfD. JMWt (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn improper G4 and let AfD handle it. GENSEX poses no restriction relevant to this case. Oppose draftification. DraftObject has already been expressed. If the topic is not eligible for standalone article treatment, draftifying does not help decide that (AfD does). —Alalch E. 14:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn exactly per Alalch E. Not a valid G4. The (lack) of SALTing really shouldn't play a role here. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm opposed to draftification on the basis that it's not eligible for forced draftification (draftification was previously objected to and that ends that option). Hobit (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- The community can override individual decisions, especially when those decisions are supported only by essay and not policy. As has been pointed out, DRAFTOBJECT is an essay, so DRV can, as a community decision, decide to draftify. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm opposed to draftification on the basis that it's not eligible for forced draftification (draftification was previously objected to and that ends that option). Hobit (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn - it simply doesn't meet G4 - and this is pretty clear, as the references listed mostly (completely?) post-date the last AFD. I don't know how more simple this is. And yet the person who deleted it still supports deletion even after they know it didn't meet G4. I also suggest their powers be reviewed, as they don't seem to respect policy. Article looks half-decent, I don't know why it would be draftified - and the attempt to do so was already reverted. No prejudice against AFD. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- Edit - User:UtherSRG claimed above that I was not asked to undelete, though Fram inquired about the deletion. Looking at that "inquiry" at User talk:Mokarapedia#Speedy deletion nomination of Androphobia, that is a gross understatement, if not blatantly misleading. It's quite clear that Fram was objecting to the deletion and spelled out very clearly why it was wrong to do so. Can you explain, Uther, why you think it's okay to completely ignore policy, accused the person who pointed out your gross error of stalking, and then seriously mislead us here? Nfitz (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: G4
applies to sufficiently identical copies
. This is an interpretable statement. How much must be indentical to is meet this requirement? Is it sufficient that the bulk of the original is contained within the copy? How much additional material makes it no longersufficiently identical
? I interpreted this to be looser than others have. I see I'm in the minority. Fram and I have history. I do believe they are stalking me. As is plainly seen in the discussion you linked (also linked in the OP of this DRV), they didn't directly ask for it to be restored. (Nor did the original author ask for it to be restored, either.) - UtherSRG (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)- Why @UtherSRG are you gaslighting us? You ask "is it sufficient that the bulk of the original is contained within the copy". There is 0% overlap between any of the previous versions. There (as far as I can see) 0% overlap in the references. So why are you making time-wasting comments about "bulk of the original" and "sufficiently identical"? Why do you pretend that Fram didn't object to your grossly poor deletion, just because he didn't use certain words? You are 100% wrong on this, and yet you still are supporting deletion, and pointing fingers at others. Whether Fran is stalking you or not is irrelevant if they are 100% correct. That you defend this, and continue to twist the truth suggests that you shouldn't be working in this area. Can I suggest you hand over your keys, or submit yourself to WP:XRV. Nfitz (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- The "stalking" thing: at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1198#Disruptive editing/ vandalism from August 2025 (not started or titled by me), I posted about the problematic rollback and revert use by UtherSRG. After this ANi discussion, I regularly kept an eye on their edits to see if this issue had indeed improved. I didn't concern myself with other edits they made (e.g. joining AfD discussions they started or so), as that would be stalking. Keeping an eye out to see if problematic behaviour continues or not is not stalking or hounding though (while in general it has improved, they still often revert improvements like here[1] or here, or make dubious claims to support their reverting[2]. This specific case came to my attention because it started with an unexplained rollback of the editor who created the page we ar discussing here at DRV. Fram (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've not defended myself. I have explained myself. I've previously been accused of not being responsive. You directly tagged me, a request for a response, so I responded. What would you have me say? I've already said it should be draftified. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- If it arguably meets GNG - and it appears to on the surface - Draftify is not an option. However I'm far more concerned on why you are gaslighting us. You can't just come here and significantly misrepresent the truth of something that happened, based on an interesting definition of a single word in a policy, that clearly isn't the intent of the policy. Not to mention misrepresenting conversations. I've since looked at your history, and this seems to be a common theme for many years, long before your very extended absences. Nfitz (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- I do not believe I am gaslighting. I believe I am representing what my thoughts are. I haven't looked at the article's source since the deletion. If they are significantly different, then it is there for folks to see. I recall the core of the most recent to be significantly the same as at least one version of the previously deleted, so that when I saw the G4 tag, I deleted it. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- You surely checked the old deleted versions before you accepted the speedy though. So you'll already have been aware that significantly different is an understatement. They are completely different other than article name and the References header. Again, you stretch the truth - though not as much as previously. Nfitz (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- I do not believe I am gaslighting. I believe I am representing what my thoughts are. I haven't looked at the article's source since the deletion. If they are significantly different, then it is there for folks to see. I recall the core of the most recent to be significantly the same as at least one version of the previously deleted, so that when I saw the G4 tag, I deleted it. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- If it arguably meets GNG - and it appears to on the surface - Draftify is not an option. However I'm far more concerned on why you are gaslighting us. You can't just come here and significantly misrepresent the truth of something that happened, based on an interesting definition of a single word in a policy, that clearly isn't the intent of the policy. Not to mention misrepresenting conversations. I've since looked at your history, and this seems to be a common theme for many years, long before your very extended absences. Nfitz (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Why @UtherSRG are you gaslighting us? You ask "is it sufficient that the bulk of the original is contained within the copy". There is 0% overlap between any of the previous versions. There (as far as I can see) 0% overlap in the references. So why are you making time-wasting comments about "bulk of the original" and "sufficiently identical"? Why do you pretend that Fram didn't object to your grossly poor deletion, just because he didn't use certain words? You are 100% wrong on this, and yet you still are supporting deletion, and pointing fingers at others. Whether Fran is stalking you or not is irrelevant if they are 100% correct. That you defend this, and continue to twist the truth suggests that you shouldn't be working in this area. Can I suggest you hand over your keys, or submit yourself to WP:XRV. Nfitz (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: G4
- Overturn speedy and draftify I think the issue here is that it accidentally was not SALTed despite consensus to in the previous deletion discussion? So it should really have gone through an admin or deletion review before publishing. Anyway, I don't think a G4 deletion is valid in this situation because the article seems like a rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- A deletion review for an entirely different article, based on an 8-year close. I don't see how this is even an AFD (and hardly a slam-dunk even then). Nfitz (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- The page was repeatedly recreated several times, and from what I can see of the recreated article, it suffers from similar issues as the most recent AfD mentioned, even if longer. If the speedy is overturned without draftification, it will likely be immediately deleted at AfD for non-notability and probably page protected for good, so this is actually the more positive outcome for the article creator. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- A deletion review for an entirely different article, based on an 8-year close. I don't see how this is even an AFD (and hardly a slam-dunk even then). Nfitz (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn and don't draftify. The G4 was trivially incorrect and if this is not an isolated incident then UtherSG should not be surprised if they find themselves facing a recall petition. We cannot draftify here as draftification was previously objected to so if anyone thinks it's so unsuitable that improvements through normal editing while in mainspace are insufficient then AfD is the only option. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Sina Bathaie (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article recently went through an AfD, which was closed as delete. However since then these sources were uncovered: 1.The review of one their albums from theWholeNote's Editor's Corner, which cites them as "one of Toronto's best kept secrets" (counting towards WP:BAND #7) [3] 2. had a single on Canada's national chart: [4] Which seems to count as WP:BAND #2 (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is Canada's national media). 3. Errol Nazareth CBC radio host cites their santur playing as "”mesmerizing" which I think counts towards WP:BAND #7 [5] 4. Another coverage from NiagaraThisWeek (enmeshed with interview lines): [6] Xpander (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The AfD discussion was closed with a consensus against deleting
, however, I feel this isn't the case. When @Star Mississippi !voted redirect, they clearly meant that as an alternative to deletion, considering they said but not independently notable.
@Asilvering's !vote this week said Oppose redirect, not Keep or Delete. Disregarding the blatant SPA vote, I feel there is no consensus to keep the article at the very least, and should be relisted for another week to see what people say. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 13:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to redirect. By count of noses, there are three participants arguing to retain the page as a standalone article, and six arguing against it. Upon closer inspection, however, none of the Keeps, including the one who created an account just to vote here, carries much P&G weight. But even if we gave those weak Keeps full weight, we still have two thirds of participants who would be happier with either a Delete or a Redirect than they are with how this AfD was closed. Keeping an article in place because participants can't agree on how to get rid of it is either a supervote or a blatant disregard for consensus. The closer effectively discarded the Deletes because those !voters failed to offer an ATD. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse own closure as consensus against deletion. Redirect is not a delete !vote. An AFD discussion isn't needed to determine between keep and redirect, that can be taken forward by discussion on the article talk page or pursuant to WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Stifle, this is not at all in keeping with normal AfD closing practice. -- asilvering (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Can you cite the policy or guideline that says that? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Stifle, this is not at all in keeping with normal AfD closing practice. -- asilvering (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse outcome, not close. I think "no consensus" is a perfectly reasonable way to close this AfD, though if I had come across this as a closer I would have relisted it to see if anyone seconded the late-added !vote (which, disclosure, was my own). I do not, however, think it is correct to close this as "consensus against deletion". -- asilvering (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Relist for another week. It's better to try to sort it out at AFD, rather than to direct people to a less-visited (and hypothetical) discussion at an article talk page. Geschichte (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Relist - Discussions of whether to blank and redirect or keep are often contentious, and can often best be resolved by the consensus process of AFD. If talk page discussion of whether to redirect or to keep is inconclusive, it may be necessary to open a new AFD. It is better to keep this existing one open. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse outcome - I too would have closed it as "no consensus", but keep is a reasonable enough close, given the same outcome. Relist isn't a bad option - though it was already relisted for a week, and the only further participant didn't really speak about wanting the article deleted, but more so that perhaps a redirect to a sex criminal many be a bad idea. The only decent delete argument is BLP1E, and (at danger of relitigating) a quick glance at pre-2020s articles in newspapers.com does seem to find other stuff. I'd suggest that the nominator spend their time trying to improve the article, rather than deleting it. Nfitz (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the nominator spend their time trying to improve the article, rather than deleting it.
I don't agree. This was a perfectly sensible nomination, both at AfD, and DRV. There's no obligation to try improve articles that don't meet policy, and BEFORE wasn't breached when significant effort is needed to find sources, if they exist at all. Local Variable (talk) 16:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)- There is however, @Local Variable, an obligation to not nominate an article that could be improved to meet quality. If then, deletion is not an option, the nominator - who clearly has concerns about the article - needs to improve the article if they want their concerns met. Nfitz (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to redirect. There is clear consensus to not keep the article as a standalone page. The keep votes were weakly based in policy (including one from an SPA which should be entirely discounted), while the delete and redirect arguments were stronger. There is one completely nonsensical “do not redirect” vote which should not carry much weight. Redirect gives more editorial flexibility than deletion (merging content, sending to RFD, etc) and makes more sense here. Also okay with a relist as my second choice, to allow for further discussion. Frank Anchor 00:39, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Noting that ChildrenWillListen's assessment of my redirect !vote is correct. I'm surprised by stifle's take here that a redirect is not a delete vote, as it very much is a vote to delete the information. That said, no comment on the close as I do not have the time to reread the AfD at this time. Star Mississippi 01:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Redirect is listed as an alternative to deletion in the deletion policy, from which it follows that a redirect is indeed not a delete vote. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Stifle, it's an alternative in the sense that it preserves the page history in a way that does not make it inaccessible to non-admins, which makes it preferable to deletion in many cases. But it is very much a "delete" type of vote, as it means the content is removed from the encyclopedia. We very often close AfDs as "redirect" even when there are more or even far more delete !votes, provided that there is no specific objection to a redirect proposal. -- asilvering (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Please see my comment below. Historical context can be helpful Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Stifle, it's an alternative in the sense that it preserves the page history in a way that does not make it inaccessible to non-admins, which makes it preferable to deletion in many cases. But it is very much a "delete" type of vote, as it means the content is removed from the encyclopedia. We very often close AfDs as "redirect" even when there are more or even far more delete !votes, provided that there is no specific objection to a redirect proposal. -- asilvering (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Stifle goes back at DRV as long as I do and its very much the case that historically DRV does not treat a redirect as a deletion. Indeed, in 2009 when I wrote Wikipedia:Non-deleting deletion discussions, DRV would have closed this appeal as moot as a redirect wasn’t considered to be a deletion, but as an editorial decision. Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Redirect is listed as an alternative to deletion in the deletion policy, from which it follows that a redirect is indeed not a delete vote. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse Stifle's close. I think he correctly assessed consensus, as redirection normally leaves the information in history, and articulated a path forward. I think "no consensus" was within closer discretion, as was relisting the discussion again, but Stifle was not obligated to choose either alternative. I'm unwilling to disregard the SPA !vote as it actually made the single most detailed argument in the AfD, and in the process strongly suggesting a close connection to the subject, but has a reasonable read on policy and was not supported by socks, so I think weighing it appropriately is fine. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Jclemens: The SPA reply was written using an LLM and doesn't address BLP1E concerns (top 100 lists usually confer no notability.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- Relist is the best option. I think most people who argue for a redirect believe that the subject should not be a stand-alone page. I also believe that editors who comment early in the discussion with a preference to delete a page are usually fine with a redirect (especially since I don't assume many editors revisit an AFD they participate in). But beyond that, I do think that it is better to have a discussion about a redirect at AFD rather than on the article talk page as there are more eyes on the discussion at AFD. --Enos733 (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse and treat as a simple "no consensus" close. There was no consensus. BLP1E was invoked, but specific BLP concerns were not stated. It was not explained how this high-profile individual seeking media attention is a low-profile individual. This was ultimately just a notability dispute, and on that level, the delete case was not argued especially well. It was possible to relist but not required.—Alalch E. 17:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse An unusual case because it closed with a strong argument against redirecting (I don't recall the last time I saw that). I think NC is the only reading here. Tough case, right outcome. Also (again!?) per Alalch E.. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse Although a rare case, given there was a !voter actively opposing a redirect. As a general proposition, where the consensus favours redirecting or deleting over keeping the article, the latter shouldn't prevail just because there's no consensus between the first two. It is unlikely those voting to delete would prefer keeping over a redirect. The only exception will be where there's some compelling reason not to redirect. In this case, there was an unresolved dispute about that. As a side note, this is a ridiculous 1E case that should be deleted in future. Local Variable (talk) 14:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The was an improper close per WP:DRVPURPOSE 5 because it was an improper WP:NACD close. It was pointed out that the sports-bio article was built only from databases which violates the last bullet point of WP:SPORTSCRIT. The guideline mandates that all sports bio pages have one article with WP:SIGCOV physically present in the article. Per the RFC at NSPORT we are supposed to delete sport-bio pages built only from databases even if sources exist outside the encyclopedia. Normally I would add the source myself but unfortunately the offline nature and foreign language component of the sources prevent me from doing so (I don't understand them well enough to use them). I really don't think a non-admin should have closed this while the article isn't compliant with the source presence component of SPORTCRIT. An admin would have at least the power to delete the article and consider the matter fairly. We really shouldn't be overturning the SPORTSCRIT mandate to not have sportbio pages only sourced to databases. Note I raised the issue with the closer and they told me to take it to DRV. 4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |