Wikipedia:Deletion review

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

"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For MediaWiki feature, see Wikipedia:Revision deletion.

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

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

Purpose

Deletion review may be used:

1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
3. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
4. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
5. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
6. if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions include creation protection and title blacklisting.

Deletion review should not be used:

1. to request undeletion of a page deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion. Place such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
2. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
   • creation protection – request removal of the protection from the protecting administrator or, if the administrator is unavailable or non-responsive, request at Wikipedia:Requests for page unprotection.
   • title blacklisting – file a delisting request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist.
3. 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);
4. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
5. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
6. 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);
7. 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);
8. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
9. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
10. to request that copyright violations, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Steps to list a new deletion review

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.
3. Be aware that requests which appear to be written by large-language models will normally be summarily denied. Write in your own words.

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2026 July 27}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 July 27}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 July 27|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

The usage of large language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{temporarily undeleted}} 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, 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.)

Early closes

• An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as if it were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
• Where the deletion discussion has reopened or changed, either by the closer of the deletion discussion or by an uninvolved administrator who has vacated a procedurally invalid non-administrative close, and nobody has endorsed. In this case, the deletion review may be speedily closed as overturned or relisted as appropriate. The closer should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV has withdrawn their nomination, and no one has recommended any outcome but endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so for them).
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion acknowledges that their close was wrong, and no one has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Discussions may be closed without result if they are entirely disruptive. (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, repeated nominations of the same page, a large language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".

Active discussions

26 July 2026

Abhijeet Dipke

Abhijeet Dipke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Last AFD was closed as merge in May. At the time of closure the subject was only known for founding a satire political movement and all of the coverage for the subject was based on the that single event. Hence a standalone article was not justified. Now the entire scenario has completely changed due to the major things happening in Indian politics. Now the subject is not only known as a founder of satire party. The 2026 Delhi Jantar Mantar protests was initiated by him. Reliable sources such as Reuters describe him as the most recognisable figure in the Genz protests in India. Apart from this many sources exists in multiple languages which were published after the last AFD closure in May. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] are some examples of reliable sources giving enough coverage for the subject to meet GNG. Also as per WP:1E, when an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. From the above coverage it is understandable that the role of the subject in the 2026 Genz protests is very significant. The subject is also described by the sources as someone who was able to lead a successful protest against the current Indian government in the last 12 years which even the opposition could not do. Because of all the above said reasons, I believe a standalone article is justifed at the moment and request for the restoration of it into mainspace rather than keeping as a redirect. Regards. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse and procedurally close as wrong venue. The appellant isn't contesting the May decision to merge. They're using DRV to gain support for spinning out the merged content, after failing to win an edit war that brought them to the brink of 3RR. I advised the appellant to continue the spinout discussion on the article's Talk page, but they chose instead to bring this editorial issue here. Owen× ☎ 15:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  I hope you are assuming good faith here. I was only trying to follow the criteria no 4 of DRV which states if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page. The only difference here is that the page was merged not deleted. Thilsebatti (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment to @OwenX:: Is there a more appropriate venue to discuss the new coverage? ... discospinster _talk 16:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    Simply un-redirect it and add all the new coverage as a BOLD move. If it's reverted, then discuss on the talk page why spinning it out isn't appropriate. This is the beauty of redirection: You can see what's there, and even if a poor attempt to spin something out again is unsuccessful (reverted & not supported by consensus) it still is there in history for the next person to look at and add to later, if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    As I mentioned, they've already tried that--three times, and were reverted each time, by editors they describe as "vandals". We are now at the "D" stage of the BRD cycle. Owen× ☎ 16:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    I haven't yet studied the articles, but the mention of Yelling Vandalism to "win" a dispute caught my eye. If there are repeated reverts of good-faith edits stating that they are reverting vandalism, that is a personal attack on the good-faith editor who is being reverted excessively. I will review the articles, but will also restate what you already knew, which is (1) do not Yell Vandalism when there is no vandalism, (2) sometimes Yelling Vandalism really does call for a short block. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    The revert does not appear to have been of "vandalism" but of "possible vandalism" by ClueBotNG, which is one of the rare cases where artificial intelligence is useful, and which is not a personal attack and is not made by a person. The other quick takeaway from the history is that there was too much disruption by temporary accounts until earlier on 26 July when the title was semiprotected (as a redirect) for three months due to disruption by temporary accounts. Thanks for the admin action of semiprotection. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    As we both know, the article's Talk page is the normal venue for editorial discussions, including SPINOUT proposals. A discussion has already started there, but the appellant chose to short-circuit it by bringing the issue to DRV. Owen× ☎ 16:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    @OwenX: I wouldn't characterize it this way. When looking at the article talk page discussion, the appellant asked how to settle the dispute and was told by multiple editors (with no stances to the contrary) to come here, so it seems unfair to pin the blame solely on the appellant who seems to be simply following advice given by others. Left guide (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Looks like one of those comments was made after this DRV was filed, but my point still remains in reference to the first of those comments. Left guide (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    @Left guide: fair point, but it was the appellant's choice to take their advice over mine. In any case, I'm glad to see the edit war has now given way to a civilized debate, and believe there's nothing else that needs to be done here at DRV. Owen× ☎ 20:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    sadly you spoke too soon Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

From a procedural perspective if you are going to raise a DRV you should notify the closing admin and not leave it to others to do your work for you. I see nothing wrong with my close so I'm not entirely sure what we are here to discuss. I warned the appellant on Owen's talk page to be careful around NOTNEWS. Maybe we need a new NOT - DRV is not there to help you win an edit war. This matter should be left to the consensus of editors working on the merge target. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• No action. This is a potential conduct issue (potential stonewalling-type edit warring, contrary to WP:BLAR). I have restored the article according to my independent editorial judgment. If disruptions to the normal editorial process recur, things can be discussed on the article talk page, and if problems escalate, things can be discussed at WP:ANEW/WP:ANI. This is not DRV business.—Alalch E. 19:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  hang-on, this being discussed and so far there is no consensus to spin the article out and the view is that it's the same as what was redirected. Let consensus work it's way rather than rewarding someone for sidestepping an ongoing discussion. I put the redirect back until there is a consensus otherwise, which I'm doing as an administrative action Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't need consensus to boldly recreate an article. You cannot enforce a blank-and-redirect after a recreation. You would have to start an AfD. You have no special authority over content as an administrator. Restored. —Alalch E. 21:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  are you seriously revert warring during a DRV about that very location. That's very bold and I suggest you put it back immediately. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  You are overstepping and claiming admin authority over content matters, and are incorrectly enforcing a blank-and-redirect after a recreation with objectively different content and sources. This means that you have added the problem of your inappropriate conduct to this situation, instead of bringing clarity where it was already lacking. Other administrators should stop you if you continue. —Alalch E. 21:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is a contentious topic so revert yourself now or I shall escalate to a drama board. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate that it is a contentious topic, but recreation is a part of the normal editorial process, and by recreating in the way that I did (objectively, there is an appreciable difference in content and sources) I have followed established editorial practices. There are no restrictions on recreating articles belonging to contentious topics. —Alalch E. 21:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive359#Request concerning Alalch E. You have already been warned about revert warring instead of discussing. This is very bold and extremely disruptive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  If there were a textbook, that would be a textbook example, and is an interesting example, of an incident from which no conclusions beyond that incident should be drawn. The editor being reported was warned. The editor making the report was reminded. The editor making the report was subsequently banned by ArbCom. No conclusions should be drawn beyond the incident. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is not the same CT, and M.Bitton was an exceptionally problematic editor who was subsequently arbcom-banned for the same kind of uncollaborative tendency that had induced him to stonewall and then report me. I am a moral winner there, and it’s very important that you as an administrator are able to apply some perspective and understand this. —Alalch E. 21:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  fine. AE it is then Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can we please wait with AE? I'd like to hear Alalch's response to my comment below. There's no need to rush this. Owen× ☎ 21:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, multiple editors have asked him to restrain himself and he has doubled down and is disrupting the DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Recreating articles is an area of ocassional misunderstanding among editors, and administrators should bring structure and clarity by pointing editors to AfD. AfD is where a dispute around an article being/not being live is handled in a structured format. What the errant re-redirecters before you—and then you—were doing is just avoiding the issue being properly discussed, which is at AfD. Instead of, at worst, another AfD, we have a DRV that was incorrectly recommended and which cannot do anything, and now your additionally time-wasting AE topic. —Alalch E. 22:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Alalch E. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Alalch E.: While the page isn't under 1RR/BRD restrictions, I see this edit war as an unnecessary escalation in what was, until now, a civilized debate. I have full confidence in your independent editorial judgment, but once your edit has been reverted, rightly or not, re-reverting it can no longer be claimed as merely BOLD, but comes across as belligerent. Even if sources support an article where there was a redirect, I see no urgency to do so while this DRV is open. The last revision that had a community consensus behind it was the 08:29, 29 May 2026 AfD close - the redirect. Once this DRV is closed, I--and I'm sure Spartaz too--will have no problem with you using your best editorial judgement on that page. Until then, let's abide by the 29 May consensus status quo. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  +1 ~2026-41690-01 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is a disbalance between creation-type edits which cause pages to be added/become live and deletion proper+deletion-type edits. A single editor can, is authorized, to add a page, and then the community may decide to remove it. In contrast, a single editor may not remove; they have one shot to try a WP:BLAR, but a BLAR can be contested, and it is not contested by talking—it is contested by reverting, and then the editor who wants to remove the page needs to start the process to get the community's backing for their initiative. This structural imbalance exists because Wikipedia's mission is being an encyclopedia (that is built of artcles), and wrongly removing an article actively and directly hinders this mission whereas adding an article that is not as good as it would need to be, does not fit as nicely with other articles as we would want it, etc., does not hinder the mission so directly. There are other reasons for the structural imbalance. This is why recreation is both technically possible and permitted and why BLAR is one-shot … and we could also say that it has to do with administrators not havng control over content (and in connection to that, with how restrictive speedy deletion is). So my last edit was done consistent with BLAR and was done with the correct spirit, and I do not consider it belligerent. —Alalch E. 22:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  You were restoring an edit on a CT that has already been rejected and was being discussed. You can't justify that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse: Multiple SPA and paid accounts are trying to promote the Subject. Also it's henious to see how non admins paid users are recklessly reverting admins here. Clear case of meat puppetry and coordinated editing; requesting this article to be salted aka admin protected so that only admins can decide how to deal with this paid spam. I am pretty sure that this a serious case of WP:UPE, otherwise non admins paid editors and SPAs would never have been so obsessed to promote this WP:1E spam. ~2026-41825-02 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

You should mention which are these nultiple SPA and paid accounts who trying to promote the subject rather than just simply coming and cast aspersions. You are simply trying to deviate the topic. Nobody has raised concerns of UPE here other than one IP randomly appearing from somewhere and casting aspersions. If you think meatpuppetry is involved, open SPI. And for the information of admins it is clearly visible only one IP has been constantly trying to make sure that this article never gets published in the maispace. Multiple editors including myself have been only trying to restore this into mainspace out of good faith. You have been simply calling this spam. How can you say it spam without showing evidence. If socking is involved, open SPI rather than accusing others in the middle of a discussion.Thilsebatti (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Continued edit-warring, let alone in the middle of a DRV, is unacceptable (and this has been a chronic pattern involving several users) so I've fully-protected for a week. Any uninvolved admin can feel free to remove w/o asking if/when this DRV is resolved or they're otherwise convinced there's consensus for a certain action. Left guide (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

24 July 2026

Draft:Montgolfier_Balloon – Cryptic has undeleted the draft and reverted the AfC decline. The draft is now back in the queue for review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Montgolfier_Balloon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore) Followed proper citation format for Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia. A tool found a rehosted Wikipedia article and admin did no verification. This was previously undeleted twice so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2026_May_22 This makes me sad. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LizeLive (talk • contribs) Question - Exactly what is being requested? There is a draft, and it has not been deleted. I don't think that the appellant really needs Deletion Review again, but is there some sort of help that the appellant needs or wants? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 July 2026

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Astrawiki3203 – Decision endorsed per WP:SNOW and WP:DENY. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Astrawiki3203 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore) This user is an extremely active LTA, having been WMF banned just a week ago. Not all of their socks use obvios usernames such as "Astro is banned", given that their modus operandi also involves creating sleepers that are sometimes only revealed in range checks from their SPI. The fact that Astrawiki3203 seems to want this LTA page means next-to-nothing- Grawp also wanted his LTA page, but it was found that does not mean that WP:DENY overrules all the reasons to have a subpage for an active LTA- not only that, but users that got their LTA subpages deleted due to WP:DENY, such as Johnny the Vandal and Willy on Wheels have sometimes become even MORE prolific, due to the Streisand Effect and the inherent infamy in a user becoming so annoying that Wikipedia tries to remove any trace of their existence. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC) What are you asking for? The page was deleted G5 as created by banned user and then create protected. Are you asking for it to be undeleted? That doesn't align with your nomination so I'm confuzzled. Spartaz Humbug! 04:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse. (1) From the information available to me, this would appear to be a valid G5 that should certainly not be overturned. (2) Making a page exist again after a previous, G5-eligible page at that name was deleted never requires overturning the G5, and if undeletion is sought, as opposed to recreation, the question is always—why. (3) The nominator did not talk with the deleting admin. (4) LTA pages should not be treated as any other page and should not be brought to general forums including DRV; instead, the status of these pages should always be discussed more "internally", among the users who work with those pages the most, and only if there is some serious dispute concerning the deletion policy should such pages be brought up for discussion.—Alalch E. 09:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse. Valid use of the deletion criteria, and I cannot ascertain an argument here for why it shouldn't have. This absolutely did not need to rise to the level of DRV, at no point was this discussed (or even notified properly) by the filer on the deleting admin's talk page. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse This is a clear G5. – LuniZunie(talk) 15:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse - Deletion rationale was clearly correct and I see no good reason for that page to be retained from the time of its creation. ~SG5536B 15:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Comment - I think that Long-Term Abuse files, like sockpuppet investigations, should be managed by checkusers and SPI clerks, and have said this previously. I have not tried to study whether this was a valid speedy deletion, or whether it should be salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Agreed, although I suspect this isn't the place to decide that. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC) comment we have a socking problem on this page so I have applied ECR Spartaz Humbug! 16:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Sounds reasonable, with the possible exception that appellants should be able to comment freely. Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 July 2026

2026 Open Araba en Femenino – Re-opened speedily by OwenX per WP:REOPEN. To address the concern about faulty early DRV closes, both WP:DRVEARLY and WP:DEL-PROCESSES instruct for DRVs to be closed when the corresponding AfD has been re-opened. Left guide (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2026 Open Araba en Femenino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore) There was no clear consensus to keep here. Essentially, we can presume that the nominator is still in favour of deletion, since they never withdrew. The one 'keep' argument cited a Wiki Project guideline page, which itself says This is a WikiProject advice page on notability. It contains the advice of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. This page is not a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. In my opinion, citing this as a sole reason to keep an article is a very weak argument. There were no other editors in favour of keeping at all. The AfD was closed by a non-admin with little experience in closing AfDs. It may even have been a WP:SUPERVOTE rather than a proper neutral close, in which case they should have registered a keep !vote instead of closing the discussion. I would prefer for this close to be vacated and the discussion reopened. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Done. I reverted the incorrect NAC, and reopened the AfD per WP:REOPEN. At this point, I would normally close this DRV as moot, but there seems to be some grumble about my early closes, so I'll leave this open, although I'm not quite sure to what end. Owen× ☎ 20:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reopen/moot, i.e. I endorse the action Owen has already (speedily) taken. An article credibly nominated for deletion, with the nomination not withdrawn, and the discussion consisting of only one keep only weakly engaging with policy, is not suited for a Keep close. Especially one day after a relist. Absent that relist, a NC close would have been defensible (but not really helpful as a NAC). With it, the NAC seems most likely to be a well-intentioned (super)vote by someone inexperienced in deletion discussions; relisting speedily is a sensible solution. Martinp (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Recent discussions

18 July 2026

Everlasting Summer – Procedural close as moot. Already undeleted to user draft at User:Electricmemory/Everlasting Summer by UtherSRG on April 21, 2025, per the refund request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 408#Everlasting Summer. Interested editors may edit the draft there. —Alalch E. 17:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Everlasting Summer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore) Deleted in January 2021 due to lack of notability. Since the deletion, a variety of sources cropped up. Here's a list of the reliable ones that I've found (per WP:VG/S): http://www.jeuxvideo.com/test/619203/everlasting-summer-enfile-ta-chapka-camarade.htm https://www.igromania.ru/article/33548/anatomiya-strasti-luchshie-igryi-na-den-vlyublyonnyih https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/07/steam-data-leak-reveals-precise-player-count-for-thousands-of-games https://www.igromania.ru/news/161485/soviet-games-anonsirovala-beskonechnoe-leto-2-sikvel-kultovoj-vizualnoj-novellyi https://www.igromania.ru/news/161530/avtoryi-beskonechnogo-leta-2-otvergayut-obvineniya-v-ispolzovanii-nejrosetej Please undelete and draftify the page. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 15:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Procedural close. You didn’t ask Eddie891. @Eddie891: Hi, please undelete to draft and close this per WP:DRVPURPOSE#4. It will not count as an overturn of your close. Igromania.ru is a reliable source (former print vg mag). Subject can be broadened to cover both games in a single article.—Alalch E. 16:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC) I’m out of town camping, so not well situated to take action here, but it seems like the article has already been restored at User:Electricmemory/Everlasting Summer. Work can be done there, or that moved to draft space, I imagine. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Thanks. Log entry for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=169255015 —Alalch E. 17:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 July 2026

Cornel Stan – Decision endorsed. I also find consensus to draftify and for a pinch of salt via ECP. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cornel Stan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore) I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article Cornel Stan. Please excuse if my English is not perfect, as it is not my native language. I believe the deletion discussion was closed improperly and the closing administrator (Cactus Writer) did not correctly evaluate the arguments. The discussion was highly focused on statistical metrics like the h-index, which does not reflect the full real-world impact of a German professor in engineering, where practical cooperation with the automotive industry and specialized book publications are often more important than pure citation scores. The deleted page was not up to date. Important recent achievements were completely missing. For example, his latest book "Energy Scenarios for the Future" (Springer, 2025) was not even listed (https://www.springerprofessional.de/energy-scenarios-for-the-future/27420642). Professor Stan's specialized textbooks have a massive international reach and are held by some of the most popular academic institutions worldwide, including the US Library of Congress, the Princeton University Library, and the University of Sydney Library. Additionally Prof. Stan was for example President of Scientific & Technical Committee of following International Congres: https://siarcongress.eu/index.php/amma/2025 I kindly ask to restore the article so it can be improved with better independent sources, or at least to allow a relocation to the Draft space (Draft:Cornel Stan) so I can work on it properly. Thank you for your time and understanding. Thermodynamics01 (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse and SALT ECP. I see one participant arguing for retention, and four against it. All arguments are based on guidelines. How exactly is the appellant suggesting the closer should have evaluated these arguments to reach an outcome other than Delete? The SPA (and possibly COI) appellant has ignored AfC before, and based on the tendentious presentation here, will likely do so again given a chance. I oppose draftification. Owen× ☎ 10:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC) @OwenX, I was typing my comment below as you posted yours. Salting and opposing draftification seems excessive to me. Making sure you noted timestamps - the article does seem to have not passed AfC per appellant's user talk page, but that was 5 years ago. After being moved to mainspace, it was marked patrolled there and sat there until now. Martinp (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC) @Martinp: Considering the appellant's single-purpose history and their tendentious, borderline dishonest presentation here, I see no reason to assume they will abide by AfC any more than they did five years ago. The appellant is not here to build an encyclopedia. They're here to promote Prof. Stan. If an experienced, non-SPA, non-COI editor offered to work on the draft, I'd be more than happy to follow your recommended course of action. Owen× ☎ 10:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Salting is entirely unwarranted as a first response to a reasonable objection, even if unsuccessful, even if by a SPA, to an AfD not going the way the appellant wanted. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse delete close, but restore to draft. Close was only reasonable read of the discussion, which failed to find sufficient evidence of notability. The appellant's additional sources aren't at first glance persuasive (publication of a book, even a notable book--which is not clear in this instance--is not enough for its author to be notable, nor is an organizing role for an international conference) enough to overturn that conclusion based on new sources. That said, I see no reason why not to refund to draft and let someone improve it and try to make a better case for inclusion into mainspace. A gentle reminder to the appellant, who is new to en.wiki, that we do have conflict of interest policies. Should they have a conflict of interest, for instance as a friend or close professional collaborator of the subject, or employee of the subject's institution(s), they need to disclose and should work on the article in draftspace anyway. Martinp (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Noting I misread timestamps, and not that new. If there is a COI, draftspace/AFC is mandatory. That said, reaffirm that I have no objections to draftification. Martinp (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reviewing since the discussion is still live week later. I stand by my earlier recommendation: endorse delete close, restore to draft as requested, remind appellant of COI guidelines. Do not salt; have no opinion on ECP. Martinp (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Keep deleted. The new information is not significant, and draft work cannot make a non-notable subject notable. The reasons for deletion cannot be overcome by changing/adding something in a draft based on the information available in the AfD and this DRV.—Alalch E. 10:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse I don't see why (at this momement), the article needs to be salted. I do agree that the sourced provided by the appellant are far from persuasive that an article should be recreated. Publication of textbooks and committee work are not reasons for a stand-alone page, we want to see independent book reviews (multiple) and independent news coverage of committee work where coverage of the work is significant and in-depth. Editors in the discussion suggested that the subject was not close to meeting NSCHOLAR, so we will need to see how the subject meets GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse clear consensus to delete, and I do not see significant information here that would impact the subject's notability to even suggest restoring the deleted version to draft. I oppose salting at this time. Frank Anchor 15:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus or relist Neither the nominator nor the 3 delete !voters made strong arguments. Specifically, 2 of 3 cited h-index, which is specifically NOT an NPROF criterion: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others. At the very least, restoration to draft is appropriate, since credible arguments are made that the article as discussed was less than the best possible portrayal of this individual's career. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse as the only possible reading of consensus. The appellant says that the closing administrator (Cactus Writer) did not correctly evaluate the arguments.. The closing administrator was not responsible for evaluating the sources, or the arguments by the participants, because DRV is not AFD Round 2. The closing administrator did assess the consensus, which was to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC) There are different amounts of sodium chloride. Admin protection is usually the wrong answer. It creates busywork either for an unprotecting administrator or for DRV.It also encourages misspelling of the name, and the use of unnecessary disambiguators. Extended-confirmed protection, which permits a draft to be accepted by a neutral reviewer, is sometimes useful. Is it necessary in this case? In my opinion, only if the deleted article is restored to draft space. It isn't clear whether OwenX is recommending full protection or ECP protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Fair point, Robert. I guess ECP would be enough in this case to prevent another ill-advised skipping of AfC. Owen× ☎ 21:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse the AfD, properly run and fair. Draftify so that Thermodynamics01 (talk · contribs) and others can work on it. Use WP:AfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC) While it could have been closed defensibly as “no consensus”, I think it was better much closed as it was, as a good rough consensus reading by the admin closer. Admins are charged with calling a rough consensus because endless discussions are costly. I don’t agree that the delete !votes were “horrible”, but two of them cited my heavily disputed WT:PROF suggestion that no one with an H-index under 20 can be considered to pass WP:PROF (but feel free to try passing the WP:GNG). SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC) week endorse and Draftify. I think this could easily have been closed as "relist" or "NC"--the delete !votes are horrible. That said, the discussion under the keep !vote is enough for me to buy we reached the right outcome. But I think allowing a draft is fine though I'm not seeing the subject as over the bar set by WP:PROF or WP:N. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse. Only reasonable close Katzrockso (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus per Jclemens. Jishara (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Appellant relitigating AfD allow for example: WP:PROF Criterion 2 (Significant Award):** Prof. Stan was named an **SAE Fellow (2008–2009 term)**, which is a highly selective and prestigious honor in automotive engineering. This directly meets the criteria for highly regarded academic fellowships: https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2009/03/05/452592.html WP:PROF Criterion 5 (Distinguished Chair): He held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution (Westsächsische Hochschule Zwickau): https://www.whz.de/kft/organisation/institut-fuer-kraftfahrzeugtechnik/ehemalige-professoren/stan-cornel/ Academic Impact & Circular Reference: His academic work is foundational enough that English Wikipedia itself relies on his textbooks as a core source in the bibliography of major engineering articles, such as Mixed/dual cycle. Reliable Sources (Non-English): While much of the comprehensive biographical coverage is in German and Romanian, high-quality academic profiles exist that detail his career in English (e.g., pages 1–3 here): https://www.ingineria-automobilului.ro/reviste/Ingineria_23_en.pdf Support from other editors: As noted by Martinp during the discussion, the article stood unchallenged for nearly a decade. Furthermore, Jclemens rightly stated: "At the very least, restoration to draft is appropriate, since credible arguments are made that the article as discussed was less than the best possible portrayal of this individual's career." Given this significant, previously unconsidered evidence regarding WP:PROF, I kindly ask the closing administrator to reconsider, or at least allow a draft move to let us update the article with these strong sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thermodynamics01 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Weak endorse concur with points above that delete !votes were very weak (assessing the misapplication of guidelines or policy is inevitably part of a closer's ambit) - but the keep !vote was fully refuted. Support draft space resurrection and ECP. (Feel free to uncollapse the above if anyone disagrees with me doing so). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 July 2026

Law & Crime – No consensus on whether the closure was appropriate. I'm exercising my discretion to Relist the discussion. * Pppery * in solidarity 21:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC) * Pppery * in solidarity 21:33, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Law & Crime (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore) This article passes WP:NCORP and there was no consensus to redirect. Keep votes outnumbered redirect votes but were dismissed by the closer for being "less grounded in policy" despite being "valid and logical". Two redirect votes claimed the article lacked in-depth and independent sources, which is false when you look at the article. None of the sources are affiliated with the company, and plenty of them contained significant coverage. G13 vs G14 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Weak endorse. There is a 3-3 split between retaining and not retaining the article, but AFD is not a headcount. The keep voters asserted a pass of GNG/NCORP without presenting sources to back up their claim, while the nom and redirect votes provided more P&G-based depth. Frank Anchor 16:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. I agree with Frank Anchor that the bare claims of passing NCORP carry little if any weight in the face of critical source analysis. However, Nathannah readily admits that The entity passes NCORP, weakening her own Redirect !vote. Despite the popularity of WP:TNT, there is no policy support for deletion as means of improving a poorly written article that isn't subject to CSD. Phrases such as, WP:TNT is needed are contradictory to policies like WP:ATD-E and WP:EP. This leaves us with a solid nom, and HighKing's Redirect, both well anchored in P&G, but not enough for a consensus to do anything in the face of multiple objections. This wasn't an easy AfD to close, and I applaud Gommeh for doing a thorough job of weighing the different arguments. I wouldn't call this a BADNAC. I'm sure there are many admins who would have closed it the same way. Owen× ☎ 17:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC) No opinion here; I am ok with whatever happens here, but I do stand by my decisionAFD is not a headcount (there's a reason why when speaking, you're supposed to pronounce "!vote" as "not-vote"). In my eyes, the redirect !votes carried more weight in terms of consensus. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 18:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse. I think Nathannah's comment is not contrary to policy and should be given some weight. If nothing currently in the article is appropriate content then redirection is a valid editorial decision even if a full rewrite is possible. Also no user who asserted that NCORP was met identified which sources met the criterion. Redirect is a better read of the discussion than No Consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse I suspect if an actual admin had closed this then there would be less dispute and this is a challenging afd to close. I don't see anything fundamentally off with it so would endorse as in discretion but would suggest to the closer to leave ones like this to an ain as after all, we get the big bucks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. I commented in the discussion but did not vote, IDK if that makes me involved or not. The votes for redirect did not explain how it failed NCORP except asserting that it did, and it was otherwise exactly even; poor arguments all around. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Actually, one of the redirect !votes substantively argued the topic passes NCORP… —Alalch E. 21:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC) You don't need to provide evidence that it fails a notability guideline; instead the onus is on editors who wish to keep the article to prove that it passes the guideline, which they failed to do. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC) That isn't true. There is no such onus. On top of there not being such a thing, and more importantly, articles can be deleted or redirected or kept entirely agnostically to the issue of notability. Notability is advisory (roughly so, because its criteria are a very imperfect, rough approximation of the application of core content policies) and an optional consideration. Consensus is not. —Alalch E. 21:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I never said consensus was optional; on that I think we agree that it's clearly not. I'm done with this conversation, as I think if I continue explaining myself here it might go in a direction neither of us would really want it to, and it's likely better for my mental health anyway since I've had a long day. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 22:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC) As I said, poor arguments all around. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Overturn WP:BADNAC (vacate). The discussion was contentious and the close was likely to be controversial. An admin should close according to that admin's reading of the discussion. —Alalch E. 21:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Overturn to No Consensus, not as bad non-admin close, but simply as a close that doesn't reflect (the lack of) consensus. I disagree with the closer's discounting of the Keeps; I don't know exactly what further coverage would have been needed. Sometimes there isn't a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Sarcastic question - Spartaz says: I suspect if an actual admin had closed this then there would be less dispute. Is there any other sort of admin? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC) oooh that's excellent pedantry! Bravo Robert. Lol. Spartaz Humbug! 22:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus Note my vote was a redirect, not a deletion or keep, where I felt it met NCORP if sources could be found and I stated my hope for such (especially after the CourtTV acquisition which usually draws WP:TV interest in a RESCUE, but is muddled here because this product is mainly online), but we really only had a couple of other edits to the article from the review nominator that did add those sources after my vote, and usually I'd think that someone would come along and add more, but that didn't happen, and I am always receptive to changing my vote if an article is properly rewritten or a better target is found. This could've done with one more AfD relist cycle, though I don't know if we would've gotten any more movement, but I didn't feel there was enough consensus to decide on a redirect. Nathannah • 📮 22:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse. It was a BADNAC, being tough call, being contentious as proved in hindsight by this DRV, but it was the right call. It should have been left for an admin. I hesitated only because of “Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2026 which is very very short a !vote, but when I look at the edits between nomination and closure, it’s just fine detail tracking of the company activities, no commentary, not good enough. User:Nathannah undermined their own !vote, but User:Timtrent and User:HighKing were clear and correct. The article does not deserved the benefit of “no consensus” given the reference bombing of churnalism, exactly as per Timtrent’s nomination. If anyone wants resurrect the article, take it to draftspace and read advice at WP:THREE. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC) I follow @Bearian:'s comments closely as their analysis is usually on point and a good pointer to where the actual policy sits. Spartaz Humbug! 16:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC) I did not undermine my vote, I simply asked for more sources to prove this met NCORP and that the article needed help. Nathannah • 📮 17:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Asserting “The entity passes NCORP” without evidence or explanation makes you look like a verbose variation on “Keep as under WP:NCORP its notability is beyond question. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2026”. That might be harsh, but the question of NCORP was asked and went unanswered, which left your !vote looking at least confusing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC) I still don't see how there is a "reference bombing of churnalism". Everything seems reasonably cited to me. There's not more than 2 refs on any statement; how is that refbombing? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC) 45 references, including “Dan Abrams launches LawNewz website”. Reference bombing and churnalism are obvious. It was flooded with uninterested referenced information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC) 45 references does not equate to churnalism or refbombing; how does this match anything at WP:REFBOMB? I don't see any problem with saying that they launched a website, though that specific article might not be sigcov. Not every single reference has to be "interesting". If interestingness is a requirement for GNG I never got the memo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Comment: I saw that between June 22, when this two-day-old article was nominated, and July 1, when I popped in, it had been very much improved. Thank you, Spartaz, for your support. I'm not going to go through every single edit, but overall it's much better. I don't recall that any other non-BLP requires every single thing to be perfectly sourced. I'm the first editor to call out an organization that has a badly written and sourced article. It's not a big deal for me. However, I do want to give kudos to the editors who tried to rescue this. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC) You also have my support. I also thank those who “tried”, but my advice to them: when the rationale for deletion starts with reference bombing and churnalism, adding more material of low significance and more sources is not persuasive. When the best NCORP-meeting sources aren’t good enough, more worse sources doesn’t help but hurts. Instead, focus on what is good about the two or three best sources, or other NCORP claims. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Again, what is refbombing here per WP:REFBOMB? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Reference bombing is putting in many references sourcing non-significant content. Reference bombing appears like a WP:GAME to intimidate reviewers, although I don’t believe it is actually true. I think the problem is that newcomers are not told clearly enough that it is the two or three best sources that establish that the topic meets the Wikipedia-threshold, and that if the best three sources aren’t good enough, more worse sources won’t help. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Overturn Per Alalch E. as too contentious per a NAC, and per OwenX on the merits. Good discussion. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Weak endorse When someone advocates for not retaining a page based on a lack of appropriate sourcing, some effort ought to be made to rebut the assertion. It is helpful for editors who advocate to keep the article to point out 1-3 sources in the discussion that meet our standards (especially if the nominator points out that the references in the article are simple press releases). And second, while all comments need to be evaluated fairly, trends after a relist are important too. In this case, the only comment after the second relist was to redirect the article, so while that comment should not be over-emphasized, it does align with the overall direction of the discussion. My weak qualifier is that this wasn't an easy discussion to close and probably should have been left to an admin. --Enos733 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse Even without the more liberal interpretation of implied WP:NOPAGE we appear to be moving towards in assessing AfD discussions, this was a reasoable close - keep arguments were little more than waves. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland – Closure endorsed. Sandstein 06:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore) Nonsensical CfD outcome. Target is a container category and the outcome does not align with any of the !votes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC) the outcome does not align with any of the !votes is false; Mclay's vote suggested precisely this outcome. On the merits, prior to its deletion, Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland was the only member of Category:Medical scandals in Ireland. The close was therefore equivalent to delete Category:Medical scandals in Ireland; add Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Medical scandals by country, which is both entirely sane (who needs two Ireland categories?) and reflective of the consensus in the discussion. Speedy endorse. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC) If so, the correct target would be Category:Medical scandals. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland belongs in Category:Medical scandals by country, not Category:Medical scandals. The target was entirely correct. Regards, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC) No, because we can't merge articles to a container category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC) No articles were merged to a container category, because Category:Medical scandals in Ireland did not contain any articles. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC) "merge Category:Medical scandals in Ireland to Category:Medical scandals by country" is a nonsense closure; the latter is a container category and should not have any articles. But what appears to have been done is merging Category:Medical scandals in Ireland to Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland. That seems less offensive. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Withdraw !vote. I am inclined to trust Users:HouseBlaster; Extraordinary Writ; and Jclemens. User:LaundryPizza03 appears to have been sufficiently answered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reopen BADNAC. This is a reasonable contest of the close. More discussion is necessary. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC) If you want, I can take over this close as an admin because it was spot-on. I don't think a contest can be described as reasonable when it contains a demonstrably untrue statement. Regards, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC) User:HouseBlaster, yes please, and demonstrate a more convincing closing summary. Was the target a container category? Is that an issue? I for one find the CfD a challenge to understand. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC) A closing statement should reflect consensus, not explain why that consensus is a good idea. To answer your question: Yes, this is merging to a container category. WP:CONTAINER says that container categories may only contain other categories. Merging to a container category would be a problem if the old category had regular pages in it. In this case, there were not regular pages, so merging to a container was perfectly acceptable. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC) I know what a closing statement is. A better closing statement could be written. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Is it within the scope of DRV to review the quality of closing statements? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Of course it is. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse. Correct finding of consensus, participation normal for CfD, non-admin closure is widely considered normal there too. The nomination is wrong on the facts, based in incomplete facts, and the nomination's arguments are wrong on multiple levels (every conceivable level). This DRV is going to be such a waste of time with the non-CfD-initiated scratching their heads…—Alalch E. 22:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I’m CfD initiated, and it hurts my head. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse. What HouseBlaster said is correct: Category:Medical scandals in Ireland contained nothing except a single subcategory (Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland), so merging it into a container category was just fine. No articles were put into the container category, just the subcategory. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse per Extraordinary Writ. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Comment - I am satisfied with the conclusions of administrators who can see the deleted category. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC) Administrators can't see the prior contents of the deleted category. Categories report incoming links, they don't hold the information of what they contain. To find the prior contents, you have to go to the edit history of the prior contents, which is feasible if you know who or what bot emptied the category. Sometimes, rarely, category pages have header text that can be seen as deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea – No action for DRV to consider, although there is a general community recommendation for the appellant to create a draft and use the WP:AFC process. Left guide (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore) I think there's arguably a decent number of sources to justify the page being recreated, even if basically all the good ones are primarily about the manga adaptation. Smileghozt (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC) https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-01-09/seven-seas-licenses-wadanohara-and-the-great-blue-sea-manga/.110802 https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-feature/2018/06/29/from-tool-to-subgenre-to-anime-the-mysterious-journey-of-rpg-maker https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-01-09/seven-seas-licenses-wadanohara-and-the-great-blue-sea-manga/.110802 https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2017/01/09-1/seven-seas-licenses-absolute-duo-wadanohara-and-the-great-blue-sea-and-hatsune-miku-presents-manga https://www.pixivision.net/en/a/933 http://natalie.mu/comic/news/157105 http://www.moguragames.com/entry/wadanohara_comic https://web.archive.org/web/20251020095158/https://screenrant.com/best-horror-games-with-cute-art-style/ Smileghozt (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC) http://gekikarareview.com:80/review_rpg/1602wadanohara.html my friend said this is probably not reliable but i mean this hasn't been properly assessed by the community https://web.archive.org/web/20250704201940/https://gamerant.com/horror-games-at-sea-ranked/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240907092421/https://gamerant.com/horror-games-that-look-innocent/ I don't think this would be a strong keep, but I know ANN and Natalie are reliable, Mogura Games I was told is probably reliable and Screen Rant and Game Rant are marginally reliable. Idk about Pixivision and Crunchyroll. Smileghozt (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC) https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2018-07-24/best-and-worst-manga-of-2018-results-comic-con-international/.134599 this i forgot Smileghozt (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Comment: Deletion review is not the venue for discussing whether sources exist for a deleted topic. Nobody is stopping User:Smileghozt from creating Draft:Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea and requesting review at WP:Articles for creation. BusterD (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC) oh Smileghozt (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC) well im not really a fan of the game its just that this game has one of the bigger rpg maker fanbases and its had a somewhat colorful history with this wiki Smileghozt (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC) it used to have a page but it got deleted in 2022 because there was only 5 sources of varying quality and literally nobody came to post about deleting or keeping the article Smileghozt (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC) If you wish to recreate the article, please feel free to do so via a draft and submit at AFC. You can request the deleted version of the article to be restored to draft at WP:REFUND. What we're not going to do is overturn a deletion discussion from 3¾ years ago and let the article languish. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse if this is an appeal of the 2022 closure, but this does not appear to be an appeal, but a request to create a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Allow Submission of draft, which was already allowed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Comment - Many editors, some of them experienced, think that Deletion Review is required in order to resubmit or recreate an article that was previously deleted for lack of notability. It is probably easier to continue to advise occasional appellants that they only need to resubmit a draft than to try to deal in some other way with that misinformation. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Wrong venue. Go to WP:AfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Procedural close. Nothing to overturn or endorse, no issue for Deletion review to deal with according to its purpose. About AfC, AfC is not a venue.—Alalch E. 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC) No action per above. However, if I was presented such sources at a theoretical future AfD, I would lean towards saying the sourcing is not enough (almost all sourcing is only trivial announcements or listicles with very little coverage, the two best are the pixivision interview and gekikarareview, but the pixivision is very generic, and as appealant notes, gekikarareview may not be reliable). The current article is WP:ECP WP:SALTED, and the appealant is not EC, so they would be required to use WP:AFC to publish an article on the subject. Jumpytoo Talk 05:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 July 2026

Karishma Mehta – Decision endorsed * Pppery * in solidarity 01:16, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Karishma Mehta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore) I came upon this AfD in a different context and did not participate in it, but the close to me does not seem like a fair and accurate summary of the discussion. Overall 7 editors argued keep, 9 argued delete. Most keep voters mainly argued that the sourcing was sufficient, most delete voters thought sourcing was not sufficient. The strongest case for 'keep' was made by Beccaynr who noted that there were 16 sources at the time (10 more sources were added by Beccaynr during the course of the AfD), and specifically referenced 7 of them in their argument, the strongest 'delete' argument was by ZDRX, who said that 5 of the 7 presented sources failed NEWSORGINDIA, but whose argument was weakened by Beccaynr's source analysis which found that the sources do not actually fail NEWSORGINDIA. Sources were also discussed in the previous AfD in 2021, where the article was kept (5 keep votes all of which thought sourcing was sufficient in 2021, we only have more sources since then; 3 of these 5 also participated in the 2nd AfD, all 3 voting keep). As such, I find the close bizzare in that it found that the "contention that sourcing isn't quite there hasn't been effectively refuted." As Goldsztajn noted in the discussion with closer, this seems like a supervote. The result of the discussion seems more of a "no consensus" close to me than what it was closed as (a redirect). Overturn the close and either relist or close as to 'no consensus', based on the above. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC) edited to change to only 'overturn to no consensus', I believe relist will be unproductive. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. The close doesn't address any of the NCREATIVE or NBIO arguments in the discussion, instead only focusing on the GNG/sourcing question. Even on the GNG, the closer inappropriately discounted !votes because they referenced a past AfD, pointing to changes over time. The issue here is that the !votes in question argued that the last AfD found sufficient sourcing for the subject to be notable, which is not an argument that should be discounted. If are going to discount arguments, we should discount the votes claiming no coverage existed of the subject that wasn't about the company, which is manifestly not correct. Katzrockso (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC) (involved)Endorse : Nothing in this request shows how the AfD was wrong. It rather reads like "how I would have closed it". The unwarranted mention of "the previous AfD in 2021" makes this DRV even more unproductive. Chronos.Zx (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC) (For the sake of transparency, Chronos.Zx was among the delete voters in the AfD). UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC) (involved)Endorse perfectly valid closure. There was clear failure to establish the person's notability outside of the organization. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC) (For the sake of transparency, Georgetgedragonslayer was among the delete voters in the AfD). UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC) please don't label editors by their stance in the afd Spartaz Humbug! 18:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I think it is a good practice for editors to reveal that they are involved, which all other editors had done except for the above two. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC) credit the closer with being able to work this out without needing labels put on a vote. It's a way to devalue the opinions of people you disagree with and it's not our thing. Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I think I'm well within my rights here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I have been active at DRV for 20 years and was the regular closer/behavioural moderator for over a decade so you can take it from me that this is not normal behaviour here and should be avoided. So just knock it off and leave the closer to work these things out themselves. Spartaz Humbug! 22:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC) "I also note that you are not labeling the commentary from two keep voters here" Because both of those keep voters themselves declared that they were involved (see here and here). Neither of the the above two delete voters declared so (see here and here, the (involved) tag was added later in both). I didn't feel the need to mention that the keep ones were involved because they mentioned so themselves. Assuming some good faith of me would be appreciated. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I explained nicely that we didn't do it but you insist it's your right That's not our thing. Go look through the archives and see for yourself. Spartaz Humbug! 22:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC) <involved> and <uninvolved> became a thing several years ago at MRV, where MRV was routinely used as RM#2 with many RM regulars dominating the MRV discussions. I support self declarations for those who want to, but people clerking and labelling others’ !votes is a much more complicated thing, which I think should be reserved to admins and accredited clerks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC) User:UnpetitproleX, stop it please. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I'm not saying it's my right, but that I don't believe it is misconduct to do so. If there indeed is consensus here at DRV (or in general) that mentioning that other editors are involved when they fail to do so is misconduct, then I apologise. But the allegations of bias (now removed, for which I thank Spartaz) are untrue, and that is all I have to say. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC) (involved)* Comment This was a complex AfD for a number of reasons (meatpuppets the more obvious, but less significant perhaps) and while I expressed my disagreement with the close, I am more concerned about a certain element of the close. I raised a number of issues in my comments on Spartaz's talk page and I'm here mostly because of the responses. Spartaz includes this statement in the close: "I have discounted arguments that notability has already been established at the last afd because of course standards change over time." When pressed to explain what measures they use to assess "change over time", no reply was given. My concern here was that the last AfD (resolved as keep) was five years ago and nothing in the intervening period suggests that there have been substantial changes in "standards" raised in this AfD. If we were talking about an AfD a decade or two prior, yes; if we were talking about NSPORTS five years ago, of course, but there have not been substantial changes in the GNG or BASIC, nor seismic shifts in community views on how they are applied since the last AfD on this subject. Spartaz did not engage with these points, which leads me to treat the close as a partial supervote as their rejection of a previous discussion and references to that disucssion does not have any basis (notability is enduring etc). I also disagree with their assessment of the sourcing discussion, there was no substantial counter refutation of the detailed analysis presented by Beccanyr, but this to me is the less important issue. I'm more concerned that previous reasoning or discussion, not shown to be lacking in relevance by any measure, was presumptively dismissed. *(I !voted keep and recommended no consensus in my subsequent talk page comments after the close). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC) i'm sorry about my silence but once I get accused of supervoting which I have always found to be at best a mildly bad faith claim, I tend to tune out of discussions. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse. Notability is a necessary condition for retaining a standalone article, but it is not a sufficient one, per WP:PAGEDECIDE. The Keeps (edit: with one exception) only addressed notability, without rebutting the claim that any encyclopedic content was already (or could be) covered in the proposed target page, and that readers would be better served by seeing the content at that target. Even if we accept Beccaynr's source analysis at face value, that still doesn't tell us why this content, notable as it may be, isn't a better fit in Humans of Bombay. The Deletes weren't much better; none of them presented a valid case against redirection as an ATD, which weakened their argument. At best, I'd count those Delete votes as not opposing a Redirect outcome, as pburka correctly noted. I accept Goldsztajn's claim that this AfD suffered from canvassing, or even meatpuppetry. In this case, it hardly matters, since those stacked voted didn't carry much P&G weight even if they weren't canvassed. I do not accept Goldsztajn's accusation of a supervote. I have no doubt that Spartaz did not have an opinion about the article or its subject. The accusation concerned differing interpretations of WP:PRECEDENT between the two admins. Personally, I only take a prior XfD into account if the new nomination was within our WP:RENOM timeframe, but there's no policy or guideline to dictate this. But in this case, it doesn't even matter whether notability was established at the 2021 AfD or not, since a decision to redirect or merge is not dependent solely on notability. Either way, whether we agree or disagree with it, difference of opinion over common practice is not something we normally refer to as a "supervote". Also note that during the 2021 AfD, Humans of Bombay was a 142-word stub, so redirecting to it was not as appealing a choice as it is now. Knowing Spartaz's approach to administrative vs. editorial decisions, I'm sure the "Redirect" did not intend to exlude a selective merge. Spartaz explicitly left the door open for a selective merge. Editors are encouraged to merge any sourced, encyclopedic content from behind the redirect into the target. Those who still believe there's a case for a standalone article about the founder are welcome to start a spinout discussion at Talk:Humans_of_Bombay. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I explicity wrote "partial" above and "had an air of a supervote" on Spartaz's talk page. I appreciate Owen's points, but this reinforces to my mind the slippage between a closer's discretion and supervoting. A closer when asked should be able to indicate how they assess precedent rather than assert a nebulous, things change position (and RENOM doesn't provide much help there either). Spartaz wrote on their talk page: "Keep arguments that are basically this was kept last time offer no contemporary commentary on current notability standards so I'm obviously going to discount them." (my emphasis). But the notability standards have not changed in this particular case, they are the *same* standards. Owen is absolutely right that in general keeping a standalone page is not dependent on notability by itself, but in *this* specific discussion Spartaz excluded arguments (arbitrarily in my mind) in favour of a stand alone page, thus changing the weighting. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I agree that Spartaz's reply on his Talk page could have been worded better. I also agree that neither WP:PRECEDENT nor WP:RENOM give us any useful guidance as to the proper weighting of previous XfD results. Traditionally, when someone brings up an argument of the the kind, "Nothing has changed since the last AfD", the general response is to direct them to WP:LASTTIME, which tells us: An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion. Of course, LASTTIME is a section in the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay, not a policy, but is one of our oldest, most entrenched practices. Any close that hinges on a result from five years earlier is likely to be successfully challanged at DRV. So while GNG and BIO haven't changed since 2021, I don't blieve there was "an air of a supervote" in Spartaz's decision not to give weight to the 2021 outcome. But again, it wouldn't have mattered if the 2021 AfD was given full weight, since it, too, failed to present a compelling reason why the content must reside on a standalone page, rather than be merged into an article where readers see it in a broader context. So while we can argue on the eligibility of a previous AfD as evidence in a current AfD, the discussion would be purely academic in this particular case. Owen× ☎ 15:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC) @OwenX: re: "The Keeps only addressed notability, without rebutting the claim that any encyclopedic content was already (or could be) covered in the proposed target page, and that readers would be better served by seeing the content at that target." This is evidently not true. Beccaynr, immediately following their source analysis, offered this justification for two separate articles: "From my view, this type of Mehta-focused coverage is in addition to coverage and commentary on the HoB website, so having two articles seems to reflect the available coverage, in accordance with the WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE guidelines (noted in my initial !vote above)." and then proceeded to provide sources about Mehta beyond HoB here and here. These rationales were also offered by other keep voters. Indeed, as Katzrockso noted above, "the close doesn't address any of the NCREATIVE or NBIO arguments in the discussion", it completely ignores them without any engagement. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I fully met my accountability responsibilities on my talkpage and expanded on my thinking there. It's not really for you to decide what valid arguments I should consider. That's my role as the closing admin and if I got it wrong DRV will correct me. What I do feel strongly about is that allegations of bad faith on my part thread through this discussion. I can be wrong but don't characterise me as biased. Spartaz Humbug! 18:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC) @Spartaz: I apologise if any of my comments come across as assuming bad faith from you. I am only arguing that the close is wrong and arbitrary in which arguments it focuses on and which it discounts and ignores—not that you are biased. I understand that you may be feeling like you've been put on trial here, that is not my intention nor do I think anybody here is accusing you of misconduct. One can act in good faith and still be wrong, and that is precisely what I think here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I'm closing most of the difficult AFDs and therefore naturally come here regularly. Fact is, my endorse rate is currently extremely high by historical levels so you can be reassured that I do not feel threatened or on trial. Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Great then. I will just reiterate that I did not characterise anyone as biased. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC) @UnpetitproleX: Beccaynr's claim that sources provided significant coverage of Mehta beyond her role at HoB was disputed by other participants, and certainly didn't gain consensus. The consensus is that if it weren't for HoB, Mehta wouldn't meet our notability guidelines, leading to the redirect/merge outcome. Owen× ☎ 19:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC) OwenX, that’s open to interpretation, I do not see any editor who meaningfully addressed or disputed Beccaynr’s sources—nobody at all disputed the coverage of the discourse about Mehta’s decision to freeze her eggs, for instance. But your original comment was saying that keep voters only argued notability and not that Mehta had coverage beyond HoB to merit a standalone article. This is not true, and is not a correct reading of the discussion. Several editors did argue in that vein. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC) @UnpetitproleX: Fair enough; I amended my original comment to show that not all Keeps ignored the NOPAGE question. Owen× ☎ 20:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I do note that not only Beccaynr, but also another participant (Jishara) in their keep vote argued that there were "sufficient sources to establish individual notability." I’d say the other editors who directly referenced Beccaynr’s rationale could be assumed to have accepted their conclusion about two separate articles, though I will not press on that conclusion. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Once again, "sufficient sources to establish individual notability" is not, by itself, a valid argument against a merge. Owen× ☎ 21:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Comment (involved). I don't object to the outcome, but I do object to discounting the previous AfD discussion. Neither the nominator nor any other participant provided any evidence that standards related to this page had changed since the previous discussion. Since the relevant notability guidelines are all relatively stable, all of the arguments in the previous discussion are equally valid today, and we shouldn't establish a precedent that deletion can be relitigated every few years until the desired outcome is achieved. pburka (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC) frequent requests can be closed as disruptive or procedurally if there is no new basis and the previous discussion was recent but standards change and there is not and should not be an exemption from failing to meet a new standard because a previous discussion in another time found it met the then current standards. And the previous discussion was 5 years ago and expectations and standards have hardened since then. If you are not with that then you are out for synch with the community. Spartaz Humbug! 18:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC) I feel like the nominator ought to at least review the previous AfD and explain what they think has changed. If that's not already implicit in BEFORE, it perhaps should be. Often the only thing that's really changed is the semi-random selection of editors who happen to participate. In this case, I think that was the only real difference. pburka (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC) no, I flatly disagree with that. A closer may well choose to review a former close but I'll be honest, I'm not going to be strongly swayed by a 5 year old discussion that has been referenced without commentary by multiple users. If there are powerful arguments from that former discussion then it's the role of the participants to bring them in. I'm not going to give credit to an argument that is basically this was kept five years ago so this discussion is invalid. If it's more recent then naturally the closer may well think the arguments are more relevant and choose to treat the current discussion as an extension of the old one, but it's honestly subjective and a hard rule isn't in policy. Spartaz Humbug! 22:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse. Normal, average, AfD close within discretion.—Alalch E. 16:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC) weak meh leaning *shrug* I never close discussions that I might have an opinion on and this one was no different. It's supremely indifferent to me whether we keep, delete or something else with this article and my approach was based on administrative norms. Non policy based arguments get down weighted. There is no precedent and keeping because of an aged previous discussion has no real policy basis. Redirect or merge have no meaningful difference and in a case where there is a strong argument the article covers material that is also covered elsewhere it's always a valid outcome. there was no consensus to delete but a strong feeling of having 2 articles where 1 might do. Allegations of socking and meat puppetry are aspertions until there is a factual finding on it. It would have been grossly inappropriate for me to take that into account when there was no obvious evidence of this in the AFD. No SPI or checkuser had been requested and I accepted all opinions based on the strength of their policy argument. I explicitly permitted a selective merge in my close. We just did a DRV where the approach to redirect over merge was accepted as valid. (Well it's still running but the outcome is explicit. I'm closing based on my understanding on how DRV expects me to close cases like this. If you think that is wrong then we need to give me clearer explicit guidance in this discussion I apologise for my lack of engagement on my talkpage, but I'm going to be honest., I generally find allegations of super voting as mildly bad faith at best and I tune out of conversations afterwards. Spartaz Humbug! 17:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse. Difficult close, but within admin discretion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Endorse - Per OwenX, in addition to WP:N we must consider WP:PAGEDECIDE, and yet it often isn't considered. Spartaz addresses that here and it looks like a good close. Certainly within closer's discretion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2026	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2025	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2024	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2023	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2022	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2021	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2020	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2019	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2018	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2015	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2013	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec