Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a271cf66ae21f557

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV/U)

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:
  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 August 6}}</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 August 6}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 August 6|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 that requires a community consensus decision should remain on deletion review for at least seven days (unless the nomination was a proposed deletion). In such cases, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists after seven days. 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,[a] 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".
  1. ↑ Challenges regarding whether a non-admin closure was contentious or correctly assessed consensus should be addressed through Deletion Review.

Active discussions

6 August 2026

Recent discussions

29 July 2026

BookMyShow (closed)

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

Hi, I believe there was no consensus for deletion. Nomination does not address the current version of the article. It just cites a 10year old, 2016 AfD and assert that the article was a repost of that deleted material. Only one delete is there and that's also lacking, citing just policy shortcuts. There's an abundance of coverage from last 10 years available online. Salimiss09 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

strong meh bordering on complete indifference. Thanks for letting me know about the DRV. Shame the nominator was unable to follow the instructions and do it themselves. Spartaz Humbug! 20:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse. Can't be closed as anything other than delete.Katzrockso (talk)
  • Endorse and we might need something the equivalent of a WP:OFFER for titles like this that have just been problematic forever. I can't see where I commented on this previously, but I definitely remember running across these discussions previously. When we have tribal memory about a title, it's not a good thing. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse per above and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse the May 2026 close. Title Blacklist due to gaming of titles with capitalization. List at WP:DEEPER. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Do not overturn. I will not endorse a delete closure without a quorum to delete. There was only the nom (which did not offer a reason to delete outside of citing discussions from 8-10 years ago), one delete !vote, and a non-!vote comment which suggested moving to draft; votes in previous discussions can not be considered for a quorum based on the discussions happening many years ago and likely changes in the content of this article during this time. However, based on the history of title gaming and other bad-faith editing surrounding this topic, title blacklist and list at WP:DEEPER. Frank Anchor 13:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse. There was a consensus. "Quorum" is figurative language, and no quorum is specified in any policy. "NOQUORUM" is a shortcut, a symbolic representation for a particular being of process which is extending PROD into AfD to label some deletions as "soft", and the guideline does not really talk about quorum in the sense that quorum is mandated for consensus forming. Wikipedia:Consensus does not either. It doesn't even use the word "quorum" in its actual text. Applying soft deletion is only ever an option. An administrator is never required to close as "soft delete". Whenever an administrator may close as soft delete they are equally authorized to close as "delete". This is the most basic and the most minimal level of admin discretion. It takes a lot more discretionary authority to decide which outcome to close with among materially different hard outcomes, and admins can also do that. DRV should never turn a "delete” closure into "soft delete". Categorically never. Only overturn to substitute a different hard closure. The level of participation in this particular AfD was normal, and the issue was discussed thoroughly.—Alalch E. 19:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Just picking up the point about changing to a soft delete. That basically means the nominator can simply undo the close. That seems antithetical to the process as DRV should really endorse or overturn. Endorsing while allowing the close to be reversed as an editorial action makes no sense. Spartaz Humbug! 11:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Ah, but that's not it. I mean, your reply doesn't connect with my intent. My comment remade using different words: DRV should not hesitate to endorse a close which was backed by a consensus when there was not a so-called quorum in the AfD. That is because whether there was a consensus is a different question from whether there was a so-called quorum for the purposes of determining soft-delete applicability. My comment is a critique of the previous comment's "Do not overturn", in the context of the type of complaint brought up in this nomination. And where one might say "I will not endorse a delete closure without a quorum to delete" I will say "I will readily endorse a delete closure without a quorum to delete—when there was a consensus to delete". —Alalch E. 13:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Vacate and relist - we cannot be endorsing a hard deletion with just one Delete vote - that goes far beyond administrator discretion. - and prior votes cannot be counted towards a current AfD. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    FYI the nominator is a vote and cryptics non bolded opinion supported an absence of suitable sources. So that's 3 opinions against the article meeting inclusion standards and no opinions arguing in favour. Admins can't just count bolded comments they have to read the discussion and identify which comments address policy in which way and work a consensus from there. Spartaz Humbug! 08:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Also, normally,we are offered potential GNG passing sources before a relist makes sense. Do you have those sources? Spartaz Humbug! 08:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn and relist — I don't think the close was right to read Cryptic's comment as a third delete. They wrote they were "undecided whether that's better done in mainspace or back in draft," which reads to me as an editor pointing to alternatives to deletion, not one saying the topic fails inclusion criteria. Treating an explicit "undecided" as backing a hard delete is, i think, a stretch on how consensus is supposed to work.
That leaves Aneirinn's single sentence as the only bolded delete, citing WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH without engaging a single source. The nomination itself was procedural. Cryptic was the only one who actually looked closely at the sourcing and made the most substantive comment in the thread. They called the CNN piece on the 2024 Coldplay ticket controversy the best of what they'd reviewed, but nobody engaged with what that source actually shows toward notability. Cryptic said as much here too, noting they were surprised it wasn't relisted.
When participation is this thin, my sense is relisting is the right call, not a hard close. I'd favor vacating and letting the current sourcing get weighed properly. If a full AfD still ends in delete, that's a fair outcome, but i don't think that evaluation happened here. EmilyR34 (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
My guess is it wasn't relisted because of this title's rather chequered history. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Look out it's Jimothy! 18:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
My nomination is not "procedural" in the sense that I'm neutral on the outcome. I hold the substantive opinion that pretty much every single article that was created by WP:GAMENAMEing should be deleted (I would prefer there were a speedy criterion for this, but there's not so I have to make do with G4 and AfD) * Pppery * (alt) in solidarity 16:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. The close was still framed as NCORP consensus, not G4, though, and that consensus isn't there in the thread. EmilyR34 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse: I'm surprised by those saying a relist is warranted. This AfD received little participation, but had no support for retention in the 7 days that it ran (in fact it ran over by an extra twelve hours going by the timestamps). WP:SILENCE qualifies here as nobody opposed the deletion outright. An issue was identified by the nominator and further notability issues were identified later on. This leaves deletion as the only correct close. 11WB 💬 21:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Silence implies consent when nobody engages with a proposal at all. That's not what happened here. Cryptic did engage, closely, and their conclusion wasn't silence, it was "undecided whether that's better done in mainspace or back in draft." That's a stated position, and it falls short of endorsing deletion rather than simply failing to object to it. Reading it as tacit support for delete is, i think, a specific interpretive choice, not something SILENCE settles on its own.
I'd also ask what "further notability issues were identified later on" refers to. As far as I can tell from the AfD, nobody added source analysis beyond Cryptic's initial skim, and nobody engaged with the CNN piece Cryptic flagged as the best of what they'd reviewed. If there's something later in the discussion i'm missing, i'd genuinely like to see it, since that's the gap my relist argument actually turns on. EmilyR34 (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Do I really need to explain this in further detail? (Also something is wrong with the reply button, as it didn't open under this message.) 11WB 💬 08:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Fixed the reply issue. For second paragraphs, use a double colon, not a bullet point colon, as this breaks the ability to reply. I've added links to answer your question on what I meant by that quote. I disagree with you on SILENCE. It says "Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident." Nobody formally disagreed with deletion, therefore it was the right close, meaning a relist would not have been appropriate. As I said in the edit summary, I've little interest in having a discussion about this. There's nothing to pick apart, this is an extremely uncontroversial close. Thanks. 11WB 💬 08:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the links, but I think those are the same two comments that my original comment already addressed, rather than anything new. I won't press further, just didn't want the point sitting unclarified. EmilyR34 (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

KreekCraft (YouTuber) (closed)

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

This was my draft originally, but I believe a random IP editor moved it into the namespace without notifying me. I'd like in undeleted and draftified. Crystalite13 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

  • (The page was actually moved by Slinetum, not a random IP editor). Nevertheless I would decline this request as the community has twice decided KreekCraft isn't notable so draftification would be futile. * Pppery * in solidarity 05:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    More sources could spring up in the future, I see no major downside to a draft. Crystalite13 (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I've updated the header here to point at the controlling afd, as one does for g4s, but there was some minimal discussion at the aborted afd at WP:Articles for deletion/KreekCraft (YouTuber) as well. —Cryptic 06:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Decline per Pppery. The article (at KreekCraft) was deleted many times, last in 2025. WP:AKON applies, and no draft needs to be worked on without irrefutable proof new sources emerged proving notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. This seems to be a situation similar to WP:BFDI or others in WP:DRPR - subject with massive niche popularity but a lack of notability in society at large. Letting a draft be worked on with zero chance it will ever be accepted veers into WP:NOTWEBHOST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse deletion and decline draftification. More sources could spring up in the future is an even weaker argument than WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. I'll tell the appellant what I usually say in such cases: create a well-sourced stub, preferably via AfC, and we'll restore the deleted history behind it if requested. Draftspace is meant for active work on a page, not as temporary storage in hopeful anticipation of new sources. Owen× ☎ 09:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse deletion, decline draftification. This subject has a history of multiple deletions, recreations, SALT evasion; in both draft and mainspace. Multiple discussions and draft reviews have failed to find enough sourcing to merit an article, and while any individual creation, AfC submission, or move may be done in good faith, the net effect is tendentious. As a practical matter, there is now a (new) draft created by someone else at Draft:KreekCraft; the sourcing is not impressive. That draft is not in scope of discussion here, but we certainly don't need 2 duelling drafts. To appellant - if you want to work on this article, I'd suggest first finding 1-2 reliable sources and adding them to that draft. If and only if such sources exist, then trying to resurrect best-of multiple deleted drafts *might* make sense -- though even then, just rewriting from scratch using those good sources may be preferable. But absent such sources, any draft is going to get deleted, and with the tendentious history, we aren't going to keep a draft around just in case better sources appear in the future. Martinp (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse close of second AFD as Delete (although the appellant may not be appealing this), Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse salting of disambiguated title, which was an attempt at gaming the title. The other draft with the unnecessary disambiguation can be left alone, and will be declined if submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Consider ECP protection of KreekCraft as protection against move of draft, while draft can still be reviewed by qualified reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    • It's already admin-salted, and given the evasion here I'd been planning on blacklisting besides. Barring an extreme turnaround of this discussion, of course. —Cryptic 17:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse deletions. Consensus against this topic is clear. A draft is at Draft:KreekCraft. Is anything different is the deleted page requested for draftification? Competing drafts are a bad idea. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    • It was a good deal longer - you could've inferred that from the length field in the handy new "revisions" link in the header - and had 17 refs. If I had to choose one to keep in draftspace, the deleted version's the clear winner. But its existence isn't going to stop me from blacklisting, nor putting scarily-worded {{AFC comment}}s on whichever survives even if no admin's willing to ignore enough rules to make it a redlink. —Cryptic 23:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Support SALTing the mainspace title, as a clear message that the only path to an article is via reviewer approval through WP:AfC process, or a successful appeal to an admin. Having looked deeper, I think there is no chance of an acceptable Wikipedia article, and people like User:Jishara below need this clear message. Their proffered sources are not suitable, being not independent of the subject as one reason. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • The situation's rather worse than I'd thought, at least in draftspace - there's attempts going back to at least 26 August 2016 - though also a distressing number of affected usernames. So I'm going to join the chorus of endorse and decline draftification. Guess we're going to have to mfd the existing draft, too. "Wait for better refs to be created later!" isn't a reasonable ask when we've been doing that for ten years already. —Cryptic 23:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep deleted. A draft being moved to article space and AfD-deleted just means that an article was deleted. Its prior history as a draft is completely unimportant. In no way does this type of scenario suggest undeleting the deleted article to draft. It does not matter who had moved the draft to article space.—Alalch E. 20:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose salting - this is a subject which active new info is coming out on - in fact, in the last few months, multiple new sources with SigCov have popped up (list of sources with sigcov includes Tubefilter, Variety, tubefilter again, Tubefilter 3, Tubefilter 4: Electric Boogaloo, Dexerto, Dexerto again, Dexerto 3: Electric Boogaloo, Dexerto 4, and Dexerto 5, and that interview from Youtube Official Blog.) An article on him now should get through GNG, so because of this I oppose salting the subject. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Multiple publications from the same imprint only count as one source for notability purposes, so at best there's only three sources, at least one of which (WP:DEXERTO) is unreliable. Left guide (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 July 2026

G.S.K. Velu (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
G.S.K. Velu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Everyone participating in the discussion is now blocked for UPE and/or sockpuppetry. The closer would've had no way of knowing about this (earliest blocks were at 21:33 on 3 April 2026, while the discussion was closed at 13:33 on 3 April 2026). The page's status should be re-evaluated in light of this new information. Staraction (talk · contribs) 02:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Vacate AfD and allow early renomination. Did this require a DRV? Katzrockso (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
@Katzrockso: thought it was probably best to at least try and list a DRV, since this case is written in WP:DRVPURPOSE as #3, and the close is within 6 months old. No objection to closing this DRV early as SNOW, of course. Staraction (talk · contribs) 02:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Early Renom without prejudice endorsed No action needed from us here, just note the UPE blocks of the first AfD participants as a good reason for the timing... which isn't particularly early in any event. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • This needs protecting after renominating I don't think it matters what we do with the old afd, it clearly cannot stand. Let me know when it's renominated and I'll ECR the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 08:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn to no consensus Vacate. While the closing admin couldn't have known about the UPE/sock status, he did know the nomination didn't qualify for a "speedy keep" close under WP:CSK. That vote should have been discarded, not counted as a "keep". This would have left the closer with a nom to delete and two Keeps - not enough to do anything other than relist. Owen× ☎ 10:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Allow "early" re-nomination. This does not require DRV approval (a note in the nomination at the second AFD would be enough to avoid the speedy/procedural keep votes that come with some "early" renominations), but I do not fault the appellant for seeking clarification. All keep supporters were later blocked indefinitely. The closer was correct based on the information known at the time (either a "keep" close or a relist would have been reasonable). Frank Anchor 15:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    I don't see how two Keep !votes, legitimate as they were seen at the time, amount to a consensus. Owen× ☎ 17:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    I sometimes accept two really good votes for a consensus or where the outcome is very clear but 2:1 isn't a great consensus. I would take a speedy keep as a flat keep as long as it cites a valid policy basis. Spartaz Humbug! 18:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Sure, if they provide a valid CSK-based argument. But if they vote "speedy keep" and then talk about the notability of the subject, it's clear that their familiarity with our P&G is tenuous at best. I have no reason to assume they understand SIGCOV any more than they do our deletion policies. Owen× ☎ 18:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Allow and Encourage speedy renomination. The blocks taint the prior discussion and mean that the consensus was likely illusory. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Let's formally vacate this, and note that in the little-used |result= parameter in {{delrevxfd}} on the old afd so there's no question of what's going on during the new nomination. No consensus would be incorrect; that's an outcome with a result (even if the result is to do nothing), and with what we know now there shouldn't have been an outcome at all. —Cryptic 17:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Fair enough. The Keep close was incorrect even knowing what was known at the time. But that is now moot. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    I have no objection to this, either. My initial proposal was an attempt to do the least un-doing necessary to get a clean result the second time around. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Vacate and allow renomination, given the circumstances. For the record, I don't agree with Owen's assessment that the close was incorrect at the time, but that is indeed moot. Martinp (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Vacate the AfD as tainted. Allow early renomination, but follow advice in WP:RENOM on providing a better nomination. “the sources are just passing mentions” is false. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Vacate, and do what Cryptic suggested. And do nothing else. Do not mention an "early" renomination or anything similar to allowing a renomination in the close of this deletion review, because it is superfluous and meaningless.—Alalch E. 20:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 July 2026

Abhijeet Dipke (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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. , , , , , 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)reply

  • 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)reply
    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)reply
    • Comment to @OwenX:: Is there a more appropriate venue to discuss the new coverage? ... discospinster talk 16:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
      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)reply
      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)reply
      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)reply
      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)reply
      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)reply
      @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)reply
      @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)reply
      sadly you spoke too soon Spartaz Humbug! 21:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
  • 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)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
    fine. AE it is then Spartaz Humbug! 21:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Alalch E. Spartaz Humbug! 22:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    @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)reply
    +1 ~2026-41690-01 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
  • 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)reply
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)reply
  • 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)reply
Endorse the result of the AfD, as it correctly assessed the consensus in the AfD discussion. There is no need to overturn that result.
As for whether a new article should be created, that is a separate matter. I thought DRV typically stated that there is no need to come here to get permission to recreate an article; that editors may boldly recreate an article (subject to AfD again). I don't see why this often-given advice is not pertinent here. As a matter of policy, WP:SPLIT discussions are typically the ideal method to reverse a merge achieved by consensus, but bold recreation isn't forbidden or even discouraged by policy (and indeed WP:NOTBURO would suggest preferable in certain circumstances). Katzrockso (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The bold recreation was reverted and that discussion is ongoing Spartaz Humbug! 16:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
And as I noted at WP:AE, the policy that guides us as to what to do in these circumstances is WP:BLAR which states that the resulting new article should be discussed at WP:AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Bold recreation that disrespects consensus (per the closure at the AfD) within six months of the closure is too soon. XfD consensus deserves a minimum six months of respect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree within normal circumstances. When something changes (e.g. new coverage, new election, etc), this can occasionally warrant recreation before the 6 month period of good advice. Katzrockso (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, I agree, but to make it reasonable, versus asking us to review endless weak new mentions as often happens, ask the proponent to nominate no more than three new sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't think it was necessary to take this to DRV. I think bringing the new article to AfD would have been the better choice, where the previous AfD could have been notified. Katzrockso (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse as the correct closure of the AFD to Merge or Redirect. The appellant is making the common error of thinking that DRV decides when a person or topic that was previously found not to be notable enough for a stand-alone article has become notable. There are two good-faith errors playing out here. The first is the idea that DRV is the forum to take new facts and new notability into account, and that is why we are here. The second, now at Arbitration Enforcement, is the idea that replacing a redirect that was redirected by AFD, and then edit-warring the redirect, is the way to force a new AFD, We also see three different methods being tried to create an article when a previous AFD was closed as Redirect. I think that there is a fourth method that should be tried.
  • 1. Discuss at the parent article talk page.
  • 2. DRV (this DRV).
  • 3. Revert the redirection to restore an article to try to force a new AFD.
  • 4. Submit a draft for review via AFC.
Method 1 is in progress, but is only discussion. This DRV is method 2 and is a good-faith effort, but is a commonly held misconception about DRV. Method 3 is now at Arbitration Enforcement. This DRV should be closed as endorsing the original close, and the appellant should submit a draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse. The AfD closed on 29 May 2026 was properly run and closed. Respect it for at least six months. After that, the proper place to seek to demonstrate consensus to reverse the decision and make a new WP:SPINOUT is at Talk:Cockroach Janta Party, the talk page of the redirect target. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    User:Thilsebatti wrote: if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page? OK. Per advice at WP:THREE, what are the new sources, three maximum. If you offer more than three I won’t read any of them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    There are discussions at Talk:Abhijeet Dipke. That is the wrong venue. Those discussions should be moved to Talk:Cockroach Janta Party.
    Talk:Abhijeet Dipke is a very low profile venue. The talk page of a redirect is for discussing a redirect. Editors interested in the content should be active at Talk:Cockroach Janta Party.
    At the very least, post a link at Talk:Cockroach Janta Party, but in the end, consensus to perform a WP:SPINOUT needs to be established at Talk:Cockroach Janta Party. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Thanks for your response. I have already mentioned the best three sources in my opening statement. Now while writing this one more source has came out from NYT . Even if this DRV is closed as endorse due to procedural concerns, I hope someone other than me would initiate a discussion to bring the article to mainspace. If media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Regards. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    I read your first three links. WP:BIO1E applies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    I already explained how the subject is notable by integrating WP:BIO1E. WP:BIO1E states that 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. I have already explained how the subject's role has grown larger, because of which a seperate standalone article is justifed at the moment. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
    Yes, but it’s not really larger, it’s all the same narrative with the CJP.
    I have also read your latest it offering, NYT “The Accidental Hero …” July 26. It is only about Dipke in connection to the CJP plus close-perspective promotion. This is not good coverage for a Wikipedia article. It is not an obvious SPINOUT, and even if it were, coverage of Dipke at the redirect target is very brief. I ENDORSE the redirect and tell you to leave the standalone article alone for six months. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 July 2026

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)

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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1367548973"