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 30}}</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 30}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 July 30|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, 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

29 July 2026

BookMyShow

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)

• For reference:
  • Previous DRV
  • 2016 AfD
  • 2018 MfD for the draft
• Owen× ☎ 17:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Collected deletion/salting history at quarry:query/104548, as of this past April. I don't remember what prompted me to run it then. —Cryptic 18:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Aha, it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BookMyShow (note case difference from OwenX's link). —Cryptic 18:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse A discussion in which nobody even argued against deletion by definition cannot have "no consensus for deletion". I'm surprised I didn't add this to the title blacklist in May when the capitalized AfD closed. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 18:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• If you only see one "delete" in that discussion, you're not competent to participate in afds, let alone analyze them. Also not inclined to put much weight on a new user's comments about a subject with this much paid editing history. That said, I (now) remember being somewhat surprised when that afd was closed when it was instead of being relisted. —Cryptic 18:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Reading the contributions 3 experienced editors commented on the lack of sourcing. That you did not bold an opinion did not mean that your contribution was not influential and it supported the two bolded opinions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse - Regardless of the most recent AfD's single delete !vote this appears to be the target of a mercenary sockfarm, and has consistently lost deletion debates in part due to it and in part due to every incarnation being promotional. Cryptic also noted in the most recent AfD that the sourcing is not up to par (thanks to common-in-India brown-envelope journalism). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
  • WP:DEEPER is the closest thing we have at present. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse per above and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

KreekCraft (YouTuber)

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)

• (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)

  More sources could spring up in the future, I see no major downside to a draft. Crystalite13 (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Endorse close of second AFD as Delete (although the appellant may not be appealing this), Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

28 July 2026

G.S.K. Velu

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)

Vacate AfD and allow early renomination. Did this require a DRV? Katzrockso (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • Unlikely to accomplish much. Two of the blocked accounts were extended confirmed (one with 16k edits!), and the third was well on the way. —Cryptic 17:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

    one can but try. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

The bold recreation was reverted and that discussion is ongoing Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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 [7]. 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)

  I read your first three links. WP:BIO1E applies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

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.

Recent discussions

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.

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.

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