Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VfU)
 |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
- 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;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
- 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:
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- 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:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. - Be aware that requests which appear to be written by large-language models will normally be summarily denied. Write in your own words.
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
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".
- ↑ Challenges regarding whether a non-admin closure was contentious or correctly assessed consensus should be addressed through Deletion Review.
An administrator recently closed the deletion discussion of Adriana Ferreyr as "Delete". I understand that's not decided based on the number of 'Keep's and 'Delete's, but the Keep votes are valid and address the notability of the subject. A quick Google search turns up a lot of sources, some of which are related to George Soros and some are not. If we're to exclude Soros coverage, these two are significant coverage of Ferreyr from reliable 3rd-party sources.
1. https://caras.com.br/tv/adriana-ferreyr-volta-ao-brasil-para-evento-de-gala.phtml 2. https://natelinha.uol.com.br/famosos/2023/05/27/vila-de-marisol-rouba-a-cena-no-festival-de-cannes-197755.php
This source is also valid and not like what the nominator claims it to be pulling content from one of the CARAS interviews. This source doesn't have a label that implies it's sponsored or paid
This Business Insider piece doesn't just discuss George Soros, but cover Ferreyr's early life and career. It doesn't just rely on IMDB and LinkedIn for sourcing, but also source from the New York Post.
I'd appreciate your input here. Many thanks. KarmaAlT (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC) -->
Significant independent coverage exists that was not presented in the AfD discussion, including profiles/reporting from Voice of America, The Diplomat, the International Press Institute, Daily Times, and The News. The AfD closed with only one delete !vote and this sourcing was never brought to the discussion's attention. I am disclosing that I am acting on behalf of the subject, Puruesh Chaudhary, in raising this request. Umerrrdo (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Gonna have to link to those sources if you want us to consider them. —Cryptic 18:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- And it's likely you're going to have to start over in any case; this was previously deleted for copyright infringement, and the first revision after that deletion infringed the same source again. (Which is currently dead, but archived.) —Cryptic 18:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse - With one Delete in addition to the nominator, the closer was within reasonable admin judgment in closing as Delete. The appellant may create a draft and add the additional sources and submit it for review. I am often puzzled by why appellants want an article undeleted to start over and add sources. Why didn't they keep a copy of the article before it was deleted, and why do they think that starting with a deleted article will simplify the job of creating a new draft or article? I know that an experienced closer knew what a Soft Delete is, and so am assuming that if the closer had intended the close to be a Soft Delete, they would have said so. Just write a new draft for your client and submit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse: Reopening an AfD so an editor with a WP:COI can present sources is not a reasonable thing to do. There is no issue with the close and DRV is not an AfD redo. This is to assess the close, not assess sources. The appellant will need to follow WP:RENOM#Requesting undeletion guidance and submit an WP:RFU request in a month's time. 11WB 💬 21:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. No sources offered. Recommend to request draftification and to follow advice at WP:THREE. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse — the AfD had a coherent nomination grounded in source analysis, an independent delete !vote that reached the same conclusion, and no opposition. My sense is that's still a consensus, even if a small one. The appellant's claim that there are new sources is the main point i'd want to look at, but Cryptic asked them to link those sources and they haven't done so. DRV is about whether the close was reasonable based on the discussion, not about evidence that wasn't actually presented there. If the subject really is notable, AfC would probably be the cleaner route anyway. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse or overturn to WP:SOFTDELETE. There is no apparent reason to SALT at this time, so any editor can request undeletion. --Enos733 (talk) 06:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- SALT doesn’t stop anyone from requesting undeletion.
- With the reason for deletion being self-authored sources, and the proponent nominator here having a COI (clearly declared on their Userpage, to their credit), AfC should be used, and “SOFTDELETE” (“can be restored for any reason on request at Requests for undeletion”) is completely inappropriate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Correct. I was looking just at the deletion discussion, without considering other factors that would support a straight deletion. --Enos733 (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Functionally, overturning anything to soft delete is effectively overturn as the op has objected to the deletionSpartaz Humbug! 11:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Which is why DRV should not overtun to soft delete as a matter of principle even outside of circumstances like those here (it should settle the question).—Alalch E. 09:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Functionally, overturning anything to soft delete is effectively overturn as the op has objected to the deletionSpartaz Humbug! 11:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Correct. I was looking just at the deletion discussion, without considering other factors that would support a straight deletion. --Enos733 (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn to a soft delete closure, a closure which Sandstein stated they did not think existed when I contested a similar closure of theirs last week. In the same discussion, the closer has stated they don't use soft closures, even after their "hard" AfD closures have recently been contested by me and another editor at § An impractical merge, in addition to this DRV:
The WP:SOFTDELETE guideline states:As I said, I do not use these "soft" outcomes if consensus is clear (even with few participants), because I believe that AfD discussions should provide a certain measure of finality, otherwise they are not worth the volunteer time invested in them.
— User:SandsteinA soft deletion may result from a discussion that receives minimal participation
. The word "minimal" is there because closing a discussion as "delete" or "soft delete" is straight-up not allowed unless there are at least two participants. Any other closer would either have relisted the discussion or closed it as "no consensus" or "soft delete". Call me crazy, but I do not think that the outcome of a deletion discussion should be determined by which editor decides to close it and their own personal view of our decade-old guidelines. FaviFake (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. There was a consensus to delete. A relevant rationale was put forward and was met with some agreement and was not met with any disagreement, and nothing makes it seem like a wrong decision was made (due to something important having been forgotten, not being noticed, …). About Sandstein not being particularly aware, at that moment, of the guideline that makes that outcome possible, that is unimportant.—Alalch E. 16:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
- Weak endorse. While our deletion policy does not specifiy any numerical figure for a quorum, our common practice for at least the past 15 years has been that when fewer than three AfD participants argue for deletion, the discussion can, at most, be closed as "soft deleted", per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#No_quorum. As much as I share Sandstein's desire for a
certain measure of finality
in my closes, in cases where only one or two participants call for deletion, the policy intentionally leaves the door open to any valid request for undeletion:As a result of this closure, the article is deleted, but it can be restored for any reason on request at Requests for undeletion.
That said, the article's checkered history (copyvio, G7), coupled with the paid editor who created their account to file this appeal, makes me reluctant to REFUND the page. If an established, non-COI editor is interested in doing the work, I'd treat the close as a soft-deletion. But even then I'd recommend starting afresh rather than trying to salvage anything from the deleted versions. Owen× ☎ 17:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
i requested an undelete to improve the quality of the sources, but was told by deleting editor that they did not have time to review any links and upheld deletion. i propose to improve the quality of the original article and ask to be given the chance. i was not aware of the original article for deletion and would have participated - the original deletion discussion was dominated by the user who proposed deletion and the discussion does not seem to rise to the standard of academic discourse, but seems rooted in opinion and tastemaking/gatekeeping. original article can use improvement, but deletion was undue. K1angumwandler (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- I refer to my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Zolo (music genre) deletion. Sandstein 21:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- according to Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion "It is better to attempt to salvage a potentially viable article as best the Wikipedia community can before putting it up for deletion. A better alternative is to place the appropriate issue tags on the page"
- - I have proposed improvements and ask for the chance to make them. K1angumwandler (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable desire, but not when it directly contradicts an established consensus. 11WB 💬 21:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- You can make your improvements in a draft and submit the draft for review via AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- I will do that, thank you K1angumwandler (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
- You can make your improvements in a draft and submit the draft for review via AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- That is a reasonable desire, but not when it directly contradicts an established consensus. 11WB 💬 21:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse: The sources provided by the appellant were unreliable. There was a clear consensus to delete per failing to meet notability. Good close. 11WB 💬 21:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please review: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Zolo_(music_genre)
- Austin Chronicle articles and interviews/articles from a professional ethnomusicologist added to support materials. Again, improvement is desired over deletion. Discussion for consensus included personal taste and obscurity as reasons (see Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion), and was driven by the editor who nominated deletion. Issue tags would be a reasonable response Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith K1angumwandler (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- This isn't a redo of AfD. 11WB 💬 22:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- right, this is an appeal to undelete after a flawed AfD and deleting editor saying they don't have time to review new material. did you review the material i provided in Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Zolo_(music_genre)? is creating a new article with superior sources preferable to appealing the undeletion of the flawed one? i am trying to follow protocol. K1angumwandler (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Well, that is hardly surprising. Dumping a huge list of sources on the closing editor's talk page, in an effort to force an outcome you would prefer, was only ever going to end up with such a response. No editor is required to WP:SATISFY another. You received an answer and then decided to reply with a WP:WALLOFTEXT. This DRV is, in my opinion, unnecessary. 11WB 💬 23:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Please keep your personal feelings out of research. K1angumwandler (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Well, that is hardly surprising. Dumping a huge list of sources on the closing editor's talk page, in an effort to force an outcome you would prefer, was only ever going to end up with such a response. No editor is required to WP:SATISFY another. You received an answer and then decided to reply with a WP:WALLOFTEXT. This DRV is, in my opinion, unnecessary. 11WB 💬 23:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- right, this is an appeal to undelete after a flawed AfD and deleting editor saying they don't have time to review new material. did you review the material i provided in Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Zolo_(music_genre)? is creating a new article with superior sources preferable to appealing the undeletion of the flawed one? i am trying to follow protocol. K1angumwandler (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- This isn't a redo of AfD. 11WB 💬 22:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse the close as Delete. I haven't reviewed the sources and am not required to review the sources. I can see that the closer saw a consensus to delete after the second relist. DRV is not AFD round 2. The title has not been salted, and the appellant is free to prepare and submit a draft that passes review. The reviewer will probably ask for a copy of the deleted article to compare against the draft to see if the draft establishes the notability that the original article did not. AFC is usually a better next step after an article is deleted, but there is no guarantee that either DRV or AFC will recreate a deleted article; it is the responsibility of the originator to find reliable sources that provide significant coverage. There was nothing wrong with AFD round 1. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Sandstein was more than accommodating in his attempt to lead the appellant towards recreating a properly sourced version, but his advice fell on deaf ears. The appellant referring to the discussion as a
flawed AfD
, and their belligerent attitude here and on Sandstein's Talk page, lead me to suspect advising the appellant to submit a new draft would simply end up in a replay of the AfD. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC) - Restore to draft Why are we even here? Because Sandstein didn't volunteer to put it back in sandbox or draft space. Draft is mentioned above, after the DRV is opened, and to be fair is still not an ingrained tool that those of us who have been around for 20 years are used to using. Deleted now should almost never mean totally deleted unless attack, copyvio, or promo (G10-11-12) material is involved. Literally anything else can be restored to draft for improvement, put through an AfC process, and then we don't need to have these conversations. The time for black-and-white, mainspace vs. nowhere, boolean options is over. Let's use the tools the community has developed and put the burden back on the editors who say something can be improved, NOT expect deleting admins to go through sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Serious bias present in the deletion determination. Closer went against guidance from nearly half a dozen policies in opting for deletion, most critically the WP:GNG. The explanation they provide for their decision is extremely opinionated, commending many of the editors who voted in favor of deletion while explicitly disparaging several in support. They further opted to continue to litigate my WP:BLUDGEONING charge than consider any of my arguments on the basis of their merits. At some point, extremifying the dispute beyond what it was and refusing to engage with someone wholesale in the aftermath constitutes Wikibullying.
Admin did not appear to read the article prior to closing, as they note they generally don't do on the second paragraph of their talk page; the first argument they make is that NPOL discourages articles about political candidates unless they win an election
, despite the fact that Call has never run for political office. Their determination as elaborated on their talk appeared to focus more on the debating skills of those in discussion than on the actual weight or reality of the arguments they put forward.
The only additional claim they advanced, which also surrounds NPOL, is explicitly contradicted by language further down in the guideline, which states that its tenets only apply in the absence of a clear pass for GNG. CSGinger14 (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- endorse own redirection my detailed breakdown of my thinking taken from my talkpage is below. Note that I reflected expected actions to prefer an ATD and allow consolidation of marginal content
- So let's start with the policy framework. NPOL discourages articles about political candidates unless they win an election because it's a subset of BLP1E and because the content is connected to the election not the person. Secondly, notable content does not have to be siloed in separate articles and this is covered in PAGEDECIDE which is a part of N, therefore has standing over SNG arguments too. Merges/Redirects are functionally identical. DRV has been adopting a harder line on expecting closing admins to give more weight to ATDs and actively expects admins to redirect or merge in the face of strong delete arguments. The converse for marginal keeps is also clearly the other side of the coin as it's in accordance with PAGEDECIDE. Finally, a straw poll at the village pump overwhelmingly rejected the suggestion that inherent notability under NPOL arose from statewide roles. As an admin I'm required to take that kind of input into account when considering opinions and it's not the quantity of opinions that apply but their congruence with policy and guidelines.
- So let's look at the votes:
- The nomination is a bit weak. Starts off assertive but the issues with failing NPOL were developed in a response
- CSGinger14 bludgeoned the discussion almost to the point of failure. I think they made made 26 posts out of 77 total posts. Many of these were sarcastic, offensive, battleground or just plain declamatory. I admit I found this exhausting and probably contributed to my finding little persuasive about their contributions. I'm counting their entire contribution as a single less then compelling opinion.
- Engineerchange stated that the coverage was substantial and that they were a major local political figure and were independently notable for embezzlement. No coverage was cited and the local role argument wasn't supported by the straw poll. My ears pricked up with the mention of criminality. Overall, I didn't find a strong evidence base in the vote and as assertive was quite weak.
- Magnolia677 raised issues with the depth of the coverage leading to superficial biographical content advancing that coverage was therefore election related, making a decent delete argument. The straw poll strengthened their argument.
- Enos733 asserted the gng pass but did not identify the specific sources that provided this. Your comments suggested that coverage was NPOL and criminality related. That's not the strongest argument but policy based.
- RightCowLeftCoast made the strongest keep argument so far, highlighted sources and the nuance in their description of sources suggested the argument was discerning. Those sources were not challenged at that point but were later on.
- Oaktree b, argued that the roles and routine coverage were weak to meet POL and that the criminality wasn't sufficient for notability on its own. Weak vote as assertive.
- Helpful Raccoon cited 2 sources but then acknowledged they were from the same author, reducing to one source. Reasonable vote, was challenged but not particularly strongly
- Voorts argued delete, supported oaktrees analysis and cited the strawpoll. I thought this was a decent vote.
- Katzrockso argued that the sources meant a gng pass and NPOL therefore didn't apply. Sadly that's not the way it's applied.
- Real_mouse_IRL argued that the straw poll didn't overcome a gng pass
- Lamona provided in-depth analysis of the sources relationships between the text and what they actually said. They showed how the sources used for detailed content were actually extremely short and therefore not substantial. This significantly undermined the arguments about gng. They also made a strong argument that so much unverified material was a blp failure and the criminality wasn't sufficient to meet CRIME. So far this is the best argument made in the discussion.
- PacificDepths then made another strong delete argument, breakingdown the case against inclusion in detail and challenging the depth of the coverage cited by Helpful racoon, and I have now checked the articles myself and I think they are right. This was another strong argument against inclusion.
- Dz5t 8O12 asserted the NPOL pass but I gave this very little weight as I believe the strawpoll is controlling on that point
- PA Uploader did a detailed analysis of the content against the sources and said they were mostly accurate but stretched beyond what the sources could justify. I thought this was overall neutral to the outcome
- There is then irrelevant back and forth but some offending content has been removed
- Katzrockso then advances an ATD to redirect to an article where the subject is mentioned and has context about them. This outcome is by far the most policy aligned opinion and reflects current DRV expectations. It's also aligned to historical precedent
- Red-tailed Hawk then rehashes the sourcing and other arguments but doesn't address the challenge about source depth and dismissed the option of a merge. .
- So where did that leave me. Lots of editors wanted to keep the article but, imo, arguments they met npol fail against the strawpoll. Most cited keep votes identified sources that had been argued to lack the necessary depth and appeared to be related to political campaigning and therefore falling under NPOL. There wasn't a clear consensus to delete as a valid redirect/merge target had been identified and that would be aligned with a COMMONOUTCOME,PAGEDECIDE and DRV expectations around ATDs. Which is what I found the consensus to be. This wasn't an easy close and I wouldn't say that this was the clearest consensus I have ever found. I hope at least you can see that I have made a considered and carefully thought through decision. Of course you are welcome to disagree. Spartaz Humbug! 06:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think it's fair to note here that a major focus of the WP:BLUDGEON charge against me, raised above as an object of serious concern by the closer, had to do with excessively long text.
- CSGinger14 (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think the bludgeon was more aligned to you making 26 out of 77 contributions to the discussion as well as the sarcasm, offensive comments and battleground behaviour. Just let the discussion run it's course and the DRV participants find their own way. If they think a highly detailed analysis of my thinking is unhelpful then someone will collapse it. Spartaz Humbug! 06:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Spartaz Ironically, that reply constitutes bludgeoning. Continuing to beat a dead horse and simply ignore and disqualify my commentary by framing it exclusively through the lens of bludgeoning represents POV railroading, and shows a failure to focus on content. My replies have just as much merit as yours, regardless of how many there are, the one's of strenuous length had clear TLDRs or bolds included that you could follow; my major points were made quite clear rather close to the beginning of the discussion, prior to any noted controversy, and you provide no explicit reasoning to push back against my actual argument. The only analysis you provided was about the WP:CIVILITY of my statements.[1]
- Regardless, you are not supposed to make final determinations based on a headcount or straw poll; several times, you referred to such a poll to uplift Delete votes and disqualify the commentary/claims of Keep editors in situations where relevant, superseding policy was cited and a firm plurality or majority in consensus on those arguments not yet established;[2] that would be a local consensus explicitly stated by policy to be
impermissible
. - CSGinger14 (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC) CSGinger14 (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think the bludgeon was more aligned to you making 26 out of 77 contributions to the discussion as well as the sarcasm, offensive comments and battleground behaviour. Just let the discussion run it's course and the DRV participants find their own way. If they think a highly detailed analysis of my thinking is unhelpful then someone will collapse it. Spartaz Humbug! 06:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
Katzrockso argued that the sources meant a gng pass and NPOL therefore didn't apply. Sadly that's not the way it's applied.
What does this mean? Katzrockso (talk) 11:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
References
- ↑ Even if civility is encouraged, that kind of behavior is itself uncivil. Singling out my conduct for wholesale disqualification while ignoring the civil POV pushing and coy disrespect of other editors is a massive double standard
- ↑ "the local role argument wasn't supported by the straw poll" / "The straw poll strengthened their argument / "...the straw poll didn't overcome a GNG pass"
- Comment (involved). I appreciate Spartaz for the thorough analysis of the comments, as this was a difficult AfD (as there was a straw poll that came out of this AfD that was discussed and decided at village pump). Spartaz rightfully alludes to its difficulty in his close and comment. Why I asked about this close on Spartaz's talk page were the lines in the close that the keeps were "policy weak" and there was only one "decent source analyses." To me, I read the discussion as a straightforward question of whether participants in the discussion thought that GNG was met (with everything else being a distraction) and each editor articulated their argument on that topic slightly differently and I do believe that there was no one definitive source analysis - not that the comments or engagement were exceptionally weak. --Enos733 (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved) - Spartaz's full reasoning above shows that this was clearly within closer discretion, and it is the right close. WP:PAGEDECIDE is too rarely considered. Moreover this is a very combative review nomination, and the bludgeoning was clear in the discussion, and is now being repeated above. This is not helping. The stub it has been redirected to could be developed with more information about Call, and more information showing why the "Super PAC" is relevant and notable. Putting as much effort into that page as went into this AfD ought to improve the encyclopaedia, and ensure that encyclopaedic information relevant to this person is on the encyclopaedia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Sirfurboy Please don't disparage other editors' character, but rather focus on content in discussion.
- CSGinger14 (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Since we are asserting that this was not covered in discussion, I'd be happy to go over the numbers based on the figures others pointed to as being important (i.e Wikipedia:One hundred words, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NPOL. having now done so, I can say with confidence that the claims made here by the delete camp are largely unfounded; I primarily concede concerns about accuracy, which are even still limited to a select number of sentences, and don't justify the wholesale removal of the article without any actual analysis of its contents beyond the parts raised in discussion. Here is an outline of each of our reliable sources cited in the article (TLDR in bold):
RS in article | ||
|---|---|---|
|
- This well and truly surpasses the amount required for WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, it doesn't even consider the 15 or so primary and subject-related sources that pad out those articles' contents and the 5 other independent sources I hadn't yet had a chance to add before the page was removed. Other arguments, such as the WP:POLOUTCOMES claim are based in
presumptive
notability without any analysis of what the sources actually say. - It took me 30 minutes to do this. It is absolutely ridiculous that
this has been under debate for almost 2 weeks and thatthe occasions where I've analyzed this in a competent and respectful manner have been blanket labeled as continued bludgeoning, when I am making a WP:Good faith effort to defend my written content when it is explicitly within site policy. Whether my commentary is rude or not does not serve as an excuse to render 2+2 equal to 5.
Even if you don't have an obligation to WP:SATISFY me, I absolutely have a right to question whether or not editors seriously considered my POV when I can clearly show exactly how their arguments prove that they did not (ed. or, at the very least, did not appear to) thoroughly analyze the same material they were making claims about or policies they cited. Not taking my commentary seriously because you feel I could've been nicer is serious neglect for any one of your roles as a neutral arbiter on this website. This is exactly what WP:Civil POV pushing is, and it's frankly even more disrespectful because it's masked behind the notion of respect where none is granted.
- CSGinger14 (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- This is the final statement I'll make here, as a guarantee to anyone that's concerned that there will be no issues with WP:BLUDGEONING. I'm fully within my rights to plead my case here at the length necessary to express the nuance of my position, please recognize that I'm making a sincere effort to be respectful.
- CSGinger14 (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- 1. Party official embezzled $280K and was fired by his law firm. This source is something, but weak. Low on SIGCOV. Not a secondary source.
- 2 verbatim = “ Ryan Call. Call was voted out of office in a GOP uprising after a tumultuous two-term tenure, during which he was on the hot seat for playing favorites in primaries and creating an “Independent” Super PAC that his GOP critics saw as a vehicle to attack fellow Republicans. He was also vilified by Republican activists for opposing the recall of a Democratic state senator in Westminister. Call has since for been disbarred for transferring $280,000 from a pro-Trump PAC he was running to himself.” This is little. Secondary source content: His tenure was “tumultuous”; He play favorites; he got vilified. Too little.
- 3. 403 forbidden.
- 4. Stole. Siphoned. misappropriated. Transferred to himself. Formerly prominent in certain circles maintained a low profile since 2019. Repetition of some facts, all negative. This is a ONEEVENT.
- This looks like mostly a rush of negative news reporting on a previously non-Wikipedia-notable failed candidate and party official. Is there any follow up coverage after 2021?
- Lots of weak and repetitive sources don’t replace the problem of a lack of criteria of Wikipedia-Notability. The AfD has a lot of weak “keep” !votes that the very experienced close appropriately downweighted.
- If coverage is warranted, it can be added to the redirect target. A stand alone article is not warranted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse as within admin discretion (keep, merge and delete would also have been within discretion). So much clarity has been added to our notability guidelines over the years that it is possible to find ample guidance to support any conclusion for this article. Thincat (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. The subject is obviously a borderline-wikipedia-notable person, not a real politician but a failed candidate and party official, with many weak sources, and the best sources focused on one event ("Call was disbarred after an investigation revealed that he had embezzled roughly $280,000 in PAC funds during his tenure at Rebuild America Now.[2][3][4]".
- User:Red-tailedhawk, 02:16, 4 August 2026, posted an impressive looking !vote with three best sources, so I looked at them:
- 1. https://5280.com/man-on-a-mission/ is not independent, due to being a next-to-the subject account. It contains (lead with) direct quotes of a personal nature. It knows the subject's driving confidence.
- 2. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-colorado-denver-political-action-committees-118996dad79c76e186a6442fb4a56ec6 Independent, yes. I am hesitant to accept a negative story as a basis for barely notable, but it is a public interest negative on the public record, not a report on their personal life. Is it SIGCOV? Is it brief, only 206 words.
- 3. https://gazette.com/2021/09/22/ex-colorado-gop-chairman-ryan-call-disbarred-over-mishandling-funds-at-pro-trump-pac-8b4e03ff-2f10-538e-896d-441b2629d82f/ is blocked
- So, #1 is No. #2 is borderline. #3 I can't see.
- The close was well explained.
- -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- The first piece is a magazine-style profile; those profiles tend to use this kind of language. I don't see why it would not be WP:INDEPENDENT. It's written by Eli Stokols (a reputable journalist), for a WP:NEWSORG, which clearly satisfies the independence criteria.
- The third piece is a ~600 word piece about the disbarment that also recaps his political career. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- User:Red-tailed hawk, the first is a terrible failure of independence, it is a PR puff piece from the perspective of the subject’s close companion.
- The second is arguable, weakness is it is short and factual, no commentary, could be labelled as a primary source. So that happened. Was it even a bad things? I.e. it lacks commentary, lacks value judgements, lacks contextualisation.
- The third which I can’t access: 600 words? can you quote a sentence or two that is comment, makes a subjective value judgement, or contextualises, ie makes it a secondary source? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Where are you getting that the two are close companions? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Eg “ It’s just after 7 a.m. on a Saturday in May, and we’re headed to Steamboat Springs for the Routt County Republicans’ Lincoln Day Luncheon”.
- The author is with the subject, at 7am, travelling with the subject, to a luncheon.
- Very simple, undeniable, textual analysis.
- The subject talks to the author recounting family level conversation.
- - SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Where are you getting that the two are close companions? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- “his political career”? Failed candidate and party official? Is that all of his political career? Is that correct? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I thought the redirect was a fair outcome; no thoughts otherwise. I was glad the AfD was closed, there was too much back and forth over trivial items. Oaktree b (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn to keep. GNG is met in total; the critiques there and here focus on trees, rather than the forest, and smack of bias against Republican politicians, rather than a fair reading of the totality of the press on a person. PAGEDECIDE is not a weapon to suppress otherwise reasonable content, and there's no reason to try and shoehorn this guy's career into an article on one part of it. The article should remain standalone. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse: DRV is not a conduct board, so I am basing this entirely on the AfD comments and the close itself. The majority of the !keeps claim GNG without citing or even naming sources. @RCLC was one of the few that actually did. The AfD was impacted by a VP poll halfway through which amended one of the main notability guidelines being cited, that being NPOL. This only makes it more difficult to assess, as the first half of the AfD will be citing it with the prior consensus, and the post-poll half will be citing it with the new consensus. I don't see how a proper consensus can be gathered from the !delete side due to this very major factor. There were enough !keeps that consensus couldn't form properly anyway (despite the majority failing to provide evidence of passing GNG). I think the !deletes have the weight here however. The closer made a judgement call and gave what they considered was the appropriate weight to each !vote. That is what a closer is supposed to do. I actually believe that redirecting it per WP:ATD-R was a very smart decision, as it keeps the page alive and retains the edit history, meaning it can be restored later should sourcing improve.
- This was an extremely challenging close. Let's give the closer some credit here (even those who disagree with it). 11WB 💬 19:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- @11WB, I actually disagree about how the AfD was impacted by the VP poll. I found the timing of the VP poll pointy as the initiator did not even support the proposal. In the end no one supported a change in the policy (including people who thought that the subject article should be kept), so I see the poll as a distraction. I also think that if there are plenty of sources cited in the article, advocates of keep do not need to always name the best sources in their comments (there are many, many acceptable comments that are in essence, "significant coverage, passes GNG"). In this case, no editor prior to voorts (on the third relist) actually provided a source analysis that needed rebutting (the closer, in my mind, overstates the strength of Magnolia677's comment, which I read as handwaving ["little he accomplished aside from a failed campaign and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL career."]). I think my take is I don't mind the close as much (per WP:NOPAGE), but I don't care as much for the closing statement. - Enos733 (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- I disagree that it was merely a distraction. It directly influenced !votes and attracted attention to it, which whilst not an direct violation of WP:CANVASSING, absolutely skirts around the edges of being one. This adds reason to downweigh the !keep side due to outside influence. If your issue is with the way the closing statement is worded, that is usually something that can be discussed without requiring a full DRV. 11WB 💬 21:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- The RfC didn't amend anything. It rejected changing NPOL. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Just a note that your use of em has broken the ability to reply directly. Italics use a double apostrophe. On your correction, sure. It did however clarify the point, contradicting prior !votes, in this case @CSG14. The close is why we're here however, and that in my opinion was correct. Everything else (including conduct), has a proper place for those problems to be sorted. 11WB 💬 22:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- @11WB, I actually disagree about how the AfD was impacted by the VP poll. I found the timing of the VP poll pointy as the initiator did not even support the proposal. In the end no one supported a change in the policy (including people who thought that the subject article should be kept), so I see the poll as a distraction. I also think that if there are plenty of sources cited in the article, advocates of keep do not need to always name the best sources in their comments (there are many, many acceptable comments that are in essence, "significant coverage, passes GNG"). In this case, no editor prior to voorts (on the third relist) actually provided a source analysis that needed rebutting (the closer, in my mind, overstates the strength of Magnolia677's comment, which I read as handwaving ["little he accomplished aside from a failed campaign and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL career."]). I think my take is I don't mind the close as much (per WP:NOPAGE), but I don't care as much for the closing statement. - Enos733 (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Comment (involved): The thing I'm stuck on is that the delete votes didn't seem to address the totality of coverage; i.e. whether the crime-related coverage could be combined with other sources to meet GNG. Delete voters argued that the crime coverage on its own failed NCRIME, and that the other coverage on its own failed GNG. Regardless, it is still possible to argue that the crime sources were routine coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- It's possible to argue anything, and Wikipedians routinely do, but WP:ROUTINE does not stretch to cover indictments of public officials. Read it. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with you, hence why I voted to keep the article. (Technically the subject was not a public official; he was involved in private organizations.) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- It's possible to argue anything, and Wikipedians routinely do, but WP:ROUTINE does not stretch to cover indictments of public officials. Read it. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus. Despite the RfC going on in the background, most of the participants on both sides focused on the sourcing (either through the GNG or through the largely identical "significant press coverage" prong of NPOL) rather than making the sort of inherent-notability argument that the community has rejected. I think the closer went too far in discounting !votes that did make a guideline-based argument about the sources; it's rarely the closer's place to say that one side's source analysis is stronger than the other, and some of the analysis above about NPOL trumping the GNG and discouraging articles about unelected candidates is simply not rooted in our guidelines, however common it may be. I particularly disagree with the idea that a "converse" to WP:ATD applies to "marginal keeps": policy provides for alternatives to deletion rather than alternatives to keeping, and WP:PAGEDECIDE has very little relevance when the dispute is all about notability and not a single participant argues that a merge or redirect would be a sound exercise of our
editorial judgment
in covering a notable topic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2026 (UTC) - Endorse the close of Redirect as an Alternative to No Consensus and based on the analysis of votes by the closer. Sometimes when the votes are approximately evenly split, Redirect or Merge may be an Alternative to No Consensus. I don't recall whether I have previously seen an analysis of votes by the closer. I don't want it to become a common practice, because the expectation of such an analysis could discourage closers from acting boldly, but I thank the closer in this case. I don't thank the appellant either for bludgeoning the AFD or for bludgeoning the DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Given the amount of time it took me to prepare the detailed analysis I heartily endorse your discouragement but felt, given that this was an exceptionally difficult close and in the face of an extremely motivated and enthusiastically verbose litigant, nothing short of a highly detailed response would do. Have no fear, I have no intention of making this level of analysis my norm.
- To be fair, since I'm commenting anyway, I do acknowledge that many outcomes were all within discretion and that options are therefore understandably split, but I do hope that participants will accept that I thought about this long and hard and selected what I genuinely believed would be the best outcome given recent DRV outcomes and my understanding of policy and practise. It would most certainly have been easier to close as no consensus but I felt that this would be a cop out designed to make my life easier rather than the outcome I thought best from a policy and consensus perspective.
- Perhaps some of the strong feelings expressed could respect that that while I might be wrong in their eyes, I didn't take the easy option but genuinely did what I thought was right. Spartaz Humbug! 08:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Just noting that the appellant flags that I did not read the article before closing the discussion. That is absolutely correct and what is expected from the closing admin. They are there to read the consensus of the discussion and looking at the article will introduce unconscious bias as they will be bound to take a view on the content Spartaz Humbug! 13:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse as a reasonable interpretation of the discussion and within the closers discretion. I agree with Thincat that other outcomes would also be permissible. When the close is within discretion, it should only be overturned if there is a particularly compelling reason to do so, which I do not see here.
- Note: I personally voted to keep, but I pointed out that a redirect would be superior to outright deletion. Katzrockso (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This 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 above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |