Edge Rewrite
pun Source code View original
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Content review)

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

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

Purpose

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. to request undeletion of a page deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion. Place such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
  2. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
  3. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  4. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  5. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  6. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  7. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  8. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  9. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  10. to request that copyright violations, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
  3. Be aware that requests which appear to be written by large-language models will normally be summarily denied. Write in your own words.
 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2026 August 11}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 August 11}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 August 11|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{temporarily undeleted}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page that requires a community consensus decision should remain on deletion review for at least seven days (unless the nomination was a proposed deletion). In such cases, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists after seven days. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally, all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly. But, in cases where the outcome is patently obvious, it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

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

Active discussions

11 August 2026

Moneypenny Group

Moneypenny Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

The references are not particularly new; most of them were already discussed during the first AfD by Scope creep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Moneypenny_(company)

Given that these sources were already considered in the earlier discussion, why was the outcome changed to Keep in the second AfD: second AfD?

also pinging HighKing, 4meter4 ~2026-44221-17 (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Endorse and procedurally close per DRVPURPOSE#3. "Sources are the same as those presented at the previous AfD which had a different outcome" is not a valid rationale to overturn an AfD. Appellant is welcome to renominate in six months, or better yet, find something more productive to do here. Also, pinging only those who !voted your way is considered a form of WP:CANVASSING. Owen× ☎ 11:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Comment We might want to have a FAQ about "I made a great nomination but no one supported me" DRV appeals. The first rule of consensus in Wikipedia discussions is that those who don't show up, don't get their opinion counted. Jclemens (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

10 August 2026

Anthony Spaulding Sports Complex

Anthony Spaulding Sports Complex (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Recently came across this section of the Arnett Gardens F.C. article. After digging deeper, I found that the main article was merged per consensus for, "being to unnotable." Although that's perfectly understandable, there are plenty of other articles regarding stadiums that go under the radar, such as Stadion dr. Antoine Maduro and Montego Bay Sports Complex. Taking this into consideration, it makes me wonder why it was merged. Is there anything that can be done about this, and if so, potentially restore the original article? It somewhat sticks out like a sore thumb in the Arnett Gardens article, which should be directly focused on just the club itself, not interrupted by stadium information right in the middle of the article. HurricaneBlaze8 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC) -->reply

  • Endorse. There's enough in this nomination’s turn of phrase resembling a challenge of the close for me to !vote endorse—there was a consensus and everything was done correctly. How to get the article back depends on whether splitting would entail actual removal on the former-destination-now-would-be-source side. If nothing actually needs to be removed under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, there is no point in a split discussion (it would be WP:BURO), leaving the door open to a responsible unilateral recreation.—Alalch E. 18:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse The close was appropriate based on the AfD. No editor suggested keeping and the only real question was which page to merge into. Certainly a new article could be created is there are sufficient GNG sources, but shoulg go through AFC. --Enos733 (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse. The appeal strikes me as odd, essentially saying, "Other articles should also be merged, therefore this one should be spun-out". There was unanimous consensus against retaining the article as a standalone page, with broad support for the ATD. I don't see how the 90-word section sticks out like a sore thumb - certainly less than it did as a 90-word standalone stub. This appeal comes across as being driven more by sports team fandom than by actual encyclopedic interest. Owen× ☎ 21:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Eh It's more than a year old. If the stadium now has enough sources to meet WP:N, then just recreate it. Be sure any recreation is different enough to avoid speedy issues (ideally including at least one new, decent, source). If the topic doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines for standalone articles, you'll have to cope with the "sore thumb" (though I don't personally see it as a significant issue, lots of similar articles have sections like that). Hobit (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the year-old closure. If this is a request for permission to try to submit a new draft, permission is not required. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Spin it back out with more sourcing per the above advice. WP:OSE is a losing argument, nor was there any obvious error in the previous process... but that process does not prohibit you from improving the encyclopedia by making good-faith efforts to include independent RS, phrase them in an NPOV way, and make sure everything controversial is verifiable. The beauty of redirection/merging is you don't need an admin to do it; you can (and should) do the work yourself. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Adriana Ferreyr

Adriana Ferreyr (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

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) -->reply

What's with the reply tool being all messed up of a sudden? Anyone experiencing this?
Ok, as far as the close goes, this is my response to the appellant when they raised this on my talk page.
So with this deletion you need to look at the arguments not the bolded comments, but I did not count the vote of the blocked sockpuppet or anything in the collapsed LLM comment. In terms of keep arguments:
Svartner argued keep on sources but an extremely detailed source analysis debunked the sources and was not rebutted
Noxthebigfox argued that a Google search provided sources but did not detail any specific ones that passed gng and what. That's mostly assertion and a weaker argument than the source analysis.
Fresafaraz was discarded as an LLM argument and intrinsically not considered
Lonewolf argued to keep but was blocked as a sock and has no standing to offer an opinion
Yacàwotçã argued to keep based on a telegram link. This might be the most bizarre argument ever and was entirely discarded.
That leaves two weak keep arguments on sources these were rebutted by the source analysis, which is effectively a stronger argument to delete. We also had what appeared to be valid concerns about BLP1E and NOTNEWs that was not addressed by the keep side and would have needed evidence of lasting coverage to overcome. That's why this was closed as delete Spartaz Humbug! 20:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Is the reply tool taking you ask the way to the bottom of the page? It's been doing that to me only on this page for a few months Katzrockso (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Looks like there is a previous version of the article on the apparently blacklisted everybodywiki website of the now-deleted article, for those interested. From what I can tell, many of the sources don't even mention the actress and the remainder are related to the George Soros lawsuit. Katzrockso (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Sources in the last revision were NYT, siterg.terra.com.br, Jornal A Tarde, Jornal Correio do Brasil, Dealbreaker.com, Fox News Latino, Huffington Post, ABC News, Washington Post, Business Insider, Reuters, NY Daily News. Just about any admin's going to be willing to give you sources from deleted pages, especially here, and everybodywiki's blacklisted for, y'know, reasons. —Cryptic 02:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

8 August 2026

Puruesh Chaudhary

Puruesh Chaudhary (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

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)reply

  • Gonna have to link to those sources if you want us to consider them. —Cryptic 18:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply
  • Endorse. No sources offered. Recommend to request draftification and to follow advice at WP:THREE. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Functionally, overturning anything to soft delete is effectively overturn as the op has objected to the deletionSpartaz Humbug! 11:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
I agree Spartaz Humbug! 20:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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:

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:Sandstein

The WP:SOFTDELETE guideline states: A 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)reply
Guidelines are supposed to reflect what we do and when common practise is not reflected in the guidelines that means we update the guideline. Where does it say a minimum number of participants is required to delete something? Forgive me for pulling experience but soft delete has existed for decades and requires a single editor to prod the article. Speedy delete doesn't even require a second pair of eyes, any admin can use their judgement to remove content. In fact, soft delete was introduced to AFD because we were closing AFDs as non-consensus because there had been no input after the nomination when it would be deleted as a prod. Our deletion criteria have become somewhat overlapping and contradictory over the years and it's impossible to look at a single guideline is isolation to the complex totality of deletion activity
I trust Sandstein implicitly to assess a nomination between delete and soft delete. To be fair, where the two of us have disagreed over the years it's because, imo, their approach is more cautious and rule bound then my own. I mention this to share my joy at them being accused of not following a guideline. That may well be a first!
I think you are also misunderstanding their reasoning too. There is NOQUORUM so requiring X number of votes to permit a particular outcome is antithetical to our consensus model. I agree with Sandstein that it's possible to find a full delete outcome with very limited participation although, to counter my own words, I personally wouldn't do a hard delete just on the nomination as I'd like some validation from another pair of eyes
A second well argued delete could well be sufficient for me too. I would certainly soft delete though if the nomination was policy based and no-one had opposed after 2 weeks. Spartaz Humbug! 20:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Where does it say a minimum number of participants is required to delete something?
It says it right in the Wikipedia:Deletion process guideline: (emphasis supplied)

If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few comments, in the case of AfDs closed as delete), no one has opposed the nomination in the discussion or in the talk page, and (if the page is an article) it has not been proposed for deletion, discussed at AfD, or undeleted in the past, the closer should perform a soft closure. Soft closing an unopposed XfD nomination does not require the discussion to have been relisted any particular number of times.

This is the entire reason for why the wording of WP:SOFTDELETE is very different compared to WP:SOFTMERGE, because the former is much more "disruptive" to the status quo compared to simply placing two tags and waiting for someone to do the merge: (emphasis supplied)
  • A soft deletion may result from a discussion that receives minimal participation. [...]
  • A soft merge closure may be used when a discussion receives very few or no comments.
Generally, I don't think it's a big deal if you soft delete after relisting the discussion, but it kind of goes against the principle of the Swiss cheese model I mentioned below: (emphasis supplied)

Unlike speedy deletion, AfD involves multiple editors to reduce the possibility of an erroneous conclusion being reached by placing "multiple layers of swiss cheese" in the process.

​ FaviFake (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
It seems to me, regarding some extraneous guideline pages, that some of the writing has become adventurous, getting ahead of reality, aka practice.
If they have generated conflict with practice as recognised at DRV, maybe the guideline tag needs stripping. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia:Deletion process is not an extraneous guideline, and DRV isn't a supreme court. Guidelines with consensus by the wider community have precedence over a small group of DRV regulars. FaviFake (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
If the guide doesn't reflect our practices then we need to update it. Spartaz Humbug! 10:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, and to update it you need the community's consensus. Should we start a discussion at WT:DELPOL asking if an article can be deleted non-speedily following an AfD discussion with no comments other than the nominator's? FaviFake (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I am worried that you are pushing authoritarian rhetoric. The notion at the text at SOFTDELETE has authority over DRV is an absurdity. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
That is plainly not what I said. FaviFake (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
@SmokeyJoe: I don't think anyone here claims that DRV cannot overrule the soft-deletion policy. We are free to endorse Sandstein's close despite there not being a quorum at the AfD. However, claiming that a nom plus one !vote is "quorum" is, to use your phrase, an absurdity, not only contradicting the policy, but also going against 15+ years of common practice among admins in the AfD circuit. We're not slaves to policy here, but if we are to change how things are normally done, I'd expect some discussion about it, and DRV isn't the best forum for that. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
The soft deletion “policy”? cf User:Xaosflux “not a "policy". Has it been “15+ years of common practice among admins in the AfD circuit” that a nom plus one !vote is not enough to delete, non-soft delete?
I’d like to see what was deleted. The AfD has only a few brief statements, I’d like to see what was deleted to consider the balance of deliberation versus what was deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • 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 (edit: meaning to say, "soft delete") possible, that is unimportant.—Alalch E. 16:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • 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)reply
    I disagree. Please see my comment above. A well argued nomination supported by a solid policy based second opinion may well be sufficient to hard delete if unopposed after 2 week, although I would say these are more the exception than the norm. That said it's an intrinsically weak consensus so I would expect more leeway to be given when there are later reps. Spartaz Humbug! 20:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    A well argued nomination supported by a solid policy based second opinion may well be sufficient to hard delete if unopposed after 2 week - sufficient to delete, and one good-faith request is sufficient to undelete it. That's how we've always been doing it. Liz and Explicit, who between them close more AfDs than the rest of us put together, have been soft-closing such discussions ever since the policy was introduced. Like you, I have full trust in Sandstein's judgement, and indeed I have endorsed this close. But if and when we get a valid request for REFUND, the two !votes on that AfD should not stand in its way. Owen× ☎ 21:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    I have always loved this small line from WP:DISCUSSAFD ever since I read it:

    Unlike speedy deletion, AfD involves multiple editors to reduce the possibility of an erroneous conclusion being reached by placing "multiple layers of swiss cheese" in the process.

    I had never thought about the Swiss Cheese model in relation to AfD before, but it really makes you understand why we have such a complex bureaucracy. FaviFake (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    It helps to understand how policy is what we do not what we write down and when we refer to policies they are never absolute guides. Noticeboards like DRV are essentially living repositories of experience and good judgement (well hopefully good). Participants here are from across the whole spectrum of editors and when we reach an agreement that becomes the consensus on how our policies should be applied, not what is written down. That's why I'm glad you keep sticking around because over time you will absorb your own slice of that living experience and knowledge and better understand how the thing actually works in practise. Spartaz Humbug! 10:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
    Well then, we're in luck, since common practice, followed by almost all admins for over a decade, perfectly matches the deletion policy. I don't know why you and Sandstein chose to make a stand against soft deletions, but if you don't agree with how these things are normally handled, the place to do that is with an RfC. Owen× ☎ 12:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Request temp undeletion to better review. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply

7 August 2026

Zolo (music genre)

Zolo (music genre) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

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)reply

I refer to my comments at User talk:Sandstein#Zolo (music genre) deletion. Sandstein 21:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
That is a reasonable desire, but not when it directly contradicts an established consensus. 11WB 💬 21:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
I will do that, thank you K1angumwandler (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)reply
This isn't a redo of AfD. 11WB 💬 22:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Please keep your personal feelings out of research. K1angumwandler (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply

Ryan Call (politician)

Ryan Call (politician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

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)reply

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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
@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)reply
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)reply

References

  1. ↑ 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
  2. ↑ "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)reply
  • 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)reply
    @Sirfurboy Please don't disparage other editors' character, but rather focus on content in discussion.
    CSGinger14 (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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):
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 that the 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Where are you getting that the two are close companions? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
No comment about the rest of this discussion, but this seems like a straight-forward mis-reading: this kind of writing is bog-standard "on the road" political profiling journalism. These kinds of profiles are often generated by embedding with a particular candidate's campaign for a few days; this one is based on just a single day of reporting, evidently. I don't see anything in that article that suggests these two have a closer relationship than journalist -> politician. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)reply
“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)reply
  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply
@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)reply
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)reply
The RfC didn't amend anything. It rejected changing NPOL. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)reply
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)reply
  • 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)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply
    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)reply
    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)reply
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)reply

Recent discussions

29 July 2026

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

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

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

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

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

28 July 2026

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

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

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

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2026 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1368186632#Temporary_review"