Wikipedia:Deletion 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:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
- if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions include creation protection and title blacklisting.
Deletion review should not be used:
- if the page was deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion: place such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
- creation protection – request removal of the protection from the protecting administrator or, if the administrator is unavailable or non-responsive, request at Wikipedia:Requests for page unprotection.
- title blacklisting – file a delisting request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist.
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- to request that copyright violations, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content be restored.
Instructions
Steps to list a new deletion review
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. - Be aware that requests which appear to be written by large-language models will normally be summarily denied. Write in your own words.
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
The usage of large language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{temporarily undeleted}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page that requires a community consensus decision should remain on deletion review for at least seven days (unless the nomination was a proposed deletion). In such cases, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists after seven days. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally, all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly. But, in cases where the outcome is patently obvious, it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Early closes
- An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as if it were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
- Where the deletion discussion has reopened or changed, either by the closer of the deletion discussion or by an uninvolved administrator who has vacated a procedurally invalid non-administrative close,[a] and nobody has endorsed. In this case, the deletion review may be speedily closed as overturned or relisted as appropriate. The closer should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV has withdrawn their nomination, and no one has recommended any outcome but endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so for them).
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion acknowledges that their close was wrong, and no one has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Discussions may be closed without result if they are entirely disruptive. (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, repeated nominations of the same page, a large language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".
- ↑ Challenges regarding whether a non-admin closure was contentious or correctly assessed consensus should be addressed through Deletion Review.
[[:<JAKE FLORES>]]
<Someone impersonated me to make it look like I was editing my own page> Feraljokes (talk) 07:44, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
- Can you please give more detail as to what you're requesting? I am finding it difficult to figure out. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The closer discarded two valid Keep !votes as “LLM-generated” without evidence, verification, or policy-required justification. This materially altered the outcome of the discussion. The closer wrote: “I have discarded the LLM-generated ‘keep’ !vote(s) per WP:AITALK… Discarding the LLM-generated !vote results in a rough consensus to delete.” This was a procedural error: - WP:AITALK does not permit discarding comments based on subjective impressions or guesses. I am not asking DRV to decide the merits of the article. I am asking DRV to review a closure where the closer’s guess about LLM use determined the result. This is a procedural issue appropriate for DRV. For those of us who choose to write thoughtfully presentations rather than hurried responses, it is a bit disconcerting. I request that the AfD be overturned and either:
|
| 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. |
|
I used this figure of speech in a text conversation with coworkers. I was under the perception intentionally ommitting a word when describing that you or someone else (forgot) a word was a well-enough understood use of memetic language. I was surprised however when no one realized I had done this intentionally. I rushed to the internet to justify myself to them, checking known your meme and wikipedia for any sort of page confirming this linguistic phenomenon existed, but the only remnant of it's existence at all that I could find was a long-forgotten RFD page from 2018 denying it's entry into Wikipedia-ic record. Amusingly, one of the editors comments "I can't imagine any user looking it up, either." Hello, from 8 years later, it's me, I'm the user looking it up. - In further support of my request for 'Accidentally a word' to be admitted into the great cultural record that is Wikipedia, I posit that the deletion of this page was made initially on the basis that 'Accidentally a word' is not a sufficiently prominent quirk of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE to be recorded. This is a misunderstanding of the nature of 'Accidentally a word.' Accidentally a word is an early internet meme in the sense we understand current internet memes to be. I suspect the understanding of internet culture, the definition of a meme, and their cultural relevance was not fully understood by the editors 8 years ago, as those ideas themselves had not yet calcified in to the extent they have today. For these reasons, I submit that the original definition in it's full text should be restored to Wikipedia. Here is the full text: accidentally a word "(humorous) To unintentionally omit a word." It seems that what is being described here is a grammatical practice (humorously omitting an element of the syntax in order to emphasise an omission of another kind): you can, for example, find deliberate uses of "I accidentally a sentence" in Google. I am a long time user, first time contributor to Wikipedia, I made and account specifically for the purpose of creating this review, apologies in advance for any procedural mistakes I may have made. I hope that an editor with more experiecen takes pity on my review request and may help to lift it to the exceptional quality standards Wikipedia is known for. Accidentally-a-user (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2026 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Overturn. I recently nominated the rest of the Timeline of United States inventions series for deletion, and consensus was found to keep them, so I think this means that consensus may have changed. If we're going to maintain a timeline that's split between a few articles, it shouldn't have a gap like this. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
Discussion closed as "SNOW Keep" by non-admin after only a few hours of discussion. One contributor invoked SNOW after only 5 !votes, and others then piled on. I think this deserves at least some more consideration. ZimZalaBimtalk 22:22, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
| ||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The reasons for deletion are contended on the following matters: The Myanmar National League is listed as a fully professional league per below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues The following historic video links provide evidence of the subject competing in the Myanmar National League (MNL) as a professional athlete in 2013: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Feu8MMiqtUE#t=0m58s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSZnFoWAjN4#t=1m47s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cN3YGzWsRg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBRJVCcddyo The subject is listed on World football as having competed in Myanmar during the season of 2013, wearing number 16, which is also evidenced in the above video links of nationally televised competition matches: https://www.worldfootball.net/person/pe305585/ The subject is listed on PlayMaker as having competed in Myanmar during the season of 2013, wearing number 16, which is also evidenced in the above video links of nationally televised competition matches. https://www.playmakerstats.com/player/lenox-tweneboa/239713?epoca_id=142 The subject is published as an overseas Australian professional football athlete in the Myanmar National League in 2013 within the OZFootball Database dated 2013: http://www.ozfootball.net/ark/Abroad/2013-01.html ~2026-49965-43 (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- File:LucileRandon2019.webp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|revisions|restore)
- File:Jeanne-Calment-1996.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|revisions|restore)
- File:Kane Tanaka 117.webp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|revisions|restore)
- File:SarahKnauss1979.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|revisions|restore)
These articles were nominated by a user back in January 2023 on the grounds that since we already had photos of them, they failed the WP:NFCC. All four individuals are supercentenarians, in fact, some of the oldest people in recorded history, and these free images of them were are only so since they were of them well in their youth. WP:NFC#UULP outlines an exception for images that even if free images are available, if they are of the subject when they're older and the subject was notable in their youth, an older non free image can be used under the relevant criteria. It can be argued that the same can apply for supercentenarians who only become notable in their late life and only having free images of them when they were much younger. The first two nominations encountered some opposition on this basis (although they didn't explicitly cite the policy), and there was a lack of consensus, but the first was deleted as Textbook WP:NFCC#1/WP:NFCC#8 violation
, which set the precedent for the other four (which were mentioned in the first discussion. I am coming here to see if these images would pass under WP:NFC#UULP, since following it in spirit would mean that these files shouldn't have been deleted. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 15:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see how Joseph2302's ban three years later is at all relevant, except to the extent that it removes someone who'd oppose your position if you get a second bite at this apple. —Cryptic 16:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Normally I would ping the user to get them to discuss/be made aware, but since Joseph was banned, I didn't want to for WP:GRAVEDANCING reasons, so I just stated that they were banned as an explanation for why I couldn't. (Edit: since that generated more heat than light, I'm removing it; in retrospect, I can see why that might have seemed off being in the lead sentence like that). — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:08, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- This is an extremely distasteful nomination given that the now banned user has over 80,000 edits, was only recently banned and this was over 3 years ago. It distinctly has a strong smell of gravedancing and I implore the nominator to withdraw this. Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse all. An interesting take on WP:NFC#UULP,
with a tasteless side of gravedancing,but ultimately devoid of merit. The UULP carve-out is forindividuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance
. Even if we remove the word earlier as the appellant suggests, we're still left with a falsehood. None of these four supercentenarians was notable for his or her visual appearance--at any age. We have free images for all four, and the refs from each will take readers to more images, including at least one each for a photo near their time of death. There's no justification for adding a non-free image just to see what they looked like at 115 years old, unless a section is added to specifically discuss their appearance at that age. Owen× ☎ 17:02, 15 September 2026 (UTC)- Jeanne Calment does have multiple sourced statements about her appearance, so there's some basis for meeting NFCC#8 and 1 there. The "earlier visual appearance" language is an exception to "Pictures of people still alive... provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image"; it's not really relevant. (The other three articles don't mention appearance at all.) —Cryptic 17:59, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Concerns of the nominator's motivation aside (I agree any years-later CBAN is irrelevant), Overturn the deletion of the first one since the closure didn't reflect the consensus of the discussion. I know in some cases FfD admins have to act as policy experts in a way that wouldn't be tolerated in other venues given the degree to which file decisions can have legal significance. But the dispute here is really "does this image add value to the article" which should be a matter for normal consensus not supervotes, and the discussion didn't have a consensus to delete. Endorse the second deletion, since deletion is a reasonable reading of the discussion although I would probably have relisted instead. Overturn the fourth one since a deletion with no discussion at all should be seen as a soft delete especially given the unresolved dispute over whether that file was public domain (I would definitely have relisted rather than closing as delete if I were closing admin). Endorse the third one, though, since that was technically a speedy deletion not a FFD and the F7 speedy deletion criterion does allow admins to act as policy experts in the absence of any discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:15, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Question/suggestion. The sideshow about purported "gravedancing" having been resolved (I'm content to AGF), let's move to substance. Individually, those discussions were not well-attended, and the point is well taken that closers on file/copyright issues sometimes have to borderline supervote, due to poor discussion depth and the technical knowledge needed to opine on copyright matters. However, collectively, I do see a consensus: the fact the article subjects were notable for being supercentenarians is not felt to inherently be enough to justify a NFCC#8 exemption for an old-aged non-free photo of them over younger free ones. Discussion participants opened the window to contemplating a non-free exception if the text (presumably in a well-sourced manner) integrally referenced the supercentenarians appearance in their old age. So I see little basis to overturn here as a group, but could see doing so for individual photos if someone would indicate such a specific use in that specific article. Does that apply to any of these specific cases? Martinp (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't know if this is possible due to the copyright considerations here, but it is hard to evaluate the discussions without reference to the specific images in question. Is it possible to temporarily undelete them or no? At least the ones other than the third one, which seems more unambiguously a copyright issue. Katzrockso (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- It's inconvenient for images. Given immediate sources were Randon (site now dead, and its irritating anti-adblock javascript apparently prevented archival of the image; until recently it redirected to this, which shows a version of the same image with the top and bottom cropped); Calment; Tanaka (with no indication whatsoever of the actual source, and if the cesspit that is Fandom provides it anywhere, I can't find it); Knauss (again, no indication of the actual source, either here or there). That sufficient for review purposes? —Cryptic 04:17, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- So after looking more closely at the file description pages to answer the above, it looks like only Randon's image properly gives the author and copyright holder, and of the remainder only Calment's can be tracked down from what was given. The latter two shouldn't have even made it to FFD; they're F4 speedies. —Cryptic 04:17, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- restore Randon and Calment endorse the other two. Basically for Randon we have a discussion where the outcome probably didn't match the discussion. For Calment we have an argument that visual appearance is relevant (per Cryptic). For the other two, it sounds like they qualify under F4 (I'm deferring to Cryptic on that), so they should not be restored in any case. I'm not bolding the 2nd part just because I want it clear I'm relying on other's work for this. And yes, these are old, but I think they are reasonable to be at DRV. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse all 4 deletions, with no prejudice against re-upload with appropriate sourcing where warranted by article text. First, while not strongly attended, the discussions met the bar for non-free-media discussions; they are not defective. Second, per Cryptic, seems only the Randon image has proper traceable sourcing and crediting. Finally, only the Calment article currently discusses the subject's appearance at old age, and in my opinion, it is passing mentions, not enough to meet the NFCC#8 criterion of
increase readers' understanding...and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding
. So I don't see a reason to overturn any one of the 4 deletions as they stand. That said, there is a path to inclusion: if someone were to sharpen the article text, with (sourced) discussion of the subjects' appearance in detail where an available nonfree image would increase understanding of it, a newly uploaded and properly sourced nonfree image would then be acceptable. If we do end up endorsing the deletions here, I wouldn't like that interpreted as a "never", just a "not as it currently stands". Martinp (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2026 (UTC)- Adding: there was an unanswered question in the Knauss discussion whether the image might be PD after all. No prejudice against a re-upload, with proper attribution, if someone credibly can argue it *is* PD. But someone must actually make that claim in a defensible manner, not just a drive-by (not intended as criticism) unanswered question in a deletion discussion. Martinp (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The movie releases on 6 November this year. The article was deleted without my knowledge, then recreated as a redirect and as a draft with no content. I hope someone can delete the draft and restore the deleted article in the draftspace. Some new information is there to add. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Two main contributors to the discussion have been blocked as sockpuppets (MAWJ and LanannaB) (WP:DRVPURPOSE #3). That person is also the article creator. Most arguments for to keep the article came from them. The article has not significantly changed in terms of source quality since the AfD closed 11 months ago. Without the participation of the creator it leaves a closer argument than was seen when the discussion was closed. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:10, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Draftification discussion with four participants, split 50/50, closed as "keep" with no explanatory comment. I had nom'd this as I expected bold draftification to be contested by the article's creator, and my read is that the consensus was going the other way: the two oppose !votes are verbose but are not well-grounded in policy, and lack evidence that overcomes the exclusionary criteria of WP:NOT. Closer has not responded to inquiry about the close. —BrechtBro (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
An AFD that started with a questionable bundle of articles and garnered low participation. That often has potential as DRV fodder, especially in this case which was closed without being relisted on a flimsy consensus. For Ugbad and Rahma Sadiq in particular, a merge to United Kingdom and the Islamic State is simply out of the question because the lack of a relation to the UK. I am therefore proposing that the merge outcome is overturned and the article listed/relisted on its own merits without being part of a bundle. To avoid a traiwreck I have no opinion on the other articles in the bundle. Geschichte (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I would like to kindly ask for the speedy deletion of Mitrade to be reviewed, with the goal of preferably having the article restored and listed at AfD, so that the community may have the opportunity to discuss its current sourcing and notability. The article was deleted under G4, G11, and A7. As the first step, I asked the administrator who deleted the article to reconsider; however, the administrator declined to discuss my request and told me to take it to DRV. The one that causes me the most concern is G4. The previous AfD happened in 2019 and focused on the lack of substantial independent secondary coverage, as it relied on primary coverage and material that was derived from press releases. Several years later, specifically in 2026, the article was written from scratch. It contained post-2019 sources and developments that did not yet exist in 2019. Considering that G4 targets identical recreations and/or cases where the reason for the past deletion remains unchanged, I would argue that G4 applied here is debatable. Furthermore, I do not believe the case for G11 and A7 was clear. Indeed, the 2026 version of the article included adverse regulatory information, including ASIC action and limitations of regulatory permissions. Therefore, I would not sustain that the 2026 article was promotional. As for A7, it is known to have a lower threshold than full notability. The article did contain claims of significance concerning a regulated financial company that operates across many jurisdictions. With this request, I am not asking DRV to decide that Mitrade satisfies WP:NCORP. Rather, I would like to ask that, considering the disputed application of the three aforementioned speedy-deletion criteria and how the 2026 version of the article was so different, the question to be taken through the habitual AfD rather than resolved by a speedy deletion. Bill Neto (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |