Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
 |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
- if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions include creation protection and title blacklisting.
Deletion review should not be used:
- to request undeletion of a page deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion. Place such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
- creation protection – request removal of the protection from the protecting administrator or, if the administrator is unavailable or non-responsive, request at Wikipedia:Requests for page unprotection.
- title blacklisting – file a delisting request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist.
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- to request that copyright violations, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content be restored.
Instructions
Steps to list a new deletion review
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. - Be aware that requests which appear to be written by large-language models will normally be summarily denied. Write in your own words.
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
The usage of large language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{temporarily undeleted}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page that requires a community consensus decision should remain on deletion review for at least seven days (unless the nomination was a proposed deletion). In such cases, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists after seven days. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally, all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly. But, in cases where the outcome is patently obvious, it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Early closes
- An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as if it were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
- Where the deletion discussion has reopened or changed, either by the closer of the deletion discussion or by an uninvolved administrator who has vacated a procedurally invalid non-administrative close,[a] and nobody has endorsed. In this case, the deletion review may be speedily closed as overturned or relisted as appropriate. The closer should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV has withdrawn their nomination, and no one has recommended any outcome but endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so for them).
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion acknowledges that their close was wrong, and no one has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Discussions may be closed without result if they are entirely disruptive. (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, repeated nominations of the same page, a large language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".
- ^ Challenges regarding whether a non-admin closure was contentious or correctly assessed consensus should be addressed through Deletion Review.
Hi, I believe there was no consensus for deletion. Nomination does not address the current version of the article. It just cites a 10year old, 2016 AfD and assert that the article was a repost of that deleted material. Only one delete is there and that's also lacking, citing just policy shortcuts. There's an abundance of coverage from last 10 years available online. Salimiss09 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- For reference:
- Owen× ☎ 17:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Collected deletion/salting history at quarry:query/104548, as of this past April. I don't remember what prompted me to run it then. —Cryptic 18:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Aha, it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BookMyShow (note case difference from OwenX's link). —Cryptic 18:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse A discussion in which nobody even argued against deletion by definition cannot have "no consensus for deletion". I'm surprised I didn't add this to the title blacklist in May when the capitalized AfD closed. * Pppery * in solidarity 18:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- If you only see one "delete" in that discussion, you're not competent to participate in afds, let alone analyze them. Also not inclined to put much weight on a new user's comments about a subject with this much paid editing history. That said, I (now) remember being somewhat surprised when that afd was closed when it was instead of being relisted. —Cryptic 18:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Reading the contributions 3 experienced editors commented on the lack of sourcing. That you did not bold an opinion did not mean that your contribution was not influential and it supported the two bolded opinions. Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse - Regardless of the most recent AfD's single delete !vote this appears to be the target of a mercenary sockfarm, and has consistently lost deletion debates in part due to it and in part due to every incarnation being promotional. Cryptic also noted in the most recent AfD that the sourcing is not up to par (thanks to common-in-India brown-envelope journalism). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Look out it's Jimothy! 18:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- strong meh bordering on complete indifference. Thanks for letting me know about the DRV. Shame the nominator was unable to follow the instructions and do it themselves. Spartaz Humbug! 20:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Can't be closed as anything other than delete.Katzrockso (talk)
- Endorse and we might need something the equivalent of a WP:OFFER for titles like this that have just been problematic forever. I can't see where I commented on this previously, but I definitely remember running across these discussions previously. When we have tribal memory about a title, it's not a good thing. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- WP:DEEPER is the closest thing we have at present. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- DEEPER has no explicit hope or pathway out. I guess that would be the best place to add any, though. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- It does: WP:DRVPURPOSE#4&6—via submitting significant new facts (potentially illustrated with a draft, particularly if requested in the prior DRV close) to DRV for review, after which DRV might accept and unsalt or might delegate the decision to AfD—for recent examples see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 25#Battle for Dream Island and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 January 18#K. Annamalai (I.P.S). —Alalch E. 20:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
- DEEPER has no explicit hope or pathway out. I guess that would be the best place to add any, though. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
- WP:DEEPER is the closest thing we have at present. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse per above and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
This was my draft originally, but I believe a random IP editor moved it into the namespace without notifying me. I'd like in undeleted and draftified. Crystalite13 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- (The page was actually moved by Slinetum, not
a random IP editor
). Nevertheless I would decline this request as the community has twice decided KreekCraft isn't notable so draftification would be futile. * Pppery * in solidarity 05:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)- More sources could spring up in the future, I see no major downside to a draft. Crystalite13 (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've updated the header here to point at the controlling afd, as one does for g4s, but there was some minimal discussion at the aborted afd at WP:Articles for deletion/KreekCraft (YouTuber) as well. —Cryptic 06:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Decline per Pppery. The article (at KreekCraft) was deleted many times, last in 2025. WP:AKON applies, and no draft needs to be worked on without irrefutable proof new sources emerged proving notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. This seems to be a situation similar to WP:BFDI or others in WP:DRPR - subject with massive niche popularity but a lack of notability in society at large. Letting a draft be worked on with zero chance it will ever be accepted veers into WP:NOTWEBHOST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion and decline draftification.
More sources could spring up in the future
is an even weaker argument than WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. I'll tell the appellant what I usually say in such cases: create a well-sourced stub, preferably via AfC, and we'll restore the deleted history behind it if requested. Draftspace is meant for active work on a page, not as temporary storage in hopeful anticipation of new sources. Owen× ☎ 09:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC) - Endorse deletion, decline draftification. This subject has a history of multiple deletions, recreations, SALT evasion; in both draft and mainspace. Multiple discussions and draft reviews have failed to find enough sourcing to merit an article, and while any individual creation, AfC submission, or move may be done in good faith, the net effect is tendentious. As a practical matter, there is now a (new) draft created by someone else at Draft:KreekCraft; the sourcing is not impressive. That draft is not in scope of discussion here, but we certainly don't need 2 duelling drafts. To appellant - if you want to work on this article, I'd suggest first finding 1-2 reliable sources and adding them to that draft. If and only if such sources exist, then trying to resurrect best-of multiple deleted drafts *might* make sense -- though even then, just rewriting from scratch using those good sources may be preferable. But absent such sources, any draft is going to get deleted, and with the tendentious history, we aren't going to keep a draft around just in case better sources appear in the future. Martinp (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse close of second AFD as Delete (although the appellant may not be appealing this), Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse salting of disambiguated title, which was an attempt at gaming the title. The other draft with the unnecessary disambiguation can be left alone, and will be declined if submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- Consider ECP protection of KreekCraft as protection against move of draft, while draft can still be reviewed by qualified reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- It's already admin-salted, and given the evasion here I'd been planning on blacklisting besides. Barring an extreme turnaround of this discussion, of course. —Cryptic 17:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Everyone participating in the discussion is now blocked for UPE and/or sockpuppetry. The closer would've had no way of knowing about this (earliest blocks were at 21:33 on 3 April 2026, while the discussion was closed at 13:33 on 3 April 2026). The page's status should be re-evaluated in light of this new information. Staraction (talk · contribs) 02:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Vacate AfD and allow early renomination. Did this require a DRV? Katzrockso (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Katzrockso: thought it was probably best to at least try and list a DRV, since this case is written in WP:DRVPURPOSE as #3, and the close is within 6 months old. No objection to closing this DRV early as SNOW, of course. Staraction (talk · contribs) 02:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Early Renom without prejudice endorsed No action needed from us here, just note the UPE blocks of the first AfD participants as a good reason for the timing... which isn't particularly early in any event. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- This needs protecting after renominating I don't think it matters what we do with the old afd, it clearly cannot stand. Let me know when it's renominated and I'll ECR the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 08:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Unlikely to accomplish much. Two of the blocked accounts were extended confirmed (one with 16k edits!), and the third was well on the way. —Cryptic 17:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- one can but try. Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Unlikely to accomplish much. Two of the blocked accounts were extended confirmed (one with 16k edits!), and the third was well on the way. —Cryptic 17:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Overturn to no consensusVacate. While the closing admin couldn't have known about the UPE/sock status, he did know the nomination didn't qualify for a "speedy keep" close under WP:CSK. That vote should have been discarded, not counted as a "keep". This would have left the closer with a nom to delete and two Keeps - not enough to do anything other than relist. Owen× ☎ 10:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)- Allow "early" re-nomination. This does not require DRV approval (a note in the nomination at the second AFD would be enough to avoid the speedy/procedural keep votes that come with some "early" renominations), but I do not fault the appellant for seeking clarification. All keep supporters were later blocked indefinitely. The closer was correct based on the information known at the time (either a "keep" close or a relist would have been reasonable). Frank Anchor 15:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see how two Keep !votes, legitimate as they were seen at the time, amount to a consensus. Owen× ☎ 17:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- I sometimes accept two really good votes for a consensus or where the outcome is very clear but 2:1 isn't a great consensus. I would take a speedy keep as a flat keep as long as it cites a valid policy basis. Spartaz Humbug! 18:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sure, if they provide a valid CSK-based argument. But if they vote "speedy keep" and then talk about the notability of the subject, it's clear that their familiarity with our P&G is tenuous at best. I have no reason to assume they understand SIGCOV any more than they do our deletion policies. Owen× ☎ 18:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Allow and Encourage speedy renomination. The blocks taint the prior discussion and mean that the consensus was likely illusory. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Let's formally vacate this, and note that in the little-used |result= parameter in {{delrevxfd}} on the old afd so there's no question of what's going on during the new nomination. No consensus would be incorrect; that's an outcome with a result (even if the result is to do nothing), and with what we know now there shouldn't have been an outcome at all. —Cryptic 17:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The Keep close was incorrect even knowing what was known at the time. But that is now moot. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- I have no objection to this, either. My initial proposal was an attempt to do the least un-doing necessary to get a clean result the second time around. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
- Vacate and allow renomination, given the circumstances. For the record, I don't agree with Owen's assessment that the close was incorrect at the time, but that is indeed moot. Martinp (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Abhijeet Dipke (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Last AFD was closed as merge in May. At the time of closure the subject was only known for founding a satire political movement and all of the coverage for the subject was based on the that single event. Hence a standalone article was not justified. Now the entire scenario has completely changed due to the major things happening in Indian politics. Now the subject is not only known as a founder of satire party. The 2026 Delhi Jantar Mantar protests was initiated by him. Reliable sources such as Reuters describe him as the most recognisable figure in the Genz protests in India. Apart from this many sources exists in multiple languages which were published after the last AFD closure in May. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] are some examples of reliable sources giving enough coverage for the subject to meet GNG. Also as per WP:1E, when an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. From the above coverage it is understandable that the role of the subject in the 2026 Genz protests is very significant. The subject is also described by the sources as someone who was able to lead a successful protest against the current Indian government in the last 12 years which even the opposition could not do. Because of all the above said reasons, I believe a standalone article is justifed at the moment and request for the restoration of it into mainspace rather than keeping as a redirect. Regards. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
|
| 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. |
|
Followed proper citation format for Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia. A tool found a rehosted Wikipedia article and admin did no verification. This was previously undeleted twice so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2026_May_22 This makes me sad. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LizeLive (talk • contribs)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This user is an extremely active LTA, having been WMF banned just a week ago. Not all of their socks use obvios usernames such as "Astro is banned", given that their modus operandi also involves creating sleepers that are sometimes only revealed in range checks from their SPI. The fact that Astrawiki3203 seems to want this LTA page means next-to-nothing- Grawp also wanted his LTA page, but it was found that does not mean that WP:DENY overrules all the reasons to have a subpage for an active LTA- not only that, but users that got their LTA subpages deleted due to WP:DENY, such as Johnny the Vandal and Willy on Wheels have sometimes become even MORE prolific, due to the Streisand Effect and the inherent infamy in a user becoming so annoying that Wikipedia tries to remove any trace of their existence. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
|
| 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. |
|
There was no clear consensus to keep here. Essentially, we can presume that the nominator is still in favour of deletion, since they never withdrew. The one 'keep' argument cited a Wiki Project guideline page, which itself says This is a WikiProject advice page on notability. It contains the advice of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. This page is not a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. In my opinion, citing this as a sole reason to keep an article is a very weak argument. There were no other editors in favour of keeping at all. The AfD was closed by a non-admin with little experience in closing AfDs. It may even have been a WP:SUPERVOTE rather than a proper neutral close, in which case they should have registered a keep !vote instead of closing the discussion. I would prefer for this close to be vacated and the discussion reopened. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |