Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VFU)
 |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
- if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions include creation protection and title blacklisting.
Deletion review should not be used:
- 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.
User:Shundreka Kajuana Fuller (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page, which consists of a bog stadard social media bio (a link to a personal website, their social media, and a brief introduction), was speedily deleted under G11 as "unambiguous spam"; I don't believe this is unambiguous spam but rather a very normal bio. This sppears to be the sort of page that would have been previously deleted, though still incorrectly, under U5, (See similar DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 28, before U5 was removed. If we look at the instructions we give to newer editors about what they can put in their userpage, over on WP:UPYES, a
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I think the obvious solution here (a redirect discussion for multiple redirect pages) should have been to make all redirects link to Chloroflexota. The non-British redirects linked to the wrong article for some reason. Also, there was one member of the Green non-sulfur bacteria that does not belong to Chloroflexota (was initially classified as such), so I think that warrants a potential standalone article for Green non-sulfur bacteria. CheckNineEight (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- The pre-DRV discussion at User talk:Pppery#Commenting on a deletion decision is more relevant here than is usual. —Cryptic 06:12, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn, relist. I disagree with the closer’s usertalk statement “Wikipedia's rules for discussion closers prevent me from taking any action on your comments”. He has the option of reverting his close and inviting User:CheckNineEight to participate in the RfD. He had that option, it’s what he should have done, and it’s what he can do right now.
More general observation: RfD seems to have many too-regular regulars, and not enough topic-interested editors. That is, RfD participants are not sufficiently representative of mainspace editors. Not for making these expert decisions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 4 October 2026 (UTC)- Sorry, that's absurd. If closures could be reopened and relisted 3 months later based on an outsider's wish to provide new information it would render the entire concept of "closing" a discussion meaningless. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Absurd is telling an apparent subject expert that nothing can be done.
Taking User:CheckNineEight‘s post on your talk page at face value, the RfD obviously came to the wrong result. Labelling them “outsider” is poor form, they are a late participant providing new input. You seem the value the integrity of the XfD process above the quality of the product, a mistake under WP:PPP. Your are right that it is not your role to adjudicate the facts and their interpretation base upon new information. But in hindsight, it is obvious that there was more to discuss. It is not for the closer to decided that the new party is right, but for the participants in the XfD. It needs to be reopened. Three months is not so old. Reopen the RfD, and let the subject-interested editors see if they agree. If not reopened, the RfD needs to be overturned, because it was wrong.
This DRV looks to be leaning to authorise recreating the redirects as User:CheckNineEight suggests. Normally, DRV is not for adjudicating common terms for clades, it would be better for that to have happened originally, or boldly, or at the RfD originally, or at the RfD reopened. Buts what’s important is that it is fixed. The next most important thing is to flag the old RfD as having lost standing, because it was wrong. Finally, a role of DRV is to review the RfD and how it went wrong, and to consider a process that will lead to that sort of mistake not recurring. An existing mechanism is for the closer to use their judgement when informed that the RfD had gone wrong. Relist or reopen when important new information is brought to your attention.
How old is old? Per the arbitrary durations in WP:RENOM, which came from apparent community acceptance since the early days of Wikipedia, two months is old for “no consensus” and six months is old for a consensus close. The RfD is not old, it can be reopened, you should have reopened it on September 26th. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2026 (UTC)- It's worth noting that there is the option to just recreate the redirects without reopening a few-month-old discussion. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- One of them might have been an article with a history, so best to restore (see below). — Jts1882 | talk 15:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Others might say that this would be disrespecting the consensus of the recent RfD. The proper thing to do is seek permission from the RfD closer. That was done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that there is the option to just recreate the redirects without reopening a few-month-old discussion. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Absurd is telling an apparent subject expert that nothing can be done.
- Sorry, that's absurd. If closures could be reopened and relisted 3 months later based on an outsider's wish to provide new information it would render the entire concept of "closing" a discussion meaningless. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Recreate all four as redirect to Chloroflexota. The threshold for retention at RfD is very low, based primarily on the usefulness to those searching for the term. It's important to note that the nom at the RfD did not call for deletion, but for retargeting. I am unconvinced by the two RETURNTORED !votes, but even if taken at full weight, this still leaves us with just two !votes for deletion versus one against it (not counting the appellant) - above average participation for RfD, but hardly a decisive consensus sufficient to refuse a valid request for relisting. I agree with SmokeyJoe above that the closer had the prerogative to relist the RfD. In this case, I see no need for relisting, as we can simply treat the close as a soft-deletion, and recreate with the better target. The concerns of
the descriptions and classifications are inconsistent and contradictory in places
raised by the two Delete !votes should be addressed by editing the relevant targets, not by deleting the redirs. Owen× ☎ 13:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC) - Comment: (as nom of RfD) I do agree with SmokeyJoe's general observation about RfD not having enough topic-interested editors. I created the RfD as a part of a series of trying to match redirects containing different variants of English (nominating redirects I'm not sure about but bold retargeting others). Here is a similar type of nomination for "sulfur/sulphur lichen". While that discussion ended in a retarget instead, it also got relatively little participation, even after the WikiProject notice. When the green non-sulfur bacteria redirects were sent to RfD, these redirects did show up on the article alerts for WikiProject Microbiology, though hardly anyone watches these pages, much less look at the RfDs and actually participate in them. Most responses in RfD come from RfD regulars, myself included, who show interest in discussing redirects in general but may not be experts in associated topics.
Another issue is with redirects in general: there are many redirects out there that are closely related but yet have different targets (leading to nomination groups like this for example and this longer-term nomination group upon seeing this comment). It would be problematic if no one participated in these discussions for obvious reasons. With the little participation in the particular RfD supporting deletion along with the need to take some action, the result of the RfD was deletion. That wasn't an expected outcome as nom, but since I am not an expert at the topic, I do not have much to say about it.
I don't care much about what will happen in the deletion review (though I'm aware of WP:DRVNOT #3) as long as the redirects aren't made inconsistent again (though it's unlikely anyone would want that anyway). Mathguy2718 (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC) - Recreate all four as redirect to Chloroflexales. Chloroflexineae would be more accurate, but doesn't have an article.
- My "confusion" in the discussion was because I was commenting on what the Chloroflexota article said at the time, which has since been corrected. Erroneously it said the Chloroflexota were green sulphur bacteria instead of green non-sulphur bacteria.
- The traditional green non-sulphur bacteria were assigned to the Chloroflexi in 2001 and at the time it only had a few species, mostly photosynthetic. This would have been the best target until relatively recently. Since then many close non-photosynthetic relatives have been discovered. Now the only photosynthetic bacteria in Chloroflexota (the new preferred name for Chloroflexi) are in order Chloroflexales. This has been split into two suborders for species using green or red pigments for photosynthesis. This is a better target as most (all?) members are photosynthetic, whereas only one of the currently recognised classes in Chloroflexota are photosynthetic.
- Either way, as long as the redirects are recreated, we can discuss the best target elsewhere. — Jts1882 | talk 16:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Jts1882: I'm bringing this discussion over to this thread, so I'm posting my reply here:
- I think the thing here is that "green non-sulfur bacteria" (GNSB) is not a clade (either a paraphyletic or polyphyletic group), as opposed to Chloroflexota – which is a valid taxon (a phylum in this case) and, therefore, a monophyletic group. There are two delineations (green bacteria and purple bacteria) of non cyanobacterial photosynthetic groups (that I know of, and probably besides various ungrouped taxa as well), and each is divided further between sulfur and non-sulfur.
- So I considered GNSB to at least be a redirect with possibilities, and perhaps should also contain {{R avoided double redirect|Chloroflexineae}} in case a Chloroflexineae article gets made first. Three out of four of these redirects should also have a {{R avoided double redirect}} towards whichever English/spelling variant we decided should be the standard. CheckNineEight (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Are green non-sulphur bacteria not a clade? Are there any outisde Chloroflexineae? — Jts1882 | talk 19:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- A clade is strictly a monophyletic grouping. CheckNineEight (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thermomicrobia is another GNSB that is from another kingdom (Pseudomonadati) separate from Chloroflexota's kingdom (Bacillati). CheckNineEight (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think Thermomicrobia is a GNSB. It's not green or photosynthetic. It was one of the three genera assigned by Woese (1987) to his Green non-sulfur acteria and relatives phylum, which often got abbreviated by dropping the "and relatives". The inclusion was based on similar rRNA to Chloroflexus, the genus containing the green non-sulphur bacteria. It wasn't included in the Chloroflexi when that formal phylum was created in 2001. At the time it had limited membership and the Chloroflexi were often referred to as GNSB, even though it had a few non-photosynthetic members. Since then many non-photosynthetic bacteria have been added to the phylum (now called Chloroflexota) and the only photosynthetic members are in Chloroflexales, the green ones in Chloroflexineae. — Jts1882 | talk 07:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oh. So the redirects should all point to Chloroflexineae (with {{R avoided double redirect}}), then, or the other way around? I think one of the redirect pages was originally a standalone article. Chloroflexineae just redirects to Chloroflexales as of now. CheckNineEight (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I think Chloroflexales is fine for the redirect. The article discusses the "filamentous anoxygenic phototrophic bacteria" in general, whatever the colour. That might be more useful to the reader than a more specific one. — Jts1882 | talk 13:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I did like to see the history of the redirect that was once an article. A lot of these articles have been moved to new names as the science changed, but the content was often left with minimal change, introducing some errors (e.g. the move of Chloroflexi to Chloroflexota). — Jts1882 | talk 13:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oh. So the redirects should all point to Chloroflexineae (with {{R avoided double redirect}}), then, or the other way around? I think one of the redirect pages was originally a standalone article. Chloroflexineae just redirects to Chloroflexales as of now. CheckNineEight (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think Thermomicrobia is a GNSB. It's not green or photosynthetic. It was one of the three genera assigned by Woese (1987) to his Green non-sulfur acteria and relatives phylum, which often got abbreviated by dropping the "and relatives". The inclusion was based on similar rRNA to Chloroflexus, the genus containing the green non-sulphur bacteria. It wasn't included in the Chloroflexi when that formal phylum was created in 2001. At the time it had limited membership and the Chloroflexi were often referred to as GNSB, even though it had a few non-photosynthetic members. Since then many non-photosynthetic bacteria have been added to the phylum (now called Chloroflexota) and the only photosynthetic members are in Chloroflexales, the green ones in Chloroflexineae. — Jts1882 | talk 07:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Are green non-sulphur bacteria not a clade? Are there any outisde Chloroflexineae? — Jts1882 | talk 19:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment My thinking here is to do what is in the best interest of readers, whether that is to redirect to the most appropriate page, a set index article, or something else that makes everything consistent. There is certainly a problem with the targets, per MathGuy, and I think we can figure out how to serve our readers. --Enos733 (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Enos733: maybe, for now, we can just add a {{redirect-multi}} hatnote to the target page (with use1 = GNSB not within Chloroflexota, followed by a bunch of pageNs to corresponding articles for use1)? CheckNineEight (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Aster Janssens (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This close was a WP:BADNAC. It asserts that the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline, as noted by WP:BLP. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • edits • he/they) 16:40, 3 October 2026 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- Category:Filipino American sportspeople (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)
Category:American sportspeople of Filipino descent page was a move from Category:Filipino American sportspeople in 2010; it was later deleted.
Category:Jewish American sportspeople, Category:African-American sportspeople, and other ethnic based subcategories exist. Why should one about Filipino Americans be deleted; why should some other ethnicities get a subcategory, but not others? What is the logic of this?
Is it that the current consensus naming scheme is no longer X sportspeople of X ethnicity, but X ethnicity sportspeople, shouldn't Category:Filipino American sportspeople not be restored? RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse close as an accurate reading of consensus. Katzrockso (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- So it's OK for some ethnicities to have categories of their athletes, but not others then? RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, if that's what the consensus determines. Katzrockso (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- So it's OK for some ethnicities to have categories of their athletes, but not others then? RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse and speedy close per WP:DRVNOT#6:
If the appellant insists on a standard of "consistency", they're completely free to nominate Category:Jewish American sportspeople, Category:African-American sportspeople, and anything else they wish for CfD separately, but that is not a matter for DRV. The solution to having all of the other pages deleted is to nominate them for deletion. Left guide (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Deletion review should not be used…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)
- We don't speedy close for DRVNOT (except for attacks and historically for copyright infringement). Besides, CFD is its own little world; my understanding is that not identifying similar categories is a defect in the discussion. —Cryptic 03:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- CfD is very inconsistent on the matter. Sometimes that is treated as a defect. Other times the missing categories are silently processed through WP:CFDS. Other times for practical matters the other categories are split to a separate discussion and then nobody knows what to do if the outcome is different. In any case I reject the premise that the so-called similar categories are actually similar; a broad ethnicity is different from a county. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- We don't speedy close for DRVNOT (except for attacks and historically for copyright infringement). Besides, CFD is its own little world; my understanding is that not identifying similar categories is a defect in the discussion. —Cryptic 03:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
My point is not that athlete categories about Jewish Americans and African Americans and Cajuns shouldn't exist (as all those are just a few examples of ethnic American subcategories of Category:American sportspeople), but cause they exist it shows a change in consensus that there should be ethnic subcategories of Category:American sportspeople, to include the re-creation of Category:Filipino American athletes. Otherwise if some are allowed to exist, and others are not (and there is active attempts to stop their recreation, as the case for Filipino American athletes/sportspeople), it can be argued that Wikipedia has a racial bias in favor of some ethnicities and against others. I hope that the latter is not the case.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:36, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Controversies surrounding Mahatma Gandhi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)
Hi. I request for the undeletion of this article [].
Many of the policy violations invoked do not make sense. I gave detailed explanations on why they didn't support actual policy and showed direct evidence, but the user who proposed never enganged.
Most of their statements were opinionated, statements such as "ghandi later changed his views", as part of the argument that the article shouldn't exist to record the contrivercies and many other issues I enganged with.
Please check the actual discussion and the article's talk page, on the talk page I went in depth discussion with the other user on problems in the article, and I even restructure it. I do not know what happened to its talk page history, to give direct link to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniking2100 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Self endorse, as closer. I do not see any other way I could have closed this. @Omniking2100: you cannot access the Talk page as it was deleted together with the article. In your future editing, please be more concise. More is not better and it can overwhelm a discussion. Star Mississippi 23:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. This was effectively a unanimous AfD, with the appellant's lone "keep" citing no policy or guideline, while admitting,
I do not have an opinion on this article
. I didn't read the entirety of the appellant's 3300-word responses on the now-deleted Talk page, much of which seemed to revolve around the definition of the word "controversies". This is yet another case of DRVNOT#3 - a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment. Owen× ☎ 23:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC) - Endorse (involved) - Nothing about the closure, instead this is request proves Omniking2100 has serious conduct issues. GenuineArt (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse (uninvolved) - There is no other way the discussion could have closed, nor is there evidence that the nomination or the delete !votes were blatantly against policy. They seem to have offered valid evidence the article was a POV fork. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse and go read WP:1AM, because this probably should not have even been raised absent finding one other editor willing to take your side on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse - A clear consensus and an obvious close. It isn't the role of DRV to disagree with the consensus. I don't understand what the appellant is saying about the article talk page. Was the
in depth discussion with the other user
before or after the article was nominated for deletion? If after, the article talk page was the wrong place for the discussion. If before, the appellant didn't refer to that discussion in the AFD. In any case, it isn't relevant. Discussion on the article talk page is about improving the article, and is moot if the article is deleted, and so the talk page is deleted with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)- @Robert McClenon the talk page discussion began in June and continued through the discussion when @Pincrete (courtesy ping) advised them to take it to the Talk. This was not an issue of Omniking's doing although I do wonder if they misunderstood which Talk. Star Mississippi 02:42, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. It has no effect on whether the deletion was correct; it was and is. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- I advised Omniking2100 to go to talk in the hope of not clogging up the AfD discussion with long justifications and in the hope of me explaining to Omniking2100 why the article didn't come close to meeting WP standards. I don't think I succeeded in the latter. Our discussion there has no substantive relevance to the outcome of the AfD, and would tend, if anything IMO, to endorse the deletion decision. Pincrete (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon the talk page discussion began in June and continued through the discussion when @Pincrete (courtesy ping) advised them to take it to the Talk. This was not an issue of Omniking's doing although I do wonder if they misunderstood which Talk. Star Mississippi 02:42, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Many of the Keep votes in the AfD as well as the closing statement do not follow the relevant guidlines WP:GEOLAND and WP:GEOSOURCE, which require either legal recognition or significant coverage and exclude census tracts from establishing notability. This article was kept despite being sourced solely to census records.
"Once it has been established that the place is or was an actual settlement, we keep the page"
(Closing statement) - This is not in line with GEOLAND; we do not keep pages simply because the place has been shown to exist.
- The first Keep vote uses the faulty premise that Gredine is a "census settlement" which isn't typically considered to pass the "legal recognition" bar. Several other Keep votes cite this and should be discarded as well.
- It's unclear whether the census actually refers to a distinct settlement in this case, since Naseljeno mjesto) appears to be a type of statistical district that can encompass one or more settlements.
- The claim
"When I googled it, I found plenty of references to the village."
has not been substantiated with actual sources.
- None of these concerns were sufficiently addressed in the AfD. –dlthewave ☎ 16:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Comment from closer: page two of this official statute, and page 79 of these plan amendments indicate that Gredine was indeed a legally recognized settlement. These sources weren't brought up during the AfD, but they were presented to the appellant by Katzrockso four days ago. I find it curious this isn't mentioned in the appeal here. Owen× ☎ 16:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- I think the appeal is fair. The point is to evaluate arguments that were present in the discussion, in particular, how the community interprets WP:GEOSOURCE. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Absolutely. As I mentioned to the appellant on my Talk page, I'll be happy to hear the community's interpretation of GEOLAND, and hopefully see the guideline amended, if needed, to reflect our common practice. But while we don't have a formal discovery phase at DRV, I find it odd that the appellant chose not to mention the two vital sources establishing legal recognition, the absence of which is the sine qua non of their argument for deletion. Owen× ☎ 17:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- I think the appeal is fair. The point is to evaluate arguments that were present in the discussion, in particular, how the community interprets WP:GEOSOURCE. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse-ish you may have made a sufficient case for overturning a keep to a no consensus close, but that is a de facto identical result--the article is kept. Given that two new sources favorable to inclusion are discussed above here, they would have to be discussed and addressed in any renomination, which reduces the chances of a delete closure significantly. Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm concerned that these sources have the same issue that I pointed out above where it's unclear whether "naseljeno mjesto" refers to an actual settlement or to a statistical area. I'd like to ask that we evaluate this AfD on its own merits and allow the community to evaluate the new sources in a future AfD, instead of basing our decision on how we think such a future discussion might go.
- –dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse close. There is much more that could be said about this appeal, so I will keep it as brief as possible. At best, the appeal presents a case to overturn to no consensus, any other closure would be a supervote. Given that the closer already told dlthewave that they can treat the close as a no consensus close and renominate in 2 months, there is no point in formally changing anything.
- Additionally, OwenX's point is well-taken here: much of the appeal and the complaints presented on OwenX's talk page rest on the purported discrepancy between the discussion and close being based on census results and the wording of WP:GEOSOURCE. That argument falls apart when non-census sources are presented. Is DRV expected to overturn the result to delete on this basis, only to allow immediate recreation based on the additional sources? Such ludicrous bureaucracy would be an insult.
- Finally, Dlthewave questions these new sources with the worry that they represent statistical constructs. It begs the question what type of source is sufficient to them to establish that a locality is notable under WP:GEOLAND.Katzrockso (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Comment (nom) - Regarding the two additional sources: Statut Opcine Bugojno lists Gredine as one of the naseljeno mjestos (populated areas) that make up the municipality of Bugojno. The entire municipality divided into naseljeno mjestos; there's no indication that Gredine is a distinct settlement and not simply a statistical area. IZMJENE I DOPUNE PROSTORNOG PLANA KSB/SBK 2005-2025 GODINA mentions Gredine in a list of many places where water tanks are located, in the context of addressing a water shortage. Although we don't have consensus on what exactly qualifies as "legally recognized", those discussions have typically leaned toward some sort of incorporation or the existence of a local decision-making body. A mere mention in a goverment document is certainly not sufficient since these often use various localities etc for statistical and planning purposes. –dlthewave ☎ 03:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse - In my opinion, either a close of Keep or a close of No Consensus would have been a valid exercise of judgment by the closer. So Keep was a valid close, and overturning the close to No Consensus would do nothing anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Could not reasonably have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Keep and no consensus were the only viable outcomes here, with both having the same practical outcome. There was not consensus to reject the sources brought up in this discussion. Frank Anchor 13:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse-ish I think based on the discussion, delete had the stronger position on our policies and guidelines, and should have been accorded more weight, and a no-consensus close is proper, as it would recognize that more editors felt that the article should have been kept. That said, as was brought up on OwenX's talk page, there were better sources that indicate that Gredine was legally recognized (recognizing dlthewave's concerns) and the spirit of the project is that the article should be kept, even if those sources were not brought up in the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Straight endorse. User:Dlthewave !voting delete arguing GEOLAND and WP:GEOSOURCE failed to persuade. He was challenged by Joy, who was supported by others. User:Mangoe argued a line for deletion, but also failed to persuade. The consensus was to keep. Guidelines are not law that AfD participants have to respect, but predictors of AfD. If AfD doesn’t match your reading of the guideline, fix the guideline. Read advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- The amount of wikilawyering and cherry-picking here is downright silly. I don't see any sense whatsoever in this sort of an arbitrary crusade against small Bosnian villages, that isn't actually supported by evidence. For example, it'd be reasonable to assume that the Bosnian census practice which dates over a century back, over a variety of administrations, has seen its fair share of scholarly criticism - but these complaints aren't actually based on any such thing, but a capricious reading of Wikipedia and Google Search output, it seems. Bizarre. --Joy (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Category:Box sets (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I believe categorizing box set releases in its own category is useful. A box set is a very specific type of compilation that generally consists of compiling entire albums of artists, and not just specific songs like most traditional compilations. I believe having a box set category helps with that difference. While this is a very common type of release, it is very specific, and I don't think just putting box sets in a generic compilations category is particularly useful. There is even a box set category for a specific artist already: Category:David Bowie box sets, which makes sense as Category:David Bowie compilation albums was already filled with his traditional compilations and he released a bunch of box sets, so the distinction makes sense. Skyshiftertalk 00:45, 29 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. |
|
This TFD was closed by an involved non-admin editor without a valid TFD closure outcome. The closure was reverted and then reinstated. It's a bit of a mess. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:40, 25 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. |
|
To be restored in Royal Canadian Air Force, see article revision history Wcam (talk) 14:45, 25 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. |
|
<Someone impersonated me to make it look like I was editing my own page> Feraljokes (talk) 07:44, 23 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 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. |