Wikipedia:Deletion review#Forensic animation

Skip to: Active discussions Recent discussions Archive (purge cache)

Shortcut WP:DRVWP: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.

Before listing a review request, please:

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

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.

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

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.

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} 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.

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. 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 or where a discussion has not been closed in good time 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.)

• Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Serbian exonyms (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First of all, I have no quarrel and no disrespect is intended to Explicit, who works hard to keep the AfD process operating. I have been having a bit of a chat with them about this and have told them I am opening a DRV. I believe in this situation we have a bad close because of misapplied policy and poor levels of discussion of sources. I believe it matters because various other similar closes are being made of similar pages on similar lines. The tl;dr version is that there were poor quality arguments and that the close should have been a soft delete.

• In detail, I say that at best there is a single valid policy based !vote in this discussion. I dont know and can't now see the contents of the page, but can't be a WP:DICDEF by definition. Nothing is being defined here, nothing in that policy is relevant.
• so starting at the top of the AfD discussion, the nom asks the impossible, we can't move pages to other language wikis. So that's a non-policy !vote
• the nom then makes a comment about DICDEF which doesn't seem relevant, they appear to be referring to WP:NOTEVERYTHING
• there's then a comment about formatting, which isn't a !vote
• then a !delete vote with no reasoning
• then a !delete about contents (which I can't read)
• I suggest that nobody has addressed WP:NLIST, nobody has even attempted to find and/or discuss sources in the usual way. In fact, I suggest that there are logical reasons to suppose that exonyms in Serbian might be notable (places in the region have complicated histories and may have or had alternative names in different languages) and I believe that there are sources which could be analysed and discussed. I AfD pages about exonyms should consider sources in the discussion and if nobody wants to do that they they should be soft deleted as someone may want to improve in the future. Asserting WP:NOTEVERYTHING on this kind of page when the information is not necessarily just indiscriminate and has sources and logic for inclusion seems unjust. JMWt (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One point of clarification, the page was not a list of exonyms for places in Serbia, but rather a list of names for various places around the world in the Serbian dialect(s) of Serbo-Croatian. Ike Lek (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist in the hope of getting some WP:NLIST-based opinions. WP:DICDEF is often brought up as an argument for deletion, usually by inexperienced editors, when articles relating to language or lexicography are discussed. As the appellant correctly notes, the deleted list did not fall under the scope of DICDEF, and the arguments relying on this policy should have been discarded. And while, contrary to the appeal, pages can be moved to another project, the AfD nomination was without merit, and could have been closed under SK#1 if caught before the first !vote. I am somewhat troubled by the appellant's statement, I believe that there are sources which could be analysed and discussed. WP:NEXIST requires the actual existence of sources, not just faith in their existence. That said, JMWt is a capable, experienced editor, and I have no qualms about REFUNDing the page to draftspace and letting them work on sourcing. Owen× ☎ 17:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that the link you've posted is about importing pages to en.wiki. If one was to import this page to another language wiki, someone there would have to do it - we can't here suggest that our pages should be exported. WP:NEXIST says Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

  Generally I agree that sources should be offered for discussion. My concern here is that they weren't looked for when they are likely to exist. JMWt (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If one was to import this page to another language wiki, someone there would have to do it - that's correct, and the process is fairly simple and routine. If an AfD closes as "export to Serbian wiki", the closing admin would notify a sr-wiki admin or importer, and the transaction would be completed on their end, usually within hours. I've done this myself, albeit not with sr-wiki.

  once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface - I appreciate you quoting this part, which is the relevant portion for us. I fully agree with your concern that little or no effort was done to find such sources, and as I said above, I trust you to handle this in draftspace, if needed. What I don't want to see is this page being left in mainspace without sources that meet NLIST. I believe the difference between our views is largely semantic. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok in that case I was wrong, I didn't think "export to Serbian wiki" was a valid close. JMWt (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kiper (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted "because Kiper was deemed non-notable", however, this determination apparently was reached based on number of comments rather than stregth of argument. Further, there was no consensus established in the afd post.

From Wikipedia:Notability_(people):

- "The following are presumed to be notable: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

- "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

- "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."

Having been covered extensively by nearly all local news sources, he should be considered noteable, and worth allowing a page on.

For further information/background:

In 2024, Kiper was a candidate for the office of Governor of New Hampshire in the Democratic Primary. He was included in the Granite State Poll, a poll that only included the top 5 most relevant candidates (out of a field of 11), and Kiper made the list. Further, he won nearly double-digits vote share in the primary election. He was also covered by all major local news organizations, including WMUR, the state's only TV channel, WBZ (Boston CBS), and the Boston Globe. He was endorsed by over a dozen state legislators (who are automatically notable people), and the then-current governor, chris sununu, talked about Kiper several times publicly.

In the 2026 election cycle, Kiper has already announced his candidacy for the office of governor. He has been invited on WMUR (again, the state's only TV news channel), to meet with Adam Sexton, the most well-known political correspondent in the state. He is listed on the 2026 New hampshire gubernatorial election wiki page, but this afd tag is preventing me/anyone from adding information about the candidate on his own page. JJD0330 (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. A redirect to 2024 New Hampshire gubernatorial election would also have been an acceptable close, which is what the page is now (minus the history). The appellant has been edit-warring on the page before finally bringing this here. I don't see anything in the appeal to suggest consensus was read incorrectly at the AfD. This is nothing more than a second bite at the apple, contrary to DRVPURPOSE. Owen× ☎ 18:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure what edit-warning means, I am relatively inexperienced in adding to wikipedia; however this is the first time that I have found an appeal for this, so i dont know what you mean by "second bite at the apple".

  I am saying that the person who approved the deletion erred in their application of the "noteable" standard, which is defined as:

  From Wikipedia:Notability_(people):

  - "The following are presumed to be notable: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

  - "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

  - "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."

  Kiper meets these criteria, and the page's existence provides significant utility to people investigating the major candidates in the state. JJD0330 (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved) It is long standing consensus that running for office on its own does not make you notable for a Wikipedia page. It concerns me this page is being continually recreated because he wants to run for an office position in 2026, which fails WP:PROMO. I would protect the redirect if possible. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not about simply him running again; it is about him being covered by the news repeatedly, which according to wikipedia standards, means he qualifies as noteable (see below definition)

  From Wikipedia:Notability_(people):

  - "The following are presumed to be notable: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage."

  - "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

  - "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." JJD0330 (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  further, perhaps it is an interesting observation that many unique individuals keep independently attempting to add this information to wikipedia, and while i understand that on its own dosen't prove noteability, it is an interesting point that you make in favor of overturning the deletion JJD0330 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, he's not a politician, he's a candidate. And what you quote does not guarantee you an article, since WP:NOT also applies and that's what we apply for people who have only received news coverage for being a candidate for office. SportingFlyer T·C 00:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, he has held local office for roughly a decade, which makes him a politician, not JUST a candidate.

  i agree that there is never a guarantee for an article, I am just saying that based on the standards, he should be considered at least noteable, which was the original reason that the article was deleted, and for that reason, this specific deletion should be overturned.

  I assume the WP:NOT section you are referring to is "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion", however that section moreso seems to be a regulation on what the content of an article should be, reinforcing the idea that all articles should be fair and unbiased, which my version of the page was (i published that before i had realized that it was deleted or even had a previous version). JJD0330 (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He was an elected official of a town of 9,430 people. That's not normally considered to be a major political role. JMWt (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The appellant fails to establish any reason to WP:DISCARD arguments against retention, and does not appear to themselves understand the evaluation of routine coverage (e.g. WP:SBST) especially as typically applied to political figures. I would tend to agree that this appears to be a relitigation of the issues of an AfD, and not whether the closer correctly identified that there is in fact a rough consensus against the article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved) I may have preferred a close of redirect, as an ATD, but delete was a valid option by the closer. But, as Owenx mentioned above, an editor created a redirect (minus the page history). I do think that NPOL (for candidates and local officials) actually places a higher bar than GNG about the amount and type of sourcing required for a stand-alone page (but this is a conversation that should be elsewhere). --Enos733 (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: The closer reached a valid conclusion from the AFD. The appellant is incorrect when they state: Further, there was no consensus established in the afd post. There was a consensus. Consensus does not mean unanimity.
  • We may need better instructions for new editors. The appellant says that they did not know what edit-warring is. That isn't their fault, but it doesn't mean that there was an error in the AFD or in the editing.
  • The appellant, as a new editor, may not know that bludgeoning a discussion is strongly discouraged.
  • The title has not been salted, and the appellant is free to submit a draft to AFC. The appellant should focus on general notability and not political notability. However, the appellant should avoid bludgeoning or filibustering the AFC process.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect (i.e. restore history to the redirect created after the AFD) as redirect was suggested by multiple users and no delete !voter opposed this or suggested a reason why the history should not be retained. Liz is one of the best closers we have, but I believe she erred in suggesting an editor can create a redirect rather than just redirecting herself while maintaining the history. I will say, however, that there was clear consensus to not keep as a standalone article. Frank Anchor 01:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to handle failure to follow deletion policy correctly. It is not for where you just disagree with the DRV decision. This closure was appropriate. Lister is also encouraged to review WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAD Foundation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Following deletion discussion on notability and sources, requesting undeletion for further improvements to be made to sources and processing through AfC CommandAShepard (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The appellant has already made the same argument at the AfD, had a week to find sources (and three more weeks since it was closed), yet wasn't able to present any such sources. The appellant doesn't need a copy in draftspace to find the promised sources. If and when they are found, a new draft can be submitted to AfC. Owen× ☎ 11:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Is this another request to refund a deleted article to draft space so that an editor can improve it? Why wasn't a copy made before it was deleted? (The appellant did take part in the AFD.) Why do you need a copy of a deleted article that didn't pass general notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse What exactly are you trying to achieve here? Do you want a draft as a refund? SportingFlyer T·C 19:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AFD result, though I do not believe this is being challenged. I have no problem with the deleted article being WP:REFUNDed to draft space, though such a request should have been made at REFUND and not here (the appellant did make a request at REFUND, but promptly removed it without explanation before opening this DRV. A draft based on questionable sources is a better starting point than nothing at all. Frank Anchor 12:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Frank Anchor: REFUND generally declines requests for pages deleted via AfD, except when the result was a soft-deletion for lack of quorum. DRV is the correct venue in this case. But as you said, the appellant isn't challenging the AfD result, nor are they providing us with significant new information per DRVPURPOSE#3. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OwenX. I appreciate the clarification. Frank Anchor 13:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Frank Anchor @OwenX. I do not believe the sources that I provided and clarified later in the AfD process were adequately considered (esp. noting the deletion "No independent sources have been presented at all.").

At the same time, I also agree with @Frank Anchor's point of "draft based on questionable sources is a better starting point than nothing at all". CommandAShepard (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. There's no evidence or indication of any kind that refunding this deleted promotional (per AfD) article about a non-notable (per AfD) organization is something with a potential of a desired outcome.—Alalch E. 17:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The RfD closure failed to account for the fact that Template:Transl, unlike the other redirects bundled in that nomination, was the long-standing name of Template:Transliteration since 2007, which was moved away from that title only in 2022. Although replacement by bot was mandated, deletion still broke a lot of historical references. While there may have been consensus to delete the three other redirects, several participants !voted specifically to keep Template:Transl, and I do not believe consensus was in support of deleting it. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Issue raised with closer DMacks here. Note that the closure was also challenged by jlwoodwa here and by jacobolus here. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed, this was a serious mistake of discussion closure which substituted the closer's personal preference for community consensus, and caused (and will continue to cause) harm to Wikipedia, especially since our software has never properly handled transclusions when viewing historical versions of pages, so now almost 2 decades of historical permalinks are going to have broken transliterations on them. –jacobolus (t) 11:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I stand by my closure (I think I responded to each concern raised on my talkpage there, with specificity...can find the links later if needed). While it's definitely true that not all four involved templates had equally strong support, I saw the general concern did apply to all of them and was more supported than not by the guidelines and their weighting of pros/cons/etc mentioned. I have not been involved in this template-area and do not feel I raised new concerns or other judgement of my own on the issues beyond evaluating what others stated. As I have said, I made no prejudice against non-ambiguous forms. I'm having trouble finding where preserving the original/complete viewability of historial revisions is mentioned (and prefereably pointing to a policy or guideline) by a comment in the DRV. DMacks (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The harm in deleting such redirects is, I believe, described by the second main consideration under WP:R#HARMFUL. Such deletions aren't prohibited, but should only be considered when the concerns are demonstrably outweighed by the harm caused by the existence of the redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the talk page responses, I already linked the archived discussions above. Apologies on my part for not responding further before starting the DRV, but the discussion had already been archived and given our conflicting opinions I don't think further discussion could have preempted the need for DRV. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is a train wreck. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Might tagging it {{deleted template}} be an acceptable compromise? —Cryptic 02:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If preserving historical revisions is a concern, this may be a valid solution that could've been implemented without a deletion review. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unbundle - Put the four trains on four tracks by splitting this into four RFDs.
  • Relist Template:Transl, which is the one that is being contested. The closure does not seem to have reflected consensus.
  • Leave the three uncontested template redirects in an open state so that they can be closed or relisted by any admin.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not familiar with the usual standards for deleting template redirects, but it seems like the "it's been in use since 2007" argument should have been accorded more weight here. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn transl only We don't need a specific guideline that says "don't break historical stuff without a really good reason" for that to be considered a valid reason to not delete a redirect and it appears that such was the case here. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn transl to either keep or no consensus. I don't see consensus to delete that template. The editors who weighed in on it separately from the rest generally favored keeping this template, while several who !voted to delete all seemed not to understand the purpose of the discussion. I don't think a relist would be helpful – better to close as no-consensus and have a completely fresh discussion on this one template. Toadspike [Talk] 19:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Those who did favour keeping the template mostly argued on the basis of length of "transliteration" compared to "transl". This, however, is not a policy-based ground to keep ambiguous redirects, and there have been shorter redirects created for this exact purpose ({{tlit}}, {{xlit}}), which mooted the length argument anyway. Some other arguments pointed to the historic usage of Transl, but again that is not an enshrined policy, and TfDs have previously deleted hundreds, if not thousands, of redundant/replaced/renamed/substituted templates as well. Few other keep arguments were made due to general frustration with the numerous <<See RfD>> links in the articles, some of which were rescinded, the others weren't until closure. This last line of argument stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the process is for, and should be discarded altogether. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Few other keep arguments were made due to general frustration with the numerous <<See RfD>>" – These arguments were made on both sides, cf. Duyneuzaenasagae's comment. I agree with you that they should be discounted, though.

  I don't see any arguments to keep on the basis of length. I'm also not seeing any evidence that keep !voters were unaware of the shorter redirects or that they were opposed to their use. In fact, jacobolus's argument, which is close to a keep, even suggests mass-replacing the ambiguous terms with the shorter redirects.

  "other arguments pointed to the historic usage of Transl, but again that is not an enshrined policy" – well, unless this argument explicitly runs counter to policy, editors are allowed to make it and the closer shouldn't discount it. Toadspike [Talk] 08:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn “transl” to no consensus and leave the others as is. There was not consensus to delete that template as there was for the others. No objection to an immediate renomination focused on just the one template. Frank Anchor 02:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved) per my above comment. Despite being numerous in number, the arguments made are not a part of any standard policy or guideline. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn "transl" to no consensus and relist. I think this was ambiguous enough that I wouldn't want to say good/bad close without getting out a fine-toothed comb and doing the work of closing it myself. But it does look to me like this topic needs more discussion, so we should let that happen. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn transl (involved). It is clear that there was no consensus to delete that specific redirect. Per WP:FAIT, I'd also advocate for reversing the substitution of the redirects if the reopened RfD closes as keep. Warudo (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]