 |
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
[edit]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).
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
[edit]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.
Steps to list a new deletion review
[edit] | 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. |
| 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
|article=Foo
|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
[edit]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
[edit]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.
Closing reviews
[edit]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.)
Speedy closes
[edit]- An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though it 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, 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".
I propose overturning this AfD to a redirect. The primary reason is to restore the edit history of the article to allow the attribution of this edit [1] to refer to the original contributor(s) per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Additionally, the PAG-weighted evaluation of consensus also supports a redirect, given that no PAG rationale to support a deletion over a redirect was offered, while the reverse is not true. Previous attempts to resolve have been unsuccessful. Katzrockso (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- You're seriously saying that the statement that it "do[es]n't actually exist" isn't based in policy? When any administrator could have unilaterally deleted it on that basis without even having to bring it to AFD?The merged sentence is trivially rewriteable to remove any copyright interest, if it's even merited in that article (which seems unlikely). —Cryptic 03:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- The statement that it doesn't exist is factually incorrect, and any vote on that basis would be accurately discounted.
- I'm saying that no editor offered any policy-based reason not to redirect.
- It can be rewritten, but it still exists within the edit history of the article and still requires attribution per WP:CWW#Hyperlink, which states
A statement in the edit summary such as Copied content from Page name; see that page's history for attribution. will direct interested parties to the edit history of the source page, where they can trace exactly who added what content when. A disadvantage with this method is that the page history of the original article must subsequently be retained in order to maintain attribution
(bolding mine, but italics are in the original). - The purpose of DRV is not to litigate content disputes, but to evaluate procedural errors and the like. Katzrockso (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Restore the history I do agree with Cryptic that it would be easier to just rewrite the content, per WP:NOATT, attribution is not necessary in that case. But I also don't any harm in restoring history on good faith request. Jumpytoo Talk 04:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse Nothing seems to have been done wrong here. The proposed redirect is a clearly unhelpful redirect due to the minuscule amount of info at its target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse for two reasons. First, the close of Delete was the right close, reflecting consensus. Second, I don't understand what the appellant is requesting. I probably would endorse the closure if I did understand the appeal, because the close was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse, closure reflected consensus. If there is an attribution dependency, which there does not appear to be, that can be resolved with a null edit naming the relevant contributors. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. No credible argument has been offered (here or at the AfD) why the redirect would be helpful. While the appellant did point to a policy page in their redirect !vote at the AFD, that page assets that a redirect could be created, not that it should. Apart from the appellant, no-one seemed to feel it was beneficial to do so. As to the edit attribution argument, the edit in question is a single sentence, stating a simple fact with a source for that fact. While potentially inspired by someone's edits on this now-deleted page, there is not enough independent editorial contribution in such a sentence to require us to keep an otherwise unnecessary page, merely to maintain chain of attribution. In the extremely unlikely case exactly that became relevant in the future, deleted page history is available to administrators. Martinp (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The RFD closed as no consensus, but given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Chargers game closed with consensus against a redirect, no consensus should’ve been no consensus to have a redirect and thus been deleted. Another RFD was started but got speedily closed, so here we are. ~2026-50184-3 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
OwenX closed this discussion regarding an Indian actor as "Delete" (no further closing statement) a few hours (maybe a day? I cannot check) after the page was improved (with new sources and very substantial cleanup).
However, the argument that the subject clearly meets WP:NACTOR, based on evidence, had not been satisfyingly refuted nor, independently, did it seem evident that the coverage was not substantial enough in the multiple sources, especially if one bears im mind that "when the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".
In other words, because new sources/content were not addressed in a sastisfying way and the question of the pass/fail of WP:NACTOR was still not convincingly resolved and the closing statement failed to acknowledge that at all, I am merely requesting a relist. Given that the number of voters was rather limited, a relist seems indeed the best path to let a clear consensus emerge, based on a thorough review of arguments/sources and not just on "X fails Y", especially as existing material was not precisely commented upon by any of the !voters and new material was inserted on the page after the last !vote was cast.
With respect, the result might very well change with a relist and there is no objective reason for asserting the opposite, despite what the closer indicated on their talk page. Thank you. ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)(Same user who edited the page with another temporary account)
- Temp undeleted for DRV. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: The nominator is correct to say the article was extended substantially around 9 hours before the closure, but neither they nor anyone else mentioned the expansion at the AFD page itself, and closers aren't expected to go poking around for that. Additionally, the sources added in that edit seem to already have been mentioned during the AFD. I'm on the fence here so will decide a little later. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. Unless I am very much mistaken, the sources had not all been mentioned during the AfD, and that is without mentioning the prose and cleanup (which do count, not directly towards notability, but in terms of what an article can be). I wanted to add a Template:AfD changed but had no time to do so. I did not expect the closer to do it (although it seems a good idea to check the state of the page before closing, hence the "edits since nomination" button) but at least, then, when informed that this was the case, relisting the page seems a fair course of action so that the page and its encyclopaedic potential can be assessed with time. My initial message on the closer's talk page was just that. ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse - Editors looked at the sources that were added to the article previously in the AfD on 8 January. The expansion therefore adds nothing to the article that was not discussed. The main argument made by the keep side was that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, but this was disputed by the delete side. In any case, NACTOR does not create a presumption of automatic notability for an article. What the additional criteria section actually says, in the first paragraph, is
People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
Editors reviewed the sources, which did not provide any significant coverage. BLP articles are written from secondary sources, and despite the relist, we don't have the sources from which an article can be written. This was the conclusion of a consensus of editors, and the closer correctly evaluated that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)- Thank you but I am bit confused. Allow me to ask 2 questions and add 2 comments:
The expansion therefore adds nothing to the article that was not discussed.
How so, if it includes other sources?Editors reviewed the sources, which did not provide any significant coverage
. Same question (where and when? how can they review sources that they haven't seen?); and see Wikipedia:BASIC, please. And "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" certainly does not mean "meeting one or more does guarantee that a subject should not be included". (PS-There is no "automatic"/"inherent" notability on Wikipedia, at all; all notability guidelines include a presumption of some sort. GNG as much as NACTOR. GNG and SNGs are all valid paths to notability, though.) ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)- See my answer below. The sources were not new (except a Youtube video). They were discussed in the AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you but I am bit confused. Allow me to ask 2 questions and add 2 comments:
- Relist (preferred) or draftify. Owen did a very reasonable close, but the article as deleted (and its sourcing) were different enough from what they were during the discussion that it's worth having a 2nd look. More detail: The article and its sourcing, as nominated, were weak, almost speediably (in my opinion). While not unanimous, discussion as of time of the close did clearly favour delete, taking into account policy-based strength of the arguments. @scope_creep's reasonable delete !vote was the only AfD comment since a relist. However, it so happened that soon after scope_creep's comment, and contra @Sirfurboy, the article was significantly changed, focusing more on critical commentary about the actor, and adding several independent secondary sources (sources went from 4 to 9, and include generally RS). By a quirk of timing, no one evaluated those new sources or the change in tone prior to the AfD being closed as delete a few hours later. Now, based on a quick review, I am not wholly convinced the rewrite and new sources are enough to pass WP:GNG or NACTOR (they are independent, but are they substantive enough?). But they might be, and that's a discussion more suited for AfD or AfC review rather than DRV. As to relist vs draftify, either works, but relists are cheap, there is no abuse of process here to protect against, and the AfC process is overburdened, so a relist is most pragmatic. Martinp (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
and contra @Sirfurboy...
What I said is that editors looked at the sources. They did. See the AfD comment by ~2026-12339-6 at 23:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC), and the following discussion. Four of the five belatedly added sources were in that message and discussed in that thread. The only remaining addition is a Youtube video [2] which appears self published (but not verified) and is certainly not independent nor secondary. Editors looked at the sourcing that was added, and their determination was that these did not constitute IRS SIGCOV. A relist to discuss the Youtube video would be a waste of time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)- Thank you for the correction. I see further pertinent discussion below parsing the details. Net-net, not a great discussion was had at the AfD (not a criticism, we have lots of not-great discussions), and the article as it was deleted was significantly different in tone, focus, and sourcing than the one nominated and discussed. I continue to feel a relist is the best option. I'm not sure what is the right answer about an actor who hasn't had truly a lead role, but has had multiple instances where they are in the billing, and their performance in their roles is explicitly addressed if briefly in RS. It is a grey area, and worth a proper 2nd look. Martinp (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Let me save everyone a bit of time - The only new source that was not brought to the AfD, but was directly added to the article is a New Indian Express review, which again mentions the subject only once in a full-length review. Feel free to relist if needed, but these sources do not add anything of value toward establishing notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Even the New Indian Express review was discussed in the AfD in the comment by ~2026-15473-1 at 11:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC) and following. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure, but we might be confusing two different sources here as The Indian Express and The New Indian Express split into separate firms some time ago. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Ah yes, but what I had not spotted in my initial review of this is that the New Indian Express was discussed, but this [3] rather than [4]. As you say, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure, but we might be confusing two different sources here as The Indian Express and The New Indian Express split into separate firms some time ago. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Even the New Indian Express review was discussed in the AfD in the comment by ~2026-15473-1 at 11:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC) and following. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist I find this one really difficult because the discussion is really poor - a keep and delete claiming he passes/fails NACTOR, a keep showing coverage in reviews, two deletes claiming there's no significant independent coverage. The close was fine given the circumstances, but on reviewing the subject, he's had major roles in three well-reviewed non-English language movies, which probably does pass NACTOR, and I can't quickly find any good clear coverage on him in English that isn't a movie review, meaning notability here is very much in the grey zone. If he is not already notable it is probably just TOOSOON, but I think this would benefit from further discussion and more time to find other sources. SportingFlyer T·C 13:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Those with major roles in these films are discussed throughout the reviews, rather than being limited to a single passing mention. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist though I believe the close was correct based on the information presented in the AFD. However, a new source has been added and there is no harm in having another week to evaluate it. Frank Anchor 01:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist - The question here is whether the closer should have relisted the AFD when an editor added material including a source a few hours before it was closed. That in turn raises the question of whether the closer should have assessed whether there was new information, or whether the closer should have let the community decide whether there was new information. My opinion is that the community should decide, by relisting the AFD The question is not whether the unregistered editor insulted the closer (they did, by questioning their neutrality), or whether the unregistered editor should have insulted the closer (insulting another editor is never useful because civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia), or whether it was useful for the unregistered editor to beg for mercy by saying
what are you saying is a bit disrepectful of my work
. The unregistered editor has done a very poor job of requesting a relist, but the AFD should be relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)- While I do think ~2026's questions on @Owen's talk page could have been worded better and had an unnecessary chip on the shoulder, I think describing them as "insulting the closer" is excessive. Querying to what extent a closer was judging consensus vs making their own assessment is an important safety valve in our processes, and inviting examination of potential biases is neither inherently assuming bad faith nor being insulting. And while through my own interactions with Owen I know he is very good at assessing vs imposing their own point of view, when he answered
Adding those sources to the article changed nothing in terms of notability
as rationale, he was absolutely opening himself up being queried whether he had made a supervote. Owen chose to bring here, which is fully reasonable, as would have been explaining his thinking further, why he felt it was not a supervote but just representing the thinking already in the AFD. I think it's important we AGF about closes but remain open to challenging potential biases, and AGF about those who do so rather than label it an insult. Martinp (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- While I do think ~2026's questions on @Owen's talk page could have been worded better and had an unnecessary chip on the shoulder, I think describing them as "insulting the closer" is excessive. Querying to what extent a closer was judging consensus vs making their own assessment is an important safety valve in our processes, and inviting examination of potential biases is neither inherently assuming bad faith nor being insulting. And while through my own interactions with Owen I know he is very good at assessing vs imposing their own point of view, when he answered
- Endorse but relist. No fault of the closer's – but the debate was deficient due to its lack of consideration of all the sources, and it would be wrong to allow it to stand. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse The argument he was notable was basically refuted by the other editors. DRV is not "I don't like the result and want to overturn it", there has to be some evidence the close was faulty here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
The main rationale for the nominator and some of the early votes was that it was a non-fatal accident. Of course, a fatality doesn't mean it is automatically notable, but it did make the early keep votes seem weaker in arguments. I added sources right before the AFD close and only got one response from one of the editors who had already voted redirect. I want a relist where editors evaluate these sources because I believe they are significant coverage. One of the former redirect voters switch their vote to keep after hearing about the fatality and the fatality was only reported two days before the AFD closed. Zaptain United (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse Looking at the sources, they all were mainly coverage of the 1 fataility. 5 of the non-keep votes had already acknowledged the 1 death and determined that was not sufficient for notability. I do not see any reason why a relist would change that. Jumpytoo Talk 04:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- (involved) As I mentioned in the discussion, fatalities do not necessarily equal notability. This was a very recent crash, and it's possible additional coverage will come out regarding the crash that will justify having an article, so I'd prefer to allow this to be draftifyed as opposed to relisted, as the consensus was absolutely clear. SportingFlyer T·C 07:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- (involved) Comment: draftification is useful to preserve the history if the article would otherwise be deleted. When the consensus is to redirect, draftification serves little purpose as the history remains with the redirect page. As to the sources added just before the close, they constitute WP:ROUTINE news coverage of the fatality, not the sort of WP:INDEPTH coverage that would be needed for notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting this should have been draftify instead of redirect. I'm suggesting the solution here is to spin out a draft so that the petitioner can work on it if additional coverage is found. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- (involved) Comment: draftification is useful to preserve the history if the article would otherwise be deleted. When the consensus is to redirect, draftification serves little purpose as the history remains with the redirect page. As to the sources added just before the close, they constitute WP:ROUTINE news coverage of the fatality, not the sort of WP:INDEPTH coverage that would be needed for notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Deletion review is a venue that handles failures to follow deletion process. It is not for cases where you merely disagree with the closure reached. As the article has been redirected, it is open to editors to spin it back out in the future if more emerges. Also fine with draftifying. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse the close of Redirect. The question is whether a Relist is necessary because one of the passengers died while the AFD was running. The answer to that question is No, because the votes were continuing to trend to Redirect after the death occurred. Editors who knew that there had been a fatality found that the crash was not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse - Per Stifle. The close was a correct assessment of the consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)
- Endorse. While superficially similar to the situation immediately above where I did favour a relist, i.e. additional sourcing added shortly before the close, in this instance the additional sourcing was evaluated at least cursorily prior to the close, and the question of significance and relevance whether there was a fatality or not was already anticipated in the discussion previously. Nothing would change here now with further discussion. (It is of course possible that this crash will turn out to be of lasting significance, in which case an article can be written later reflecting that, and doubtless borrowing from the current version that is in the history prior to the redirect.) Martinp (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse (as original nominator): As @Aviationwikiflight disclosed here, the AfD was unfortunately subject to canvassing from Reddit on the final day. This didn't seem to have any effect on consensus however. I think @OwenX's close, as usual, was absolutely fine. I do not think this needs to be reopened. 11WB (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't mean for the "as usual" to sound like an insult, by the way. Simply meant to emphasise I have never disagreed with a close @OwenX has made, I would say if I thought otherwise. 11WB (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse I think the editors did a good jub discussing the state of the sources. No objection to this coming back through AFC if sources are found, but I think there would need to be multiple significant sources to justify having an article in mainspace. --Enos733 (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi, I'm opening this to request review of the consensus to delete Mo Shaikh. The reason given to delete was that there was a consensus that the sources were not sufficient and that there was no rebuttal. However, there was a rebuttal here, in which the editor challenged the notion of disqualifying all sources with quotes as "interviews." (They were referring to the disqualification of sources like the New York Times and Fortune.) Furthermore, there were 3 !votes to keep and 3 !votes to delete, which is not generally a consensus for deletion. There had been a 4th vote to delete, but that was explicitly based on a sock puppet's source analysis. Perhaps that factor was overlooked? I appreciate the consideration here, as this does not seem to be a straightforward case of consensus to delete. Thank you. NBruns (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I have two main points as to why the close was not in line with consensus(or in this case, the lack of it). The two reasons are as follows:
1. Numerical: Strictly numerically, there were 2 delete !votes, 2 redirect !votes, and 4 keep !votes. That suggests a rough consensus of keep !votes, making redirection unjustified in this regard, as while it can be an alternative to deletion, it cannot be an alternative to retention absent consensus not to keep the article.
2. Reasoning: The keep reasoning is that
|
| 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. |
|
Hi, I'm opening this to request review of the consensus to delete CRU Group. I'm not sure how this works - is there a way for people who are reviewing consensus to actually view the deleted article? Anyway... First off, let's start to the word consensus. There is the documentation page WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus ... if an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but then an editor has added the missing references, that argument for deletion is no longer persuasive". I !voted Keep, along with one other editor. 6 editors !voted Delete, including four who !voted before I added a bunch of sources - and they never circled back to respond. Of these editors, on the surface I am one of the ones with the longest tenure and most experience immersed in Wikipedia - having edited since 2007 w/ about 13k edits. Not saying that to brag but in comparison the nominator had 1.3k edits and 2 articles created, one of which was deleted. The only editor to substantively analyze the article was @HighKing: who noted "I cannot see the full content of the subscription-only newsletter but the opening doesn't have anything". The subscription-only newsletter is a business periodical which was discussing M&A possibilities and CRU Group's force as a price reporting agency. The fact that it's subscription-only doesn't take away from its weight - in fact in some ways it increases it - as serious business publications are not free, and journalists do make a living supported by more than mass-market advertising. I'm not sure how to reconcile this lack of accessibility with its significance. So when it comes down to it, we had one !vote engaging with the sources. I didn't have time to circle back around to respond to HighKing but I don't know exactly what he wanted - Wikipedia:One hundred words?. To be honest the newsletter checks the boxes but it's not even really the point for me. The point is consensus and also notability as a real thing in the world rather than just boxes checked. Stepping back to the philosophy, this is an article I created back around 2009ish when I was working on mining - an article where I remain responsible for the much of content by added bytes (by far most by a single editor). This company is very prominent in the mining and fertilizer industry, which is why its consultants are often quoted in the WSJ [5] and NYTimes [6]. I wrote the article as I tried to understand this source and its credibility. And I want it to remain because I feel that our reader should be able to read the WSJ (or the many tens of thousands of other ways this company pops up in research across the web), wonder who the company cited is, and find a bit about them - good or bad. Our editors and readers also benefit from being able to quickly research the background of the publisher of `Fertilizer International Magazine`, which is one of very few sources covering this area in detail. So this company, founded in 1969 by John Horam and a partner, publishing leading trade journals and running trade conferences on mining, metals and fertilizers for the last 50+ years, involved in a bunch of M&A, oft-cited by WSJ and deeply hooked into our international metals trading system as a leading PRA, cannot have an article. Meanwhile - and I don't mean to cast aspersions as I think it deserves an article - Hegarty's Cheese gets an article, despite being far less notable in the sense of being known by people in real life and impacting business across the globe. This just reminds me of how nearly every bar and restaurant where I live in Oakland, California has a dedicated article or two from local journalists discussing their founding and whatnot because local journalists get paid a few hundred bucks to help drum business (random example). These check the WP:SIRS boxes. But in reality, detailed in-depth coverage does not mean notability. And the lack of such detailed articles do not mean lack of notability, because notable organizations do exist which are only covered by business trade periodicals or hardly even that, and their significance is evident by their tentacles throughout the world even if journalists aren't spinning up articles on them for ad-supported mass media. Anyway, ultimately I understand that consensus is not unanimity, but in that discussion, I feel that my !vote (and the other editor) counts enough to say no consensus. II | (t - c) 05:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC) -->
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am asking for this Deletion Review on the basis as identified from Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose - Criteria 3: if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion and Criteria 4: if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page. My 3-critical points to contest this misplaced deletion are as follows: 1. This article was proposed for deletion on 2-Jan-2026 - after which as per the masthead that "... Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion..." - I continuously kept improving the article and addressing each Delete vote with reasons and context (including patiently ignoring snide and sarcastic ones too - which had no constructive objection or feedback on the article though) - hence, the article was "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus" on 9-Jan-2026 - thanks a lot to wikipedia for the process. Anyways, thereafter two more "voters" joined in with Delete vote - of which 1st was clearly conveyed that their vote feedback was misplaced as "Applications" for the article topic could be easily cross-verified by anyone by doing search on the web to find both AI and otherwise references, while the 2nd said in the vote "I think the consensus is clear" - but hey! please dont conclude a discussion - instead you were here meant to give your view on the article contents??? - but for that not a single word - whether of constructive criticism or feedback. And so I still continued improving / editing the article more - including adding a new sub-section "Geometric Interpretation" on 15-Jan-2026 similar to "Tetrahedral Number" article - and finally just to cross-check my own confidence in the article contents, so did a AI search on 16-Jan-2026 - the outcome of which established - as also stated in my comment on 16-Jan-2026 that the article was quite well-supported even by AI on most counts - and hence, any well-meaning reviewer should go ahead and edit the article further to improve and add furthermore points too as identified - but then the deletion discussion was closed - which is what I consider "Procedurally Incorrect". 2. The closer of the Deletion discussion stated in comment that "Possibly" violation of OR - I appreciate that the closer atleast respected my efforts in answering every feedback precisely - so much so that the closer felt "Possibly" as themselves was not sure of violation !!! But then if you have even an iota of doubt, you don't go ahead and wipe-off an entire article constructed over nearly 15 months!!! - which is what I consider "Procedurally Incorrect". 3. Please note that this article is amongst the first few results shown in any web search - be it for "Truncated Pyramid Number" or "Truncated Triangular Pyramid Number" - and so if it was so grossly wrong then it would not have lasted even 15 days OR would have been completely contradicted by AI output too - but here we are talking about a 15 months old article on English Wikipedia. Additionally, even after the deletion closure, I was wondering where this was wrong when I then came across another article "Truncated Octahedral Number" on Wolfram Mathworld - and which is absolutely synonymous to what this article contained about "Truncated Triangular Pyramid Number" - and so I am bringing up this point as "Significant New Information". Because even as of today, there is no article on similar topic on wiki - hence, a positive-minded collaborative review could have possibly identified this earlier itself - what I could also manage to find above now - and then who knows, maybe even a suggestion that lets rename the article to "Truncated Pyramid Numbers" - which can then include contents for all as sub-sections - "Truncated triangular pyramid number", "Truncated octahedral number", "Truncated tetrahedral number" etc. - hence, kindly please respect the efforts of 15 months and dont throw the baby out with the tub water !!! I can contribute my bit too again to add furthermore - as I have done earlier too - when I encountered similar stiff opposition to another article "Polarisation (cosmology)" for nearly 6 months - until finally an experienced, positive reviewer suggested to change the article title from ""E and B modes (Polarisation)" to "Polarisation (cosmology)" - because the crux of my discussions and the article contents was not just "E and B modes" but more across the spectrum. Hence, I am reiterating the undeletion of this article under "Significant New Information" also - as I am not here trying to put forth own works or any proofs, etc. I hope this meets everybody's concurrence. Jn.mdel (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC) -->
@OwenX@Cryptic I respect your wish to remain neutral towards this discussion - however, I feel you should not remain aloof towards the fair requirements of an equal DRV process - meaning the reviewers here should have the chance to read the article as it stood on 16-Jan - because the DRV request is based on "significant new content" besides the "procedural review" requested as the two post-relist votes were not able to stand scrutiny. Jn.mdel (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
I would only like to feel that the mentor in you would have seen the marked difference in the article contents and growth - since 2-Jan to 16-Jan - then maybe even you could have guided me towards actually adding existing examples of vertex removals (truncated octahedral number) - which I could manage to locate but only while brooding over AFD closure. I would like to feel that the collaborator in you would have even judged the direction in which the article content was growing and so could have possibly suggested to rename this to "Truncated Pyramid Numbers" - which then includes all types as sub-heads - "Truncated triangular pyramid number", "Truncated octahedral number", "Truncated tetrahedral number" etc. Because that is what the proposed for deletion masthead stated - "... Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion..." But I guess you are occupied with multiple things in your hands - so I would let this article suffers its fate as deemed necessary by everyone - unless you feel that this article only deserves rehabilitation - not deletion. Jn.mdel (talk) 10:51, 24 January 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. |
Requesting the closure of delete be overturned to redirect. This is because content from that article was copied in this edit and without the redirect the edit fails WP:CWW. Also see this.~2026-38870-0 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
This is in the context of the previous AfD and DRVs for this subject, timesinks which caused considerable frustration to the parties involved. I propose accepting Draft:Annamalai (BJP politician), and a DRV is apparently required for this. I want to establish, if not a GNG pass, at least a bare minimum, prima facie case for a fresh AfD since the one in 2020, as the most important sources post-date it, and in some cases post-date the DRVs, which in any case did not really discuss the sourcing. Here's some sources establishing the subject's notability, independent of the draft:
- Nath, Akshaya (28 February 2023). "Why Tamil Nadu BJP chief Annamalai traded in the quiet life he dreamt of for 'toxic' politics". ThePrint. Retrieved 16 January 2026.
- Shoba, V (12 April 2024). "K Annamalai: Tamil Disrupter". Open. Retrieved 18 January 2026.
- Chengappa, Raj (16 April 2024). "K. Annamalai: A singham in saffron". India Today. Retrieved 18 January 2026.
- Henry, Nikhila (14 April 2025). "What next for Annamalai? Speculation rife in BJP over future of party's outgoing Tamil Nadu chief". The Indian Express. Retrieved 18 January 2026.
Additionally, there's further coverage from the same outlets, such as this one from Open, dozens of articles from The Hindu covering his statements and activities, more of that from other outlets, political analysis featuring him in outlets like Newslaundry. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 02:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep deleted - He is the news because of his association with BJP, he does not meet independent notability. The mentioned sources are pro-government. They dont meet the definition of WP:IS. Zalaraz (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- These media organisations are obviously independent of the subject. Zalaraz seems to be operating under an awful misunderstanding of policy where the sources are required to have a political viewpoint opposite that of the subject to count as "independent". They also demonstrate a lack of understanding of WP:BIASED, here and elsewhere. And their assertion is straight up false, as anyone familiar with Indian media and political landscape understands. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 07:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- "Independent notability" isn't found anywhere in Wikiiedia pcies or guidelines. Katzrockso (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse and leave SALTed/titleblacklisted and listed at DEEPER. This is the third time the 2020 AfD is brought to DRV. The subject has been listed at DEEPER since March 2024. The previous DRV close included the following directive:
I suggest we amend this requirement to eliminate Option #2. That is, future DRVs about this subject may only be filed by an AfC reviewer who has determined a draft to be ready for mainspace. DRV is not the right forum to assess sources, and enough time has already been wasted on appeals and re-appeals. Owen× ☎ 14:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)To anyone who might start a future DRV about this: Do not do so unless: (1) you are an AfC reviewer who wants to accept the submission because, according to your independent reasoning, the draft is ready for mainspace, but you can not for technical reasons (if you do not think that the draft is ready for mainspace, there is no need to come here); (2) you are an editor who believes that the draft should be accepted and you feel capable of starting this process with a concise statement how the draft is prima facie worthy of a review and how it is ready for mainspace.
- If DRV is made the prerequisite for accepting a draft, it will have to be place where sources are assessed. I'm not sure how further bureaucratisation by requiring an "AfC reviewer" (I've been one in the past) is supposed to do the project any good. Anyone who feels a draft is ready can move it to name space, being a formal AfC reviewer has never been a requirement as far as I understand. The place to challenge an article is AfD, and the sane option would be to just hold another one (in five years!), rather than what feels like holding grudges for past disruption and inviting more DRV. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 20:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- No grudges are being held here. By adding it to our titleblacklisted and DEEPER lists, the community has spoken loud and clearly about its reluctance to spend any more time on this subject. We left the door open for a draft that offers a meaningful improvement in sourcing. The requirement for passing AfC in this case isn't
bureaucratisation
; it's an anti-nuisance filter. I have no reason to cast aspersions on your skills as a former AfC reviewer, but I trust the assessment done by RangersRus, who declined the last rev submitted for review. The draft, in its current form, is not accepted by a reviewer. Your attempt to circumvent that by taking it to DRV for a third round isn't cutting red tape, but wasting community time. Had RangersRus accepted the draft, we would not be having this conversation. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- No grudges are being held here. By adding it to our titleblacklisted and DEEPER lists, the community has spoken loud and clearly about its reluctance to spend any more time on this subject. We left the door open for a draft that offers a meaningful improvement in sourcing. The requirement for passing AfC in this case isn't
- If DRV is made the prerequisite for accepting a draft, it will have to be place where sources are assessed. I'm not sure how further bureaucratisation by requiring an "AfC reviewer" (I've been one in the past) is supposed to do the project any good. Anyone who feels a draft is ready can move it to name space, being a formal AfC reviewer has never been a requirement as far as I understand. The place to challenge an article is AfD, and the sane option would be to just hold another one (in five years!), rather than what feels like holding grudges for past disruption and inviting more DRV. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 20:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- Allow recreation subject to a new AfD, as before. The reason people bring this to DRV again and again is that he is obviously notable, as the nominator here does a fairly good job of explaining. The 2021 AfD predates his most prominent role and has been followed by almost five years of near-continuous coverage in India's most reliable national newspapers. I worry we've ended up in a sort of cognitive-bias doom loop here (à la User:JzG/And the band played on...), where the history has made it difficult to see even a very cogent appeal from an experienced editor as anything other than more evidence of disruption. DEEPER can be a valuable tool, but it's never a reason not to look at the evidence critically and objectively, and I think when you do that it becomes clear that a new AfD is the only sensible outcome here. (If it helps, I'm happy to put my AfC reviewer hat on and say I would accept the draft as submitted.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
- User:JzG/And the band played on... is a good explanation of what is happening here. Based on the sources I found below, the subject was already notable when the March 2024 deletion review led to his getting listed at WP:DEEPER. If a search for sources happened during that deletion review, the article should have been restored. Cunard (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- I've always viewed User:JzG/And the band played on... as a good thing; a subject later not having an article when he might otherwise have deserved one is fitting karma for repeated attempts to give him an article when he didn't. But that reasoning is not based in any policy. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe, possibly, if notability's no better than borderline and it was the subject himself who had pushed so hard for an article. But there's no reason to think the latter is the case here. —Cryptic 04:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- I've always viewed User:JzG/And the band played on... as a good thing; a subject later not having an article when he might otherwise have deserved one is fitting karma for repeated attempts to give him an article when he didn't. But that reasoning is not based in any policy. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- User:JzG/And the band played on... is a good explanation of what is happening here. Based on the sources I found below, the subject was already notable when the March 2024 deletion review led to his getting listed at WP:DEEPER. If a search for sources happened during that deletion review, the article should have been restored. Cunard (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - This draft had been resubmitted, but was submitted using only the surname and disambiguator, which was a blatant attempt to game the title. I have renamed the draft to the full name of the subject, and have reviewed and rejected the submission. The draft is written from the viewpoint of the subject, and does not speak for itself because it does not refer to significant coverage by independent sources. I have not reviewed the sources, because the draft has been reference-bombed and the draft does not refer to significant coverage by independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
Endorse the previous blacklistings.Submission with only the surname and a disambiguator was further evidence of gaming the titleand indicates that the blacklistings were appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Restore since I would accept the current version of the AfC draft to mainspace. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamalai k was closed as "delete" in May 2021. Since 2021, K. Annamalai has received a massive amount of news coverage from reliable sources such as The Hindu (generally reliable according to WP:THEHINDU) and The Indian Express (generally reliable according to WP:INDIANEXP). Like Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs), I would accept Draft:Kuppusamy Annamalai at AfC. As a experienced editor who has had no prior involvement with K. Annamalai (I.P.S), I consider the article to be fairly balanced since it has statements like:
It has been over 4.5 years since the last AfD. If editors still think he is not notable, that should be discussed at a new AfD.Annamalai became known for his combative public rhetoric, particularly in his criticisms of the DMK government. While supporters within the BJP have viewed this as an effort to sharpen the party’s political positioning in Tamil Nadu, critics have argued that his rhetoric has contributed to heightened political polarisation in the state.
Through having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
- The Hindu articles. According to WP:THEHINDU, the newspaper is generally reliable.
- "Former IPS officer K. Annamalai joins BJP". The Hindu. 2020-08-25. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.
The article notes: "Former Karnataka cadre IPS officer K Annamalai joined the BJP at the party’s national headquarters in New Delhi in the presence of national general secretary P Muralidhar Rao and Tamil Nadu unit chief L Murugan. ... A mechanical engineering and an MBA graduate, Mr. Annamalai cleared civil service and joined the police force in Karnataka in 2011. His first stint was as additional SP, Karkala, for a few months before he was promoted SP, Udupi. During his stint as SP, he earned the reputation of being a tough officer for taking up measures to resolve students' issues, communal problems and criminal activities. In 2018, Mr. Annamalai was transferred as SP, Ramanagara district. He was transferred to Bengaluru soon after the B.S. Yediyurappa-led BJP government took over, to head Bengaluru South division where he served till May 2019 before he resigned."
- "IPS officer Annamalai resigns from service citing personal reasons". The Hindu. 2019-05-28. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.
The article notes: "After serving for nine years in various posts in the State, IPS officer K. Annamalai tendered his resignation on Tuesday. He was last posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), Bengaluru. A native of Karur in Tamil Nadu, Mr. Annamalai is a 2011-batch Karnataka-cadre officer. ... Mr. Annamalai was popular in the IPS circles as well as among the general public, and is remembered for his stint as Assistant Superintendent of Police at Karkala, Udupi district, as well as Superintendent of Police in Udupi and Chikkamagaluru."
- Kumar, S. Vijay (2023-01-14). "T.N. BJP president K. Annamalai accorded 'Z' scale security". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.
The article notes: "The Ministry of Home Affairs has accorded the ‘Z’ scale of security to Tamil Nadu BJP president, K. Annamalai. According to police sources, the security scale of the IPS officer-turned-politician was increased from the ‘Y’ scale to the ‘Z’ scale after a threat assessment was done by the Intelligence Bureau. ... The MHA had, in April last year, enhanced the security of Mr. Annamalai from ‘X’ scale to ‘Y’ scale with Personal Security Officers deployed from the Central Reserve Police Force. While no information is available on the details of the specific threat perceived by the intelligence agencies, police sources said Mr. Annamalai has been actively voicing opinions against “religious fundamentalism” in Tamil Nadu, particularly after the car bomb blast in Coimbatore on October 23, 2022. ... Mr. Annamalai, who has been making allegations of corruption against the Ministers of the ruling DMK, had announced that he would undertake a padayatra to cover all the 234 Assembly constituencies in the State in April."
- "Former IPS officer K. Annamalai joins BJP". The Hindu. 2020-08-25. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.
- The Indian Express articles. According to WP:INDIANEXP, the newspaper is generally reliable.
- Janardhanan, Arun (2023-04-17). "Tamil Nadu BJP chief Annamalai: A loose cannon, or secret weapon?". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.
The article notes: "In the two years that he has been the Tamil Nadu BJP chief, K Annamalai has never been far from news — often stepping on own party’s shoes. While the former IPS officer’s aggression has ensured the party’s visibility, many BJP leaders feel it may not be the best strategy in a state where it must balance several sensibilities given its second-fiddle status to more dominant allies. In the latest instance, Annamalai has not just invited a “Rs 500 crore” lawsuit from the DMK over a corruption long list, his potshots at ally AIADMK — urging the BJP to break ties with it — have drawn a sharp response from the latter. The 39-year-old has also taken on the media and rubbed BJP leaders the wrong way with his brusque manner, leading several in the past few months to leave the party."
- Janardhanan, Arun (2021-07-08). "Murugan in cabinet, BJP's new TN chief is 36-yr-old ex-IPS officer who joined last August". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.
The article notes: "The BJP has appointed former IPS officer K Annamalai, 36, as its state chief, a day after the incumbent L Murugan was sworn in as a Union minister. Annamalai, who quit the IPS in 2019, joined the BJP last August. A confident and articulate leader, he was already holding the post of vice president. ... The former IPS officer is from the powerful Gounder community in Western Tamil Nadu. Though he contested unsuccessfully from the Aravakuruchi constituency in the Assembly polls, he helped the party win two seats in the western region. This helped in Annamalai’s rapid elevation. He is also known for his spirited speeches, often bordering on communal agendas, to take on Dravidian parties. ... In April, the police booked Annamalai for his alleged remarks intimidating DMK’s Karur candidate during a poll rally."
- Janardhanan, Arun (2022-06-09). "Newsmaker | Divisive & abrasive, the former cop keeping BJP in play in Tamil Nadu". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.
The article notes: "He has sceptics both within his party and outside. But, unlike his predecessors, Tamil Nadu BJP chief K Annamalai has managed to increase the party’s visibility in media in the past few months, so much so that the principal Opposition and BJP ally, the AIADMK, recently accused it of being “anti-Tamil” and “stealing” state revenue. The 38-year-old former IPS officer was appointed at the helm of the state BJP last year and has managed to remain in the media glare by attacking the DMK, hitting out at journalists, for his brusque manner of speaking, and for alleged links to people caught up in financial frauds. On June 5, he levelled corruption allegations against the DMK-led state government and the family of Chief Minister M K Stalin."
- Janardhanan, Arun (2024-12-27). "Self-flagellation puts Tamil Nadu BJP chief Annamalai back where he wants: in the limelight". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.
The article notes: "After a brief interlude, including a surprise sojourn in distant UK, the irrepressible Tamil Nadu BJP president K Annamalai has barged his way back into the news. Seizing on an alleged sexual assault incident at Anna University in Chennai to take on the DMK government, Annamalai on Friday flogged himself six times as a mark of protest – like he said he would. His other vow, announced Thursday, was that he would not wear footwear until the DMK was ousted from power – and, accordingly, he was barefoot during his self-lashing. While Annamalai has made dramatic statements earlier – with the brashness of the young leader giving the BJP just the right kind of visibility in a state where it was non-existent – few expected him to go ahead with the flagellation, which holds powerful symbolism as an act of penance."
- Janardhanan, Arun (2023-04-17). "Tamil Nadu BJP chief Annamalai: A loose cannon, or secret weapon?". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.
- Chandrababu, Divya (2023-09-26). "K Annamalai: Police-officer-turned politician blamed for AIADMK's exit from NDA". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.
Most editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 491#Is there a consensus on the reliability of the Hindustan Times? consider the Hindustan Times to be reliable. The article notes: "AIADMK viewed Annamalai as an uncontrolled political greenhorn even as the BJP sought to project him as a sincere leader who quit IPS for clean and corruption-free politics in Tamil Nadu. Born in 1984 in Thottampatti village in Tamil Nadu’s Karur district, Annamalai studied engineering in Coimbatore before receiving a Master of Business Administration degree from the prestigious Indian Institute of Management Lucknow. He was the Bengaluru South deputy police commissioner when he quit IPS in June 2019 around the time Rajinikanth launched his party. A BJP leader, who did not want to be named, said Annamalai has finally brought the BJP to the mainstream in Tamil Nadu. With his almost daily press conferences, Annamalai has ensured that the party is regularly in the news. His statements including against AIADMK grabbed eye-balls. He has critics within the state BJP unit too."
- Allow recreation if a draft passes AfC. I am not that knowledgeable about Indian politics, but based on a quick review, I agree with @Extraordinary Writ that the subject is pretty clearly notable, and the sources provided by the nominator here appear to be sufficient to establish it if there was any doubt. It is sad that some years ago there was misbehaviour about creation of this article, and quite possible the subject was not quite notable then. This justifies caution and (per @OwenX) some degree of nuisance projection. However, I think the nominator here has done exactly what was required by item (2) in the directive quoted by Owen. We must remain capable of entertainting the possibility that notability may have emerged and that an encyclopedic article can be written. While I agree with @Robert McClenon that that the current draft suffered from refbombing, that is not unheard of with drafts, especially where there has been feedback about inadequate sourcing previously, and remaining issues could have been dealt with by judicious editing (including adding the sources identified by the nominator here). I think Robert's strongly worded rejection of the draft is overzealous; this draft should have been accepted (with recommendations for further improvement) or maximally declined with constructive feedback instead, since it is not unpromising. Our processes must be robust enough to protect the encyclopedia and community from gaming and tendentious resubmission, but also robust enough to evaluate drafts on their merits rather than based on the sins of previous editors. Martinp (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict with Cunard)
- Send to AfD Looking at the article and sources at a glance they seem OK. The AfD's and DRV's in the past have all been lacking (AfD was mainly "per nom"'s, one DRV just threw Google links, the second DRV only requested review without providing any argument to overcome the previous issues, the third got poisoned from political POV pushing), which caused the testing the patience's of editors. This has been the most cohesive argument, and I think it's good enough to give it a chance.
- Now if the AfD does not keep the article, I would support Owen's proposal for the next time around to be required to be from an AfC reviewer (I'd go a bit stricter, and require two reviewers to concur) Jumpytoo Talk 05:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - I am interpreting the statement by User:Extraordinary Writ as saying that this is a Battle for Dream Island case, and I mostly agree. I agree with User:Martinp that recreation should be allowed if a draft passes AFC.
- I acknowledge that I probably should have clarified in my rejection of the draft that I did not mean that the subject was not notable, but that the draft should be blown up and started over. Another draft, written from scratch, may be able to be accepted. The current draft that I rejected is, in my opinion, not suitable for rework. It needs to be replaced with a new draft that speaks for itself by focusing on significant coverage by independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for that clarification, @Robert McClenon. Would you be amenable to vacating your Rejection of the draft and replacing it with a Decline? While the draft does suffer from tone issues and has been refbombed, the appellant (an experienced editor and frequent successful article creator) here has provided a handful of better sources, and Cunard has provided more. There are enough experienced users !voting some form of "good enough, or close to good enough" for mainspace/AfD here that I think we are quite close to a big win here: A article about a notable subject, based on quality sourcing, and ready for continued improvement in mainspace; successfully digging its way out of a hole created by inappropriate shenanigans by other editors in the past. To allow this to proceed to its natural conclusion, it would be helpful to remove the additional roadblock placed by a Rejection. You've clarified here that you didn't mean that the subject was not notable, however that is the primary argument you used in your rejection. It seems your primary concern was actually WP:SPEAKSELF, but that essay itself says that an AFC drafts that
fails to speak for itself ... should be declined without the need for further review
; it does not recommend rejection. Martinp (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)- Thank you for interceding to bring this to a constructive conclusion, Martinp! I, for one, would be perfectly happy un-SALTing and having a draft moved to mainspace once Robert McClenon accepts it. @TryKid: my apologies if my comments above came across as unnecessarily harsh. We've just un-DEEPERed Battle for Dream Island three months ago... Owen× ☎ 16:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for that clarification, @Robert McClenon. Would you be amenable to vacating your Rejection of the draft and replacing it with a Decline? While the draft does suffer from tone issues and has been refbombed, the appellant (an experienced editor and frequent successful article creator) here has provided a handful of better sources, and Cunard has provided more. There are enough experienced users !voting some form of "good enough, or close to good enough" for mainspace/AfD here that I think we are quite close to a big win here: A article about a notable subject, based on quality sourcing, and ready for continued improvement in mainspace; successfully digging its way out of a hole created by inappropriate shenanigans by other editors in the past. To allow this to proceed to its natural conclusion, it would be helpful to remove the additional roadblock placed by a Rejection. You've clarified here that you didn't mean that the subject was not notable, however that is the primary argument you used in your rejection. It seems your primary concern was actually WP:SPEAKSELF, but that essay itself says that an AFC drafts that
- Comment - I think that there is a lesson to be learned, which is that salting in draft space seems like a reasonable response to tendentious resubmission, but is actually very seldom a good idea, because it encourages more blatant gaming of titles that is less obvious as the titles deviate more. I am not discouraging salting in article space or title blacklisting in article space, but salting in draft space can be self-defeating. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- It seems better to constrain the editing on these tendentious topics to a particular draft and then move protect the draft pending editorial consensus that the article is ready for mainspace Katzrockso (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - I disagree with sending the current draft to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Allow recreation subject to a new AfD per Extraordinary Writ. Whether this article should exist in the mainspace should be decided via consensus and not by an individual AfC reviewer. In 2020, the article was created and deleted on the basis that he was the vice-president of a state branch of the ruling Indian party. Since then, he was the president of that branch from 2021 to 2025 and has likely become notable. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - I have changed my rejection to a decline. I do not plan to accept the draft. I will leave that for another AFC reviewer, and I still disapprove strongly of the gaming of the title, but will leave that to another reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse - WP:NPOL is very clear. Undoubtedly, the subject still fails it. Wisher08 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - The draft Draft:Kuppusamy Annamalai has been substantially rewritten with independent, secondary sources providing analytical coverage of the subject's role as state president of a major national party (2021–2025), alliance dynamics, and public political impact. While there are differences whether WP:NPOL is met, notability is at least arguable based on current sourcing.
- TamizhanEditor (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Failing WP:NPOL does not mean the subject is not notable, it only means they have to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO through the normal means of having significant coverage in reliable sources. Do you also belive the subject does not meet either of those criteria? Jumpytoo Talk 17:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- For a politician, it is important to meet WP:NPOL. I dont see if the subject is meeting WP:GNG either because simply being a face of a country's most popular party is not enough. The coverage should be more than just about that. Zalaraz (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I agree that merely being a party face is not sufficient for notability. My point is not based solely on the subject’s position, but on the presence of multiple independent, reliable sources that provide analytical coverage of his role in Tamil Nadu politics — including alliance dynamics, the AIADMK–NDA split, statewide political campaigns, and assessments of his strategic impact as state party president.
- As noted at WP:NPOL, failure to meet its specific criteria does not preclude notability where WP:GNG is satisfied. Given the breadth and depth of secondary coverage discussing the subject beyond routine announcements, I believe notability could be better assessed via community consensus rather than AfC alone. TamizhanEditor (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- WP:NPOL states
The following are presumed to be notable: ... Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage
andJust being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.
The point is that passing the WP:GNG override this standard. Katzrockso (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- For a politician, it is important to meet WP:NPOL. I dont see if the subject is meeting WP:GNG either because simply being a face of a country's most popular party is not enough. The coverage should be more than just about that. Zalaraz (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Failing WP:NPOL does not mean the subject is not notable, it only means they have to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO through the normal means of having significant coverage in reliable sources. Do you also belive the subject does not meet either of those criteria? Jumpytoo Talk 17:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- There had already been many, many attempts at articles and drafts at the time of the last DRV. There's some reason to think the draft in front of us isn't the only one now. Also, since the natural title is blacklisted - anything with "annamalai" and either "k" as an independent word or "kuppu" - A) we shouldn't hold the initial weird naming of this draft against it too much, and B) other drafts won't be at easily-found titles; most likely they'll be in user sandboxes. Extreme low-effort searching found User:Bharathesha Alasandemajalu/Annamalai Kuppusamy (out of date) and User:Vinodpatild/Sample page (no help), but hey, maybe there's better around. —Cryptic 04:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse Per Owenx, very nicely stated. Please follow his advice User:Easternsahara 20:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Allow recreation. As noted by Cunard, there is enough coverage for this person to pass WP:BASIC and the WP:GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The AfD was closed by the nominator who was substantially involved in the discussion under WP:NAC and WP:INVOLVED that's not permitted. Also the discussion had substantial participation and clear consensus making a withdrawn close inappropriate. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 17:46, 17 January 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 nomination was closed by an involved editor (1, 2, 3) one day after the start, without giving me a chance to comment on the votes of other participants, or for other participants to speak. — Ирука13 11:39, 16 January 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 nomination was closed ahead of time by an involved editor (1, 2), ignoring the fact that all keep-votes are not based on Wikipedia/Commons file handling rules and policies. — Ирука13 07:28, 16 January 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 deletion outcome appears to rest on a misidentification of the subject rather than a substantive assessment of notability. The AfD evaluated “ODI Global” as a newly created entity, despite it being a 2024 rebranding of the long-established Overseas Development Institute founded in 1960. Amadrilena (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC) Background The subject of the deleted article is the Overseas Development Institute, a UK-based independent think tank founded in 1960. “ODI Global” is a branding change introduced in 2024, not a newly created organisation or a separate legal entity. The AfD discussion appears to have assessed notability primarily under the new branding, without fully considering institutional continuity. The rebranding is documented in published sources, including independent coverage:
The organisation’s own history page confirms the timeline of continuity (provided for chronology only):
Evidence of notability Significant independent secondary coverage of the organisation exists and was not fully considered in the AfD discussion, largely because it refers to the organisation under its long-established name. Independent expert evaluation
Major independent media
Government and legal recognition
International institutional recognition
Policy concern At AfD, the subject appears to have been evaluated primarily as “ODI Global” under its recent branding, with several participants concluding that independent coverage was lacking. However, substantial independent coverage of the same organisation under its long-established name, Overseas Development Institute, does exist and was not fully considered in the outcome. This suggests a misapplication of WP:GNG based on naming rather than institutional continuity. Requested outcome Review of the deletion decision on procedural grounds. Restoration to draft space, or relisting of the AfD, would allow the article to be rewritten to clearly explain the ODI / ODI Global branding relationship and accurately reflect the organisation’s continuity and sourcing.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am requesting a review of the deletion decision, as the assessment of notability did not fully consider available independent reliable sources. Additional sourcing is available, and I believe the article can be improved to meet Wikipedia’s notability and sourcing guidelines. Kurdistan24web (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
I created and uploaded File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01 e.jpg. Administrator IronGargoyle copied it and uploaded it as File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01.jpg. Then they deleted the file I'd uploaded as a copy. On their talk page they explained that they did this for "to maintain continuity with the original file name". This is for context. — Ирука13 10:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- What is the action you want DRV to take here, and why? Stifle (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Endorse and speedy closedue to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)- Do what OwenX said below. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse and speedy close. No substantive reason given for this vexatious nomination. Deletion was both in the letter and spirit of CSD F1. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment and suggestion, if I may answer Stifle on behalf of the appellant. I agree with IronGargoyle that blurring a portion of the image doesn't entitle the uploader to any kind of attribution. Anyone may copy it, re-upload it as their own, and delete the original. I don't know why IronGargoyle chose to do that instead of simply moving the file to the correct name, but in doing so, he effectively erased any record of the appellant's contribution, which is all the appellant is asking for. Whether copyright laws require attribution or not, we all expect some form of recognition for our work here, even if it's just a line in a page history dump. Personally, the appellant lost any sympathy I may have had for them with their rude, Karenistic
Restore my file immediately
demand. But for the sake of expediency, I think this DRV can be speedy closed to everyone's satisfaction by adding a dummy edit to the file's history, with an edit summary denoting the appellant as the file originator. Not because they deserve it, but because it's the correct, minimally disruptive way to resolve this nonsense amicably. Owen× ☎ 11:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)- Thank you for the explanation. That all sounds good to me. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that solution. I thought the file name was important in case Philippine freedom of panorama law changed. A more permissive change would affect the history and reimportation of this file to Commons (which might be important to import a blurred version, depending on the context of the revised law). It simply didn't occur to me to move it. I have moved a tiny handful of files in the last several years and uploaded thousands. I have no problem with Iruka13 getting credit and I have said as much on my talk page. It was a helpful edit. I question whether that is what this is about though. Iruka13 has a long history of wikilawyering confrontation and is indefinitely blocked from three projects. This request seems more about winning an argument as opposed to actually improving anything on Wikipedia or gaining credit. Indeed, if Iruka13 cared so much about credit for a creative solution, why was there no notation citing Iruka13 for the blurring edit in the revised file description at File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01 e.jpg?— Preceding unsigned comment added by IronGargoyle (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly -
Anyone may copy it, re-upload it as their own, and delete the original.
- I can re-upload "my" file again and place the F1-template on the IronGargoyle's file, right? — Ирука13 08:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. That all sounds good to me. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- There was a clear purpose to maintaining the original file name, which I have explained. The only purpose to doing what you propose would be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn. Creating a copy yourself to then apply F1 is clearly aberrant, not in the spirit of speedy deletion, and should not be condoned. The complaint is completely appropriate. Separately, I dispute the idea that there is something wrong with the name of this file. Adding the "e" means edit, the name of the deleted file is fine, and there is no reason to "maintain continuity with the original file name" on Commons. Overturn this wrong speedy deletion and delete IronGargoyle's duplicate.—Alalch E. 16:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Please see my comment above about the importance of maintaining the file name in case this ever needs to be reimported to Commons. Calling this aberrant is hyperbolic and only feeds into the confrontational mindset of this nomination. Quite honestly the file in question should have been uploaded over the original file as a file revision and then the original file revision deleted, but I lost track of the FFD over the holidays and forgot to suggest that in the FFD. When I went back to check on the discussion, the original FFD had already been closed. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn per Alalch E. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I think a lot of people need a nice cup of tea and a sit down. There's a lot of overreaction going on. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn. Speedy deletion shouldn't be used when there's a feasible alternative to deletion, and in this case moving the file would have been just that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment. I'll say again: Keeping the file name makes sense. I uploaded/deleted instead of moving the file out of habit. Was this a mistake? I guess, given that multiple editors have voted to overturn my deletion, some using very strong language. It still seems pretty picayune to me (and does not seem like a violation of the letter of CSD F1), but whatever. My deletion was never intended to slight Iruka13 or deprive them of credit. If you think it was, assume good faith please. I still support OwenX's solution to give Iruka13 credit. I'll assume good faith that Iruka13 just wanted credit (despite not claiming credit in the deleted file description) and I wish this could have just been a polite request on my talk page instead of the type of confrontation which exemplifies why Iruka13 is indefinitely blocked and on the way to being globally banned. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)