Wikipedia:Deletion review

Skip to:

Active discussions
Recent discussions
Archive
(purge cache)

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.

Purpose

Shortcut

WP:DRVPURPOSEWP:DRVPURPOSE

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.

Shortcut

WP:DRVNOTWP:DRVNOT

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

Shortcut

WP:DELREVDWP:DELREVD

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


1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in `page` with the name of the page, `xfd_page` with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and `reason` with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, `article` is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{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: `{{subst:DRV notice\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev\|date=2025 November 27}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2025 November 27}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2025 November 27\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

Endorse the original closing decision; or
Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

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

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

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, 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".

Active discussions

27 November 2025

25 November 2025

List of Air Mauritius destinations

I closed this as "merge" but have been challenged on my talk page. As I think deletion review is a better option, I'm coming here for a full discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (uninvolved). Several keep !votes were based on a misunderstanding (?) of the much-quoted earlier RfC's close. That RfC only decided that WP:DESTNOT did not apply to two specific articles, yet it has been misrepresented in the latest AfD to apply to any. As such, !votes based on this misrepresentation lack persuasiveness and should be excluded when weighing consensus. The closing admin appears to have correctly done so. —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. The sad truth is that we don't have a community consensus about such lists. Every couple of years, we get yet another RfC about airline destination lists, the result of which is often the opposite of what the previous RfC determined. Do we go by the old RfC that determined that they don't violate WP:NOT? By the one after that, where consensus was that they aren't inherently notable? Do we use any of the widely-attended AfDs as jurisprudence-based guidelines? Ignore everything and fall back on GNG/NLIST? I don't touch those AfDs anymore, because weighing !votes by P&G basis is meaningless when we can't agree on the relevant P&G. I applaud Ritchie333 and other admins who do their best trying to work out a compromise that will be tolerated by most participants, but beyond that, I don't think anyone can legitimately say whether such a close is right or wrong. Owen× ☎ 16:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much how much import an RfC is given than when it's cited, it be cited accurately. NOT was not. Arguments stating policy says something it doesn't were not just failing to make a policy-based argument—they were making no argument at all. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you say is true. But even when RfCs are cited correctly, they tell us nothing, because you can just as easily cite a different RfC that says the exact opposite. I was taking a quick look at closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Virgin America destinations this morning, and my conclusion was, "No, thanks; I'll deal with it when it inevitably comes to DRV." Owen× ☎ 17:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, fair enough. I'll see you here when the soon-inevitable merge/redirect outcome is contested ;) —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of closing it, and came to the same conclusion as Owen - it'll end up at DRV. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that I mind being dragged to DRV. I routinely close the thorniest, most contentious, politicized AfDs that no one else wants to touch. But when I do that, I know I have our P&G to rely on, which isn't the case here. Sports is the other one I tend to avoid, and for the same reason; I've ranted about that here before. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) The AfD rationale was massive and lengthy, but I would have simply made a one-sentence justification of "Fails WP:NOTDATABASE" without even bothering to deal with the reliability of the sources, because that's precisely what these lists are - airline travel databases. The closer correctly elevated those particular arguments as the most compelling, per WP:NOTAVOTE. Perhaps the notion of airline destinations is independently notable and important; but that can be covered in a prose article giving full context for the airline's changing destinations. The RfC everyone is quoting that would appear to have decided they do not fail WP:NOT was closed by a relatively new user who stated, Personally, I'm inclined towards saying they do violate WP:NOT, but it's not my job as a closer to vote, it's to represent the consensus, and the consensus was very clearly, over 2:1, that they don't. Going by vote ratios and pile-on votes is not how we do things on Wikipedia, discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE and they should be considered according to the merits of the argument, in which case a very different result may have occurred. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The continual insinuations that @LokiTheLiar is not an apt closer or that they did something wrong with that close are becoming tiring. Katzrockso (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you're probably at the wrong place. Here at DRV, all we do is question how aptly discussions have been closed. Owen× ☎ 00:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: There is an RfC currently open on the WP:DESTNOT close and a planned RfC to follow once the current one is closed. To comment on what @Zxcvbnm said above, I also had the same concerns regarding the DESTNOT close, however @LokiTheLiar defended it nonetheless. This is why I opened the current RfC. It is my belief that editors have grown tired of having the same discussions over and over again, where neither side can come to an agreement. As such, those that close these discussions are challenged through no fault other than one side simply not agreeing due to how divided the issue is. In this specific case, @Ritchie333 was very fair and enacted a good close. 11WB (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I did not realise how big of an issue this is, but maybe this should be a CTOP. Where are we supposed to go for that again? VPR? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My read of the discussion is that is falls somewhere between “keep” and “no consensus”. Something dead against “merge” is the AfD nominator’s very thorough nomination that finishes with “There is therefore nothing to merge.” Also, AfD closers should not get into the business of mandating merges, let alone difficult merges. “Merge” therefore devolves to either “no consensus but add a “mergeto” tag, or “redirect with encouragement to merge from the history”. Not a single participant !voted redirect, so the second option should be off the table. Therefore, “no consensus” was viable. As was “keep”. Notably, “Delete” was not a viable close, with just the nominator and one brief support. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jetstreamer completed the merge. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This DRV is frustrating so far, as it's focusing not on the close, but on the content, which as someone who uses these articles I genuinely don't understand the controversy over. I would have brought this here if Richie333 hadn't, but I was amazed this was merged - I thought it inevitably would have been a no consensus between keeping and merging, especially given there were 7 keep !votes compared to 6 not-keep !votes (4 merges and 2 deletes), there's genuine conflict over which policy analysis is "correct," and perhaps I've missed it but none of the keep !voters were in favour of a merge. I'm also slightly frustrated I wasn't allowed to bring this to DRV myself to make that argument at the top of the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Keep arguments were faulty/unsupported by P&G. Even if DESTNOT did cover destination lists in general rather than the two that were the subject of the RfC and its close, a finding that such lists don't inherently violate NOT does not mean all such lists are inherently encyclopedic or inherently meet NOT—an absurd suggestion. And NCORP applies to all articles, including lists, (obviously) irrespective of company status. 7 P&G-based non-keep !votes override 7 keep !votes based on a flimsy extrapolation from one out-of-scope RfC. JoelleJay (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. With respect and appreciation to the closer for trying to find some sort of outcome of the discussion, I really don't see any sort of consensus in the AfD whether this standalone article should exist, based on numbers or strength of the arguments. There's also sufficient disagreement on what, if anything, is worthwhile to merge, that it's hard to see any consensus to merge at all as an alternative. This is all unsurprising, since (as mentioned at the AfD and brought up here) there is unresolved disagreement regarding such airline destination lists overall, based on (by and large) the same arguments. Beyond that, there was an argument made that this specific list is worse than others, since so many of the destinations are no longer being served - but that argument didn't get much traction. Therefore, we just need to recognize that there's not a whole lot that can be decided here until and unless a consensus (sub)policy on these articles as a whole is developed. In the meanwhile, general editing guidance following non-consensus closes should prevail (i.e., edit with usual editorial discretion, renominate if desired in due course, etc.). Martinp (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that while the discussion and facts of the case are not identical, the arguments in this AfD were largely the same as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Virgin_America_destinations, closed yesterday as No Consensus. I wasn't aware of that when I wrote the above, but it amplifies my belief that NC would have been a better close here. Martinp (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The keep !votes were much weaker when it came to policy and guidelines than the non-keep !votes, so I see a rough consensus to not keep as a standalone article. As there was no consensus among the non-keep supporters to delete rather than merge, this was the correct choice. Frank Anchor 22:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

24 November 2025

Génesis Valentín – Speedily endorse. There was no path to a deletion outcome. Star Mississippi 01:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The lone weak keep voter said they "do see the subject winning some tournaments" but yet to see more SIGCOV sources without naming what sources they were talking about even after two relists. Should've been a soft delete as it wasn't contested before this Afd. zglph^•talk• 12:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and speedy close as frivolous litigation. Soft-deletion is impossible when the deletion is contested at the AfD, regardless of the strength of the contestation. N/C was the only possible outcome here. Owen× ☎ 12:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
assume good faith and tone down your comment. zglph^•talk• 12:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While vexatious litigation requires bad faith, frivolous litigation is often the result of poor understanding of policy. WP:NPASR makes it very clear that soft deletion can only happen when no one has opposed deletion. By all means, demonstrate your good faith by admitting your honest mistake and withdrawing this appeal. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Advise User:Zglph that when every other participant (even if just one) rebuts their guideline-wave nomination, they need to do a source analysis to show that the topic fails the guidelines. Read advice at WP:RENOM, including the two-month moratorium, counting from the close of this DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a frivolous DRV per Owenx - there's no way that this could possibly be overturned to delete as it's not eligible for soft deletion and we can't delete things at AfD when there is only one proponent for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 12:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per all above. Generally a WP:QUORUM of three delete !votes (including the nom) is the minimum standard to delete (excluding PROD/soft delete), and a soft delete is not possible due to the keep !vote. Relisting for a third time was the only other possibility, but the closer is under no obligation to do this. With no additional support for deletion in three weeks, there is zero reason to believe that would change in another week. Frank Anchor 13:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This DRV is without merit. There is plainly no consensus to delete and nothing else could be done. Soft delete wasn't possible for reasons others have explained. Local Variable (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Sometimes there really is No Consensus, and there really was no consensus. Also, if this article were soft-deleted, as the appellant says it should be, it would be necessary to refund the article because there is now opposition to deletion. Also, User:OwenX is right about the difference between vexatious litigation and frivolous litigation, and this appeal is good-faith but frivolous. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - No other way to close that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NC close. No one agreed with the nomination, in spite of 2 relists. One person disagreed, with hard to follow and likely non-policy-based rationale. Nothing else happened. There is no consensus here to do anything, just two people who -- doubtless in good faith -- yelled into the wind and no-one heard them. Martinp (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

BJ Sam – Procedural close: LLM-generated appeal, filer sock-blocked, nothing more to do here. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Notability Justification for BJ Sam (For Wikipedia Moderators)

BJ Sam meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements under the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and the Notability guideline for music (WP:NMUSIC) based on multiple criteria, including significant coverage in independent sources, international media exposure, and verifiable artistic achievements.

1. Significant Coverage in Independent, Reliable Sources (WP:GNG)

BJ Sam has received attention from media outlets outside his personal networks. The following indicators support coverage by independent, editorially controlled sources: • His single “Mon Amour” was featured in a Hollywood film, Heart of Fatness (2017), a published commercial production independent of the artist. • Following its release, the song drew interest from TV5Monde, an internationally recognized French-language television network that operates independently of the artist.

These demonstrate that third-party institutions with editorial oversight have recognized and featured his work.

2. International Media Exposure and Distribution (WP:NMUSIC Criteria #5 & #6)

BJ Sam’s music has been: • Distributed and featured internationally, including in a Hollywood production. • Covered by major international broadcasters (e.g., TV5Monde). • Consumed in multiple world regions, with airplay and exposure across Africa, Europe, and North America.

This level of international distribution aligns with recognized indicators of notability for musicians.

3. Credible, Large-Scale Global Collaborations (WP:CREATIVE)

Sam coordinated two major multinational musical projects: • “Merry Christmas” (2022) – a collaboration uniting artists from all continents. • “Show Some Love” (2023) – a global peace anthem created during the Ukraine conflict with participants from several countries.

Both projects illustrate creative influence that extends beyond local or regional music circles, demonstrating non-trivial, international artistic impact.

4. Recognition by Major Industry Institutions

His song “Don’t Worry, Everything Will Be Fine” reached the GRAMMY Awards ballot in the Global Performance category. While a ballot placement is not a nomination, it is an official level of recognition by the Recording Academy, an authoritative institution within the global music industry.

This satisfies WP:NMUSIC’s guideline that recognition from major music organizations supports notability.

5. Collaborations With Established Artists

BJ Sam has collaborated with internationally respected musicians such as:

•Paul Raci • Charu Suri • Jaspinder Narula • Diana Hopeson

All the artists are globally recognized and have existing coverage on Wikipedia. These collaborations indicate industry acceptance and professional relevance beyond the local Nigerian music scene.

Conclusion

Based on the above factors, BJ Sam satisfies the requirements for notability because: • His work has received verifiable coverage from independent, reliable sources. • He has international exposure through film placement, global media features, and worldwide collaborations. • He has been recognized by established institutions within the music industry. • His artistic influence extends beyond regional boundaries, consistent with Wikipedia’s notability standards for musicians.

Accordingly, the article meets the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. Kombomelo1188 (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as an LLM nomination by a non-contributor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close per SmokeyJoe. In addition, endorse deletion, since the points made above seem no different than what was already considered at the AFD. Note the nominator's only other wikicontributions are a declined draft for the same subject at Draft:SAMMY. Martinp (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a valid close, or Speedy Close due to no valid basis for the appeal (discounting the AI slop). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 November 2025

1986 Indian Air Force An-32 disappearance

The editor who nominated the article was a sockpuppeter and was blocked for disruptive behavior. Also none of the redirect voters addressed the secondary sources that I had listed. They merely stated it was not notable without any more explanation. I want a relist where editors debate the sources to see if they really make this disappearance notable. Zaptain United (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to No Consensus, which restores the article. This is the very rare case of new information that warrants reviewing the close. There was no error by the closer, but the nomination is seen, retrospectively, to have been an error. A good-standing editor should be permitted to nominate the article for deletion again. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn- I believe a relist may be appropriate here. The original nominator has since been blocked for unrelated disruptive behavior, so the nomination itself cannot be evaluated solely on its face. More importantly, several !votes to redirect or delete do not engage with the secondary sources that have been provided. I have identified multiple independent, reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject’s disappearance. Since the key question is whether these sources establish notability under WP:GNG, I think the discussion would benefit from additional editors examining and evaluating those sources directly rather than relying on general statements that the topic is "not notable." If other participants could comment specifically on the depth, independence, and reliability of the listed sources, it would help determine whether the subject meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BLP. I am not advocating any outcome here, only asking for a more source-based discussion before a consensus is reached.Unknown FG (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was no issue with Owen's close as nom wasn't blocked until much later (disclosure, by me), and socking element is irrelevant to the AfD as it was also much later. The history is under the redirect. You can revert it, or work on it in draft space. If editors disagree with your improvements, they can start a new AfD. DRV is not needed here, and relisting an August close isn't practical. Robert's overturn isn't needed here, but isn't wrong. Star Mississippi 00:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I'm less concerned about the sockpuppet and more concerned about a large number of !voters discounting lasting coverage. This for instance is from 2024. SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed, and looked hard, and then concluded there is an undeniable consensus to keep. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I think this is the right forum to ask whether an AfD should be 'overturned', because absent a discussion, the existence of the consensus at the AfD would suggest that the reversal of the redirect is inappropriate and would imply restoration of the redirect. Katzrockso (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not actually correct. Anyone can undo any non-protected redirect at any time as long as they have good faith expectation that new sourcing would, if taken to AfD, result in the previous redirect being kept as a standalone article in a new AfD discussion. The opinions on how high a bar that is will vary by subject and discussion age, and gaming the system--or appearing to do so--is a bad idea. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's unclear how the result of the AfD could be enforced if someone could just go back the next day and restore the article by reversing the redirect. The new information from the appellant here is not the aforementioned source listed by SportingFlyer, while that provides another possible basis for overturning the result, but the sockpuppeteering by the nominator.

Robert McClenon seems to suggest that the result should be overturned without reference to new sources (just that the original nominator was a sockpuppet), perhaps because the nomination itself was a !vote counted when evaluating the consensus, which we ought to retroactively discount. Though I don't want to speak for him, maybe you can clarify @Robert McClenon. Katzrockso (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure what User:Katzrockso is asking me to clarify, but I will try. I don't like to have DRV asked to evaluate new sources. I also don't like to relist an AFD after a period of months. So what I was proposing was to overturn the AFD to No Consensus, which would restore the article, and would permit a new nomination to delete, and would also permit sources to be added that should be taken into account during the AFD. Sometimes I will be in the minority, and maybe something that I don't like will be done. Maybe this should be relisted. So what is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Robert McClenon for being unclear, I was wondering if the basis of your !vote to overturn was based on the fact that the nominator was a sock or based on an evaluation of a misreading of consensus or something else - i.e. the substance behind your !vote. Katzrockso (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Katzrockso - Maybe my statement wasn't clear. I said that there was no error by the closer, so I did not think that the closer misread consensus. What the closer did not know was that that the nomination was invalid because the nominator was invalid. Does that answer the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. It's an interesting POV but I'm not sure I agree. Sorry to get off track though Katzrockso (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (consensus to keep). I’m guessing that the closer was swung by the last two “Redirect” !votes. However, the second last one was refuted by User:Zaptain United 02:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC), and the later last one, coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC), is plain wrong, reliable-source SIGCOV were above, and they misleadingly wave to Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA when User:Zaptain United‘s source is green lit by WP:INDIANEXP.[reply]

The SOCK AfD nominator was wrong. User:A. B. appears to accept the wrong nomination facts at face value, and does not address the reasons to not-keep. User:Svartner is a mere “per A.B.” All the “redirect” !votes are refuted in the AfD.

The two “delete” !votes raise no evidence, apparently accepting the wrong, SOCK, nomination.

The “keep” !vote by User:Zaptain United is very strong. The “keep” !vote by User:Dualpendel is also quite strong, and is undiminished by the wrong statement in response by the SOCK nominator. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC), after early skepticism, concludes, very persuasively, that the GNG is indeed met. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to nc, relist, or allow recreation (by reverting the redirect). Those more familiar with the intricacies of our deletion policy can decide that. But it is clear that later !voters failed to engage with the fact a 2nd GNG-satisfying source had been found. The author of the source table, @Aviationwikiflight:, themselves noted this [1], but I suspect the much greater visual prominence of the original source table spoke louder. Regardless, it seems quite likely that a source assessment table created today would have at least 2 triple-check-mark sources, and that would likely lead to a different consensus, or at least no consensus. I am less concerned about the later block of the AfD nominator; it seems that happened later, and their socking was in response to the block, not something that affected this discussion? Martinp (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Zaptain United added a new source about 10 hours prior to the close that no one else commented on. A relist is the proper way for editors to evaluate the added source. A keep result may be the ultimate outcome with a relist, but in the absence of further discussion, I struggle to see how a closer could close the discussion as keep. --Enos733 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't opening a new AfD or allow recreation be better options instead of relisting a 3-month-old discussion? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally (in this case), a relist, recreation, or opening a new AfD probably all get to the same place, so they would all be acceptable. I think three months is about as far back as it makes sense for a relisted discussion. - Enos733 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) The key words here in the closing was "as a sensible WP:ATD". WP:ATD states that "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion ". It doesn't mean the article can't be recreated later, but, in its current state, it was not useful as a standalone page and there was an obvious merge target. That means it was the correct course of action to take. Until someone bothers to improve it beyond a stub, it should remain a redirect. If people take issue with that, they can improve the page to a level where it merits being more than a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CachyOS (closed)

CachyOS – Procedural close: The prior AfD close has not been challenged, and DRV is not a content creation committee. Appellant may add new content at the existing redirect title or submit the draft using {{AfC submission}}. The usual caveat of the page being subject to another AfD applies. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

New reports show that they have enough notability. The draft page is almost ready to be done. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Submit Draft for Review - See DRV should not be used point 2: Deletion review should not be used … 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. Complete the draft and submit the draft for review. The closure of the AFD applied to the former article, not to the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No action As above, or just un-redirect it and add sourcing. The AfD is 2 years ago, and if there's new reliable sourcing since then or appropriate sources that were not discovered/discussed at the last AfD... go for it, but be prepared for a new AfD if someone doesn't agree. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as incorrect venue. The title is not salted. The current draft is vastly different from the version that was redirected in 2023. Article can be recreated and redirect should not be restored without further discussion or another AFD. I would recommend going through the WP:AFC process before restoring the article, but this is not required. Frank Anchor 19:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 November 2025

Category:Canadian sportspeople by country of descent

[Main category and 16 subcategories, to be upmerged to Canadian people of XXX descent and generic Sportspeople of XXX descent]. This was a non-admin 'no consensus' close, the proposal for which was supported by the majority of contributors, and followed a CfD for Britain in 2023 here, followed by those for several other groupings nominated by myself in September 2025 here, all of which resulted in upmerging apart from the Canadians and French.

Of course there are valid sources discussing the ethnic origins of many competitors in many sports from many countries, but that would suggest that it would be of more benefit to expand on the specific subject(s) in an article or a series of articles, and similar evidence did not prevent almost all of the other categories being upmerged, resulting in these two groupings being retained in a completely illogical manner; either this is valid for a categorisation fork across the board, or it isn't, because 20 years of this project have shown that the proliferation and maintenance of categories is not adequately patrolled and policed to have narrow, particular forks without 'siblings' being created and populated for similar matters.

There is no evidence that Category:Canadian sportspeople of Slovak descent has specific sourcing for its individual importance, and also nothing to prevent Category:Canadian sportspeople of Czech descent being created if half a dozen qualifying biographies were found (by the way, glancing at Category:Canadian people of Czech descent, about half of the 68 articles there look to be sportspeople, so in that respect it would be perfectly valid), regardless of sourcing - because that's not the way categories work in practice and never has been: it is assumed that the source exists in the article if there is already a category present which prompts another to be added. We are not discussing whether the topic exists independently but whether it is relevant for the continued existence of this entire intersection of categorisation. And in that regard, there is no difference between the surviving Canadian / French groupings and the deleted American / Australian / British / Spanish groupings other than one or two people contributing to the CfD. The principle is identical. PS this is my first entry here so hopefully I have done it adequately. Crowsus (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per my reasoning in the other open DRV on the same date on a similar topic - this was probably even more of a no consensus than the other one. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per the same argument as below, this was an accurate reading of consensus, whatever the implications for inconsistency may be. Katzrockso (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:French sportspeople by country of descent

[Main category and 28 subcategories, to be upmerged to French people of XXX descent and generic Sportspeople of XXX descent]. This was a non-admin 'no consensus' close, the proposal for which was supported by the majority of contributors, and followed a CfD for Britain in 2023 here, followed by those for several other groupings nominated by myself in September 2025 here, all of which resulted in upmerging apart from the Canadians and French.

In reference to comments in the original CfD, of course I am aware of and have considered the significance of the likes of Algerians in France, but - as I pointed out in the previous discussions which were perhaps not reviewed before commenting - the like of Jamaican migration to England is also highly relevant to that sporting landscape with numerous writings to that effect, but it was still upmerged along with others of less significance.

There is no evidence that Category:French sportspeople of Portuguese descent has specific sourcing for its individual importance, and also nothing to prevent Category:French sportspeople of Spanish descent being created if half a dozen qualifying biographies were found (by the way, glancing at Category:French people of Spanish descent, perhaps 100 of the 336 articles there look to be sportspeople, so in that respect it would be perfectly valid), regardless of sourcing - because that's not the way categories work in practice and never has been: it is assumed that the source exists in the article if there is already a category present which prompts another to be added. We are not discussing whether the topic exists independently but whether it is relevant for the continued existence of this entire intersection of categorisation. And in that regard, there is no difference between the surviving Canadian / French groupings and the deleted American / Australian / British / Spanish groupings other than one or two people contributing to the CfD. The principle is identical.

Finally, the deletion of other groupings has left a silly imbalance for certain intersections: Category:French sportspeople of Turkish descent is still present but Category:German sportspeople of Turkish descent was upmerged, somewhat farcical for any viewer with a passing interest in German/Turkish culture and/or sport in the past 50+ years, and of course that complex relationship is a published topic of relevance (see Turks in Germany#Sports) but that did not 'save' the particular category at the earlier CfD. Many intersections of note have already gone; either those should be restored or these others merged too. PS these are my first additions here so hopefully I have done it adequately. Crowsus (talk) 06:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the review of these two no consensus decisions. For two reasons, keeping all origins of sportspeople in France and Canada doesn't make sense on its own:
1. The establishment of consensus here cannot really be established on the sole basis of Category:Canadian sportspeople by country of descent and its children, or Category:French sportspeople by country of descent and its children alone, while other discussions were held in parallel for other national trees.
2. Opposing arguments in the discussion, as well as guideline WP:OCEGRS, suggest that some particular intersections may be notable and worth keeping, not all ethnic origins whatsoever in Canada (resp. France) which is the result obtained.

The discussion was split in groups of categories per nationality by the original nominator to make discussion easier. A different choice could have been made, e.g. by origin country or ethnicity.

Of course, sometimes a grouped discussion can result in different outcomes if it is demonstrated that one or several of the items discussed have specific merits, but that was not argued here. Specifically, it was never argued by anyone that just the Canadian and French sportspeople categories would be kept. It was instead argued by several opponents that all ethnic origins are relevant, but that was also taken into account by the proposed merge targets, e.g. Canadian people of Barbadian descent.

My suggestion is therefore to determine a global consensus of all the parallel sportspeople by descent discussions, maybe allowing for individual exceptions if they obtain consensus. I would agree with Crowsus that this global consensus was towards agreeing with the initial propositions, i.e. up-merging all national sportspeople by descent categories to both national people by descent and sportspeople by descent. Place Clichy (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Place Clichy has a good suggestion. (I don't think this is really a deletion review per se, but more like a how the supreme court has to handle inconsistent rulings across circuts) The project would benefit from the consistency. I know there are some important nuances about when the country of descent matters (like in Olympic competitions), but that would be worth discussing. It might also be worth keeping to make the people by descent category more manageable. ^SMason_Garrison 22:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close as an accurate reading of consensus. As terrible as inconsistency might be, inconsistent decisions between CfD closes are not the subject of deletion review. I agree with the calls above to a global discussion on this topic, rather than relitigating this CfD. Katzrockso (talk) 02:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as an accurate close, though I also agree there needs to be a global consensus on the topic. Piecemeal discussions are highly inconsistent. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think that was closed accurately - there wasn't a consensus. I understand the difficulty in the inconsistency, but that would suggest a larger RfC on the topic, not a DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20 November 2025

Edward Asare (closed)

Edward Asare – Snow relist, with the assent of the closer. Let's spend the incremental days there vs. here Star Mississippi 00:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article’s previous AfD, three years ago, concluded with a decisive keep vote. The article has now been deleted following a second nomination with only one editor voted for deletion. Ruby D-Brown (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While consensus can change, this discussion was too lightly attended to be a consensus. Overturn and reopen. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The previous AfD being keep does not have much bearing here due to the extremely weak arguments therein, which did not present clear evidence of notability, largely amounting to WP:ITSNOTABLE. While "obviously being canvassed" is an ad hominem attack against the editors that requires evidence, the !votes in the previous AfD can be examined in a vacuum without presuming disruption and found lacking. There was no obvious and clear sourcing shown that should have been brought up in a subsequent nomination. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I see two !votes for deletion, not "one" as the appellant falsely claims. This would normally be enough for an unopposed soft deletion. Alas, having survived a prior AfD, the page no longer qualifies for soft deletion. Letting the AfD run for a second week is how we normally handle such situations. Owen× ☎ 10:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Await comment from closing admin, and potentially temp-undelete for review. Closing admin was apprently not consulted prior to this DRV, though has been notified. 1st AFD discussion was defective, with a false "keep" consensus based on non-policy !votes. But 2nd AFD was defective is well: with just nominator + 1 delete vote with very brief rationales, it can't be taken in isolation from the 1st one. And so it feels like at most a soft delete. That all said, Googling the name strongly suggests notability may be suspect and COI advocacy (including canvassing) a real possibility. And yet, we also tend to have an implicit bias against developing world subjects and press coverage, and so it makes sense to hear about the closing admin's thought process, and possibly get more eyeballs on this, before deciding. No objections to a Relist (per Owen), but pragmatically we may be able to more effectively review here and endorse if notability is clearly missing, versus reopen/relist if and only if there is a more nuanced sourcing discussion to be had. Martinp (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Temp-undeleted for review. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Owen. On reviewing, relist. While us old fogeys often think being just a successful influencer or internet personality shouldn't be enough to make someone notable, it's discussion in independent, reliable sources that matters. I don't know enough about Ghanain press sources to have any clue about what coverage is independent versus bought marketing, but Mr Asare's awards are at least a prima facie credible assertion of notability, at least some of the sources might be good enough, and the nuanced discussion of sourcing that is needed to figure it out is better suited to AFD than DRV. Neither AfD discussion so far engaged enough with this to determinative. If the article had been obviously non-notable, COI junk, I would have been comfortable just endorsing the deletion here. But it requires actual nuance, so we should reopen/relist and hope that happens this time. Martinp (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. With only two delete votes, there is not a WP:QUORUM to delete. While one option available in this case is to close in favour of the nominated proposal, that option should not be used where there is on objection. In this case, objections include the keep closure from the first AFD, as well as this DRV. Frank Anchor 15:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I'm very surprised this wasn't relisted. SportingFlyer T·C 15:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - Two votes is not a quorum or a consensus, and at least one relist is standard. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist' as what should of been the standard practice for delete votes this weak. I'd say even the keep votes from the first AfD are stronger, given that they at least asserted the sourcing was sufficient, and no voter in this AfD attempted to discuss the sources. Jumpytoo Talk 04:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per the above. If there were no previous AfD, I would be fine with the decision to delete it with no other input; both AfD participants are known editors in good standing. But since it was kept once, a relist would be in order since a soft delete (which is nom+0 or nom+1) is off the table. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No issue with relisting. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can go ahead and do that yourself. It's not considered "involved" when you're reversing yourself per input from us. And just because we're all "yeah, that probably should have been a relist" please don't think we're horrified you decided to just delete it rather than relisting. Odds are it's going to be deleted if it's not improved anyways. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

USAir Flight 499 (closed)

USAir Flight 499 – This is not a matter for DRV. As Zx said, you can work in AfC or undo the redirect and add sources that indicate the case you're making here. If editors disagree, there can be another AfD. Star Mississippi 13:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

New information is available. Per WP:AIRCRASH The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. This is about making Erie Airport safer after the accident and increasing the funding. https://iiif.library.cmu.edu/file/Heinz_box00435_fld00014_bdl0001_doc0004/Heinz_box00435_fld00014_bdl0001_doc0004.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaptain United (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as wrong forum No policy based reason has been shown why the AfD was wrong. This sort of thing needs to be addressed in AfC as a draft, not here. But without a secondary RS this seems to be a nothingburger. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Abolfazl Jaafari (closed)

Abolfazl Jaafari – Closure overturned to no consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I already requested this once at WP:REFUND, and the closing admin's talk page with whom we discussed the issue openly here. The subject has an annual citation record of ~1000-1500 for 5 years straight, with overall h-index of 50, which is luckily going to continue. It for me sounds adequate for WP:PROF#C1. As I mentioned in previous discussions, there is no prohibition of using GScholar or h-index according to WP:PROF#C1, it only cites caution. This sentiment was shared by others during the AfD discussion. Thereby I think the AfD would have been best closed as "no consensus" rather than "consensus to delete". Best. Xpander (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to No Consensus. First, my appreciation to the closing admin and the article author/appellant. The AFD discussion here petered out, and the option of another relist was not attractive. So I have every sympathy that the closer did their best to try to glean a consensus. However, in doing so, their close crossed the line into a !vote, passing independent judgment on the subject's publications' significance (or lack thereof). And I'm not convinced their argument (in the user page discussion pointed to by Xpander above) that WP:AUTHOR is not applicable is correct either; we generally allow articles to quality under any reasonable subcriterion, not force them into one. Bottom line is that as good a discussion as we're going to get (apparently) is leading different people, roughly in numerical balance (ignoring the struck-out !vote and the poorly argued "junk" !vote), with reasonable arguments, to reach different conclusions. That's no consensus, not closer's-opinion-prevails, even if done with thoughtful analysis and the best of intentions. Finally, I also think as an encylopedia, we suffer from biases disproportionately under-covering non-American/Euro-centric content. While that doesn't mean we should relax our notability and sourcing standards, I feel if we're on the knife-edge in a delete vs. no-consensus situation like this one, awareness of this bias should lead us to choose no consensus. Martinp (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Martinp already covered most of what I had to say about this. Metallurgist, whose well-reasoned arguments are a staple of AfD discussions, atypically went for a JUSTAVOTE here, which wasn't even based on the notability of the subject, but on the quality of the prose. I also find no merit in Ldm1954's unsigned "Speedy Keep". There was nothing in the nomination that would disqualify it per WP:SK. Ldm1954 is experienced enough to know the difference between a SK argument against the nomination, and a Keep argument about the subject, so I see no reason to second-guess his !vote as a "Keep".
I agree with Martinp that the closer seems to have substituted the arguments expressed in the AfD for his own views on academic notability. In the academic world, impact is measured by citations. Not just the number of citations, but the weight those citations have on their field, which in turn is measured by the number and weight of the citations of those who cite them, and so on, recursively. That is exactly what the h-index measures. While NACADEMIC cautions us against an absolute, mindless reliance on such measures, those !voting Keep did not mindless rely on the index, but used it to support their argument about notability.
I'm hesitant to use the term "supervote" here, as I see no evidence that Dr vulpes had any opinion about the subject or the article itself. But in his well-intentioned attempt to tease out a consensus from an evenly-matched debate, he appears to go one step beyond mere application of our guidelines, into a nonstandard interpretation of NPROF. True, citations and h-index alone do not establish notability per NACADEMIC, but they certainly support it, lending objective legitimacy to the Keep !votes on the AfD, at least to the point where we cannot discard them offhand to reach a consensus to delete that was never there. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I dont fully remember this, and being deleted, I cant speak to it, but I am glad to hear my reasoning is generally considered well, and by contrast, this came up short to that expectation. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can look at the comments. Even a count is 4 deletes to 3 keeps, so that is definitely a no consensus or should be left open longer if it hasnt met the maximum. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have deleted this if I had to close it, but I don't touch anything which NPROF touches anymore - it's such a difficult rule to apply because we assume professors have some sort of notability other professions don't, which seems to be an unpopular opinion around these parts. SportingFlyer T·C 15:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - The votes are about evenly balanced, and there didn't appear to be any trend or any obvious reason to discount the Keeps or the Deletes. Sometimes a consensus cannot be teased out. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an H index of 50 is pretty impressive. Mine's 5. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC because there is not a consensus either by a shear headcount or strength of vote. I find some arguments on both sides to be reasonable but nothing that convinces me that one side is more "right" than the other. Frank Anchor 14:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Well within admin discretion to close as “delete”, even if another might have called it “no consensus”. If someone thinks deletion was a mistake, request draftification, improve it, wait six months, and try submission at WP:AFC. An H-index of 51 is good, but a lot of academics with higher H-indexes do not have Wikipedia articles, and so the H-index is not a compelling argument. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe, Based on WP:CON admins should "not decide content issues authoritatively", i.e. Closing is not a distinct vote. And about the H-index argument, there are a lot of people with lower H-indexes which do have articles, so for those with higher numbers so instead of doing probablistics maybe we should see what the community decides on a case-by-case basis? Xpander (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go to WT:PROF and talk about H-index as a notability subguideline point. You are already acknowledge that it is a bad predictor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a panacea. It's a bad indicator where you have an author with one or more groundbreaking publications but their index remains superficially low, even in a single digit, but It works most of the times, especially when it's high enough. Xpander (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“ which is luckily going to continue”

What is your connection to the subject? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Goodwill. Xpander (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Countering systematic bias? If so, I respect that. Does the subject have a native-language Wikipedia article? It’s not that I think they need one first, but that writing an English language Wikipedia article is so much easier if there is a native language Wikipedia article first, because it is so much easier to show real world notice thought native language coverage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there really a need to debate the one endorse comment when its overwhelmingly overturn? Its good to have a dissenting view. ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need, but I have been genuinely interested in this conversation with User:Xpander. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Meeting NPROF C1 is a valid rebuttal to concerns about GNG. Delete !voters either did not address this rationale or were not aware that very high-for-their-field h-indices and citations are the standard metric by which C1 is evaluated. FWIW, in addition to the many basic citations, there are also secondary (and seemingly independent) prose discussions of just Jaafari's first-author work that could be used to support a section on his most impactful research, e.g.
To evaluate the initial set of conditioning factors [...] we performed the two-step factor analysis method suggested by Jaafari et al. [Description of Jaafari's approach].[2] (no prior collaboration with any authors)

The study conducted by Jaafari et al. (2014) in other regions of northern Iran supports the significance of these directions of slope angle on landslide occurrence. [5-sentence description of his finding].[3] (no prior collab)
Jaafari et al. used five decision tree-based classifiers in the wildfire mapping and reported a high level of performance (AUC 90%). [...] A study by Jaafari et al. [44] was undertaken to examine and compare four hybrid (artificial intelligence) methods against a single model in mapping the wildfire probability in the Hyrcanian ecoregion, Iran. Their finding proved up to 18% increase of modeling accuracy using hybrid models rather than a single model.[4] (no prior collab)
Jaafari et al. studied wildfire spatial analysis in the Zagros mountains, Iran. [2-sentence description] [...] Comparing results of the present study with Jaafari et al. and Eskandari et al., for wildfire spatial prediction... [7 sentences of comparison].[5] (no prior collab)
In other research, four hybrid models, namely the ANFIS combined with the genetic algorithm, particle swarm optimization (PSO), shuffled frog leaping algorithm, and imperialist competitive algorithm (ICA)for prediction of wildfire probabilities, was introduced by Jaafari et al. The results demonstrated that...[description of model performance comparisons].[6] (no prior collab)
In another real-world case by Jaafari, Najafi, Rezaeian, et al. (2015b) the six main cost elements were used in the forest road alternative evaluation. [2 more sentences on methods] [...] Six cost criteria are considered for forest road building, and they are defined based on Jaafari, Najafi, and Melón (2015a). [6 sentences describing Jaafari's criteria].[7] (no prior collab)
Another study by Jaafari et al. (2018) utilized...[description of methods and results] [...] As an example, in the study of Jaafari et al. (2018), proximity to settlements...[2 sentences].[8]
The feasibility of NO3- removal by cross-linked chitosangel beads was also investigated by Jaafari et al.( Jaafari et al, 2004; Jaafari et al, 2001 ). Protonated cross-linked chitosan gel beads were prepared (Jaafari et al, 2001) and examined for NO3- removal. [5 more sentences describing multiple studies by Jaafari][9] (no prior collab)
Interestingly, evaluation and validation of the CPM as a method has been more or less absent. One notable exception is provided by Jaafari (1984), who, after reviewing six themes of critique against the CPM, states: [quote][10] (no prior collab)
This sample doesn't include studies where Jaafari was the senior author or where extensive, multi-paper discussion of Jafaari's work doesn't include prose mentions[11], and even excludes other prose mentions of Jaafari that simply restate broad research conclusions, such as In contrast, according to Jaafari et al. (2014) the advantage of the entropic model...[12] and According to Jaafari et al. (2014), land use affects...[13] and In the validation process, accuracy was calculated using the ROC curve, which according to Jaafari et al. is the most popular...[14] and others[15][16][17][18][19]. JoelleJay (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No consensus. (Uninvolved) The !votes are close numbers wise and I agree with Martinp that the closers comments to delete went beyond determing consensus and into a !vote. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 12:56, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Recent discussions

19 November 2025

D1 Denby Darts (closed)

D1 Denby Darts – No consensus, which I will let default to a relist (see WP:DRV#Closing reviews). Feel free to participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D1 Denby Darts (2nd nomination). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Three votes (including nomination) for delete on grounds subject is not notable, one keep vote only stating the article has sources. This is a run of the mill bus service with nothing either in the article or in any sources shared that suggest it might be notable. Orange sticker (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you discuss these (and others) on the closer's talk page before coming here? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no sorry, didn't realise that was a requirement. Orange sticker (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Orange sticker: It's recommended but not required. Left guide (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlet Band (below) were part of a rapid-fire, low-effort mass nomination campaign by a nom who filed at least 16 AfDs for bus companies and routes, all within less than an hour. It is unlikely that any WP:BEFORE was done, as the laconic nomination text suggests. Therefore I, like Doczilla, would not have given any weight to the nomination when assessing P&G-based consensus. This leaves us with one "weak delete" and one Delete, versus one Keep. Barely quorum, and certainly no consensus to delete. Same goes for Scarlet Band. Disclaimer: I was the closer for the July AfD for this page. Owen× ☎ 21:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, would WP:BUNDLE have been an option here? I think I tried to make it clear I did carry out WP:BEFORE on these articles, but I am guilty of copy & pasting some of my votes as the articles and the reasons I found them delete-worthy were so so similar. Orange sticker (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A well-explained bundled nomination would have been much better. I'd still separate the bus companies from the bus routes, though, as different notability criteria might apply to them. As a minimum, people expect the nomination to specify which guidelines were used to assess the sources to determine notability. Owen× ☎ 22:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I don't think we have a full consensus here (and I understand that is not required for a no consensus close, but I think it was nevertheless possible). I see the nom. plus two policy based deletes and a policy based keep, but no in depth look at the sources by anyone. Only the last delete !vote actually called out specific issues with sources, but did not specifically say which source was meant for each point. These were indeed part of a series of nominations that showed no evidence of a WP:BEFORE. A BEFORE is not compulsory, but its lack is a good reason to WP:DISCARD the nom.'s vote. But others in this series have got more discussion and were relisted earlier today. I think another week's listing would allow a fuller consensus to develop, and I don't see why that couldn't be allowed since the deletes : keeps were 3:1, or 2:1 with application of the DISCARD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There's nothing wrong with this close in a horrible discussion, but OwenX's analysis is additionally persuasive here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A reasonable close given the poor quality of the delete votes (1 flooded AfD with likely lack of BEFORE, and 1 only addressed 3/5 sources and ignored the other 2), so effectively its a 1 v 1. Given the AfD flood I would say its more reason to close as NC than continue the feedback loop of poor discussion from an AfD flood by relisting. Jumpytoo Talk 04:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close of No Consensus. After one relist and no consensus, No Consensus is a valid call by the closer. Another relist would have been valid, but not required. Attempting to tease a consensus out might or might not have been valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to buck the trend here and say Overturn to delete - if the sole argument for keeping is "several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid", and then later delete !voters do justify why they are not valid, then that argument is effectively refuted leaving no remaining arguments against deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d agree, except for my long-running observation that Wikipedia-notability doesn’t apply to English bus routes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. There is sufficient clarity in the delete case, and there's enough substance in the discussion for a rough consensus.—Alalch E. 16:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I disagree that the discussion was ready to be closed. A second relist should have been tried first. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Scarlet Band (closed)

Scarlet Band – No consensus, which I will let default to a relist (see WP:DRV#Closing reviews). Feel free to participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlet Band. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

only one keep vote, which only states that the article has sources but does not give reasons why subject is notable. Orange sticker (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - see above. Owen× ☎ 21:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is the keep !vote was as scant as the nomination. The 4 of the 5 sources that aren't dead links were all published within two days of each other, news of the company's closure which comes under WP:CORPTRIV. Is it ok to start a new AfD? Orange sticker (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not before this DRV closes, please. Owen× ☎ 09:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wait for this DRV to close. Also, WP:RENOM advises you to wait for two months, and to use that time to craft a better deletion nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - per above. But note that it is this one where one of the deletes was expressed weakly. I still think relisting for a fuller consensus would be beneficial. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also to note that at least two others in this series were also closed, and I've asked the closer to consider relisting those too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I got the two swapped. Thanks for catching it, Sirfurboy! Owen× ☎ 01:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete A simple check of the article's sources reveals WP:SUSTAINED is failed, therefore the keep argument - a classic WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument - does not hold water. The closer must take the initiative to assess the claims of the participants, not just kick the can down the road by assuming that all claims are of equal validity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion review is not the forum to make arguments that belong in an AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tremendously disagree that this is an "argument that belongs in an AfD". I am pointing out an error in the close itself, not making a deletion argument. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
simple check of the article's sources reveals WP:SUSTAINED is failed is a deletion argument not present in the AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the other bus related article on the same date, per OwenX's reasoning and the fact the discussion was so poor. SportingFlyer T·C 15:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The delete side is a little better than the other bus DRV above (only the noms vote has issues with the lack of BEFORE), but a NC close is reasonable considering the AfD flooding makes it less likely a relist would solicit more discussion Jumpytoo Talk 04:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close of No Consensus. After one relist and no consensus, No Consensus is a valid call by the closer. Another relist would have been valid, but not required. Attempting to tease a consensus out might or might not have been valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete as per my comment above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I disagree that this was ready for closing. A second relist should have been tried first. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 November 2025

Gaza's hunger games – I have listed at RfD per consent of all parties. Star Mississippi 03:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I created Gaza's hunger games and redirected it to Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, where "hunger games" is mentioned in both the WP:LEAD and body. But the redirect was speedily deleted under G10. I'm asking that this be listed at RfD (or AfD) so that consensus can be generated. The redirect in question wasn't directly about any living person, so I don't think WP:BLP applies. WP:G10 says "Redirects from plausible search terms are not eligible under this criterion." The use of the term "hunger games" in relation to Gaza has appeared in many reliable sources:[20][21][22][23]. I appreciate this is a contentious issue, which is why I think it should go through a regular RfD discussion. Courtesy ping to @ERcheck: and @Peaceray:. If the objection is the redirect should be called "Hunger games in Gaza" vs "Gaza's hunger games", then that is also something that can be addressed during RfD. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse G10 but send to RfD as contested I think it's tacky propaganda, but yes, it should get its day at RfD. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Send to RfD. At first blush, the term does come across as rather POV-pushy, so I can't fault the tagger or the speedying admin for their actions. However, the term does appear in the target, well referenced, and not just with the Chris Hedges Substack piece. That doesn't mean it isn't propaganda, just that the POV, if any, is external to WP, and can be covered in a neutral manner here. Whether that's enough to justify the redirect is a question for RfD, not DRV.
@ERcheck and Vice regent: if you both agree, I can close this DRV, and send the page to RfD with a procedural nomination. Owen× ☎ 19:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX - As this is a contentious issue, bringing it to RfD is reasonable. — ERcheck (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Send to RfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Send to RfD. Peaceray (talk) 21:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 November 2025

Eli Lippman – Delete close endorsed. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Thks article's AfD deletion was 2 vs 2 and not a slam dunk.

Also nominator just disrespected the AfD process by asking for an article which fellow editors voted to be kept and questioning the AfD outcome's validity. She did this even though the voting was 3 vs 1 to keep. Note that same nominator was comfortable for this very article Eli Lippman to be deleted even though the votes were 2 vs 2, which was not a "slam dunk". DentistRecommended (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we are "counting" votes (which isn't how consensus is evaluated), the nominator also counts as a delete !vote. Katzrockso (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This appears to be a retributive appeal, meant to settle a score rather than improve the project. On merits, neither of the two Keep !votes claims notability, limiting themselves to only asserting verifiability, which was never in question. This leaves us with three (not "2") valid arguments for deletion vs. zero against it. Owen× ☎ 08:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: The two !votes to keep the article did not actually address the concerns raised by the nominator. The nominator's actions outside of the AFD are not relevant to this discussion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved); the keep !votes merely asserted notabilty, rather than presented policy-based argument. They were correctly discounted by the closing admin. As Chess notes, "the nominator's actions outside of the AFD are not relevant to this discussion", and it is perhaps ironic that, in their own actions outside this DRV, DentistRecommended has not yet given a frank answer to Bridget's concerns vis-à-vis WP:PAID editing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna imperatrix mundi, I'm glad you agree with me, but that's not my name. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess enjoyer, that was very rude of me. Please accept my apologies! —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna imperatrix mundi, don't worry about it. Offense was neither intended nor taken. You gave me a nickname, but it turned out someone already had it. That's all there is to it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - As per OwenX, closer acted reasonably in downgrading the two Keep votes. It would have been helpful, but not required, if the closer had explained that she was downgrading those votes. Deletion Review is a content forum and is not the place for complaints that an editor disrespected the AFD process. Take any such complaint to WP:ANI, or, better yet, don't take it to WP:ANI. Other Stuff Exists is an Argument To Avoid in AFD and is also is or should be an Argument to Avoid in Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The keep !votes fail to adequately explain their reasoning and are of no weight. Local Variable (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Including the nomination, I see 3 reasoned !votes to delete, and two participants who asserted verifiability, not that the subject met GNG. Closer did not need to explain comments that are also refuted in the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Self endorse noting I'll be better about explaining my closes even when it's clear that some are not engaging with the content and information. NB: unfamiliar with the rest of the score settling here an no opinion. Star Mississippi 03:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I won’t even say the close should have explained why, but it is understandable that the newcomer editors who !voted “keep”, poorly, might not get the process. Regarding the DRV nominator, User:DentistRecommended, you have a lot of edits and history, but only a single participation at AfD? With just a little experience with deletions, this AfD should be read as an obvious “delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. As we say, sometimes to the point of overstating and yet we still need to keep pointing this out, it is not a vote. Closer was persuaded by the strength and detail of arguments on one side over the other. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Farshad Dehbozorgi – Reopened and relisted per WP:REOPEN. This AfD is unsuitable for non-admin closing. Owen× ☎ 08:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I'm not seeing how this could be interpreted as a keep, considering the policy-basis of the arguments provided by participants (and specifically in this case, reliable sources needed to demonstrate notability). The first keep vote, by the article creator, cites several sources from the article to claim that it "meets WP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources", but does not address the issues with those very sources that I brought up in my initial statement as the nominator. The two following keep votes vaguely nod to how "independent outlets" or "Independent, reliable sources" show notability. Best, Bridget (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacate NAC 2 vs 3 is not a slam dunk, and there were several good critiques of the proposed sources that went unanswered. I'm fine with a keep from an admin, NC, or relist given the state of the debate as it was when non-administratively closed. I also don't recognize the keep !voters and sniff a whiff of PROMO, but the simplest thing to do would be to vacate the NAC. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other article she nominated for deletion and got deleted was literaly 2 vs 2 and it got deleted. I am just observing from afar and noticing all these inconsistencies. DentistRecommended (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - A second relist is often in order when there is no consensus after one relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir how come the user Bridget did not question the AfD process when the other article she nominated for deletion and got deleted (even though it had 2 vs 2 votes). Suddenly now that it is 3 vs 1 against her choice, she is against the process? It hardly seems consistent and this inconsistency should not stand. DentistRecommended (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How come you did not question the AfD process when the other article you nominated for deletion and got deleted (even though it had 2 vs 2 votes), nobody questioned the AfD process then. Suddenly now that it is 3 vs 1 for keep against your choice, you are against the process? DentistRecommended (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: DRV: Per WP:DRNOT, this request does not identify any procedural or policy error in the AfD closure. The AfD reached a clear 3–1 keep consensus. The requester did not challenge a previous AfD that aligned with their preferred outcome, even though it closed on an even vote, but is contesting this one despite a stronger consensus. This suggests disagreement with the result, not with the process.

I trust the experienced reviewing editors here to assess this matter with the fairness and sound judgment they are known for. DentistRecommended (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 November 2025

PaymoneyWubby – The issue appears to have been resolved, but at any rate there is no consensus or interest to do anything more. Sandstein 10:25, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Last deletion was logged as "copyright infringement" due to a Forbes link, but this was a mistaken rationale. PaymoneyWubby is a Twitch streamer, not copyrighted material. The admin who performed the deletion is no longer available for contact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsal x0 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you aren't referring to Paymoneywubby? It was (re)created and deleted three times, per WP:A7, not copyright violation. Owen× ☎ 21:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:PaymoneyWubby, presumably. I don't think that was a good deletion, but it was six years ago and anyone interested in the topic would be better advised to just start a new draft. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I missed that one. Owen× ☎ 22:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that draft title was indef-salted by a now-deceased admin (which is likely what the appellant is referring to), so I believe this is the right venue to gain consensus for unprotection. In theory, they could create a draft in userspace, but I don't know if that's considered a circumvention of process knowing that the draft title is salted. Left guide (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't notice the salt. That's clearly no longer necessary (assuming it was necessary to begin with), so I've just gone ahead and undone it. This can probably be closed unless the appellant actually wants a copy of the deleted version, which I don't think would be very helpful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for appellant: @Itsal x0: Do you want a copy of the deleted version? Left guide (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would like a copy. Itsal x0 (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 November 2025

Ace Wire Spring & Form Co., Inc. – Speedy endorsed. Filer is blocked for myriad reasons. If any established editor would like this to work on in draft space, feel free to contact me or another admin. We don't need a week more here to establish that's OK. Star Mississippi 19:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The AfD closed as "delete" appears to have misinterpreted consensus and the quality of available sources.

Several delete !votes characterized the article as "LLM slop" with "hallucinated" references. After those comments, multiple, verifiable sources were added or properly cited, including:

a multi-page feature in Inc. magazine (E.O. Welles, "Clipped", Inc., December 1997, pp. 96–109), which was verified via a scan uploaded to archive.org; and
substantial coverage in the books Invention by Design (Petroski, 1996) and Entrepreneurship in Action (Stevenson & Gumpert, 2003), which discuss Ace Wire Spring as a case study in product design and manufacturing.

These are reliable sources with non-trivial discussion of the company, which, taken together, appear to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH for an organization. After these sources were confirmed, some earlier delete rationales (e.g., that the sources were fabricated or trivial) were no longer accurate, but the close still treated the discussion as if there were no significant coverage.

Given the updated sourcing and the presence of multiple keep !votes, a "no consensus" result (or relist) would have been more consistent with the mixed policy-based arguments than a straightforward "delete". I am therefore asking DRV to overturn the delete and either (a) undelete the article for improvement, or (b) allow recreation based on the verified independent sources listed above. Ritchy1125 (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, and allow recreation in draftspace, subject to AfC. The AfD itself was marginal. Several of the arguments for deletion were based on the content rather than on the sourcing. However, the author/appellant's continuing reliance on LLM for both article creation and discussion makes me reluctant to let him work in mainspace at this point. This is required by policy if Ritchy1125 is, in fact, Richard D. Froehlich, the company's owner, making him a UPE. Please note that he has been warned about COI editing a month ago. Owen× ☎ 15:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Editing that will result in financial gain must be disclosed, otherwise it is not possible to take what the nom says at face value. It seems like they are not here to build an encyclopedia given their main focus on possibly promoting their own company. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with recreation as a draft. I'm a bit on the fence whether it should have been outright deleted, but this isn't AFD part two and the closer's judgment was reasonable. If recreated -- again, as a submitted draft not just plopped into mainspace -- it's expected to involve no LLMs and full WP:COI disclosure from any creator. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without recreation in draftspace per the rationale in No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. (Note: I voted to delete on the original AfD, and authored the source assessment table used within it.) Both of these new sources were included in the source assessment table. The Inc article is good, but is borderline acceptable for WP:ORGDEPTH. Invention by Design has a one sentence mention as stated in the source assessment table, and as far as I can tell Entrepreneurship in Action by Stevenson and Gumpert is not a real book and the nominator has yet to provide any evidence that it does exist. Perryprog (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a participant in the previous discussion. The article which previously existed absolutely did not belong in mainspace due to the glaring LLM issues. Multiple sources being hallucinated means the output likely wasn't reviewed, meaning every fact presented in the article had not been verified. Multiple other articles created by this user were WP:BLARed or deleted under WP:G15 and I personally participated in the cleanup that resulted from the LLM use by this user. I strongly suggest that the article creator stop using LLMs on Wikipedia altogether. Lovelyfurball (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 November 2025

Special.̇CSD log/BodhiHarp – The deletion is speedily endorsed. The nominator withdrew. Separately, the character between "l" and "C" is in fact two characters, a period and a "combining dot above" (the "hack" that the DRV nominator refers to), which means that the text "Special.̇" was not a prefix, and so this page was in main space (the namespace consisting of pages without a prefix), and there is complete clarity and consensus in this brief discussion that WP:R2 really did apply. —Alalch E. 17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This is only kind of an R2 redirect. Also, readers may not find this. I'm using a hack to get past the restriction you can't create a page with the prefix Special:. Additionally, .̇ is not easily typable. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 05:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, I had to bend CSD R2 criteria for this page to fit when I saw this page show up on my list of quarry CSD R2 "error" pages. I have never seen a Special page directed to a User page and I have no idea what the purpose of this one is or why we should allow this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Its technically not a special page, as far as the software is concerned. I don't know what symbol ".̇ " even is, but as far as the software is concerned, only the plain old : seperates a namespace prefix from the rest of the page title (which also shows in the fact that you can create it at all, as special pages are not editable in the usual way). We do have a few special pages that (can) redirect to userspace though, like special:MyPage (redirects to userpage or a subpage) Special:MyTalk (redirects to user talk); more at Special:SpecialPages § redirecting special pages (except for the Special:Random variants, AFAIK all pages there have the capability to redirect to userspace under various circumstances) Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, textbook R2 redirect from main to userspace. No bending required. —Cryptic 06:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
indeed. @BodhiHarp: where do you intend to use this? Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confused indeed. While I'd appreciate an explanation to satisfy curiosity, it won't affect the result. Endorse per Cryptic. Local Variable (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and open case against the appellant at AN/I. Between this one and their previous DRV, I get the sense that this user is here primarily to carry out breaching experiments at our expense. This needs to stop now, before we get HELP.̇Unwanted advice/BodhiHarp, MOS.̇My style/BodhiHarp or 420 + 67 (math). Owen× ☎ 14:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX: And that DRV wasn't even the first one. A user pointed out there that that was the "second low value DRV" lodged by this appellant, with one eight days prior apparently being the first, so I believe we're now on #3. Left guide (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the voiced linguolabial lateral approximant, despite not being used in any language, at least comes across as a bona fide attempt to add potentially encyclopedic content, which is not the case with the newer two. Owen× ☎ 16:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not block me. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 16:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop threatening to block me for deletion reviews. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 16:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close this please. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests is the right place to create new special pages. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2025	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2024	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2023	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2022	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2021	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2020	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2019	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2018	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2015	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2013	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec