Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
  4. 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;
  5. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
  6. 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

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. 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.)
  2. 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:
  3. 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);
  4. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  5. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  6. 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);
  7. 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);
  8. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  9. 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

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
 
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
|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=2026 April 17}}</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=2026 April 17}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 April 17|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.

The usage of large language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.

Temporary undeletion

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

Shortcut
  1. An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though it were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
  2. 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.
  3. 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).
  4. 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

===17 April 2026=== Perth Tamil Catholic Community

[[:<PAGE NAME>]]

[[:<PAGE NAME>]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:<PAGE NAME>|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:<PAGE NAME>|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/<PAGE NAME>|links]]|[{{fullurl:<PAGE NAME>|action=watch}} watch]) ([[Special:Undelete/<PAGE NAME>|restore]])

<The page has two references. The page has a reference from it's actual website indicating a good source> TamilDravidian (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC) -->

16 April 2026

Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy

Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted largely because it was felt that the content could be covered in the main article (e.g. from AusLondonder, @Bondegezou, and @Jonesey95). However, I made many additions to the page after people expressed these opinions, which enlarged the page substantially. Now, the (no-longer-extant) page's content cannot and should not be covered on the main page, as it would be undue. However, the deletion carried through anyway on the weight of the earlier (and, at the time, valid) discussion. I now think the article should be restored to reflect its new content and use. Scientelensia (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Overturn specifically to draft. I never saw the updated version and nobody voted based on it. If it's actually good enough for an article, it should pass AFC. If it's not, there might be added info that's worth merging into the base article. Tessaract2 (hello) 23:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Fair enough – this sounds sensible! Scientelensia (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse the clear consensus close. Had the appellant spent the first few days of the AfD adding the sources they did, instead of bludgeoning the discussion and waiting for the last day to add those sources, the result may have been different. However, the article isn't "deleted". It is all there in the page's history, available for the appellant to submit a new draft to AfC. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry, I was busy and didn't have the clairvoyance to know that to would be the last day of discussion (!) – but I see what you mean nonetheless. Scientelensia (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
    "Clairvoyance"? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says: A deletion or merging discussion is normally allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). Instead of arguing with each and every participant who disagrees with you, I suggest spending a few days familiarising yourself with our procedures and practices. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
    Sorry – I apologise. Personal life getting in the way (!) Scientelensia (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Elizabeth Brontë

Elizabeth Brontë (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is a lot of interest about her, and the article was well sourced. The reason for deletion at the time was that people considered her non-notable, but that may just have been from their perspective. As said by @Sweet6970 in the deletion discussion, "She is notable because she was a member of the immediate family of the Brontes. There is enough material to justify a separate article, and there is a significant number of page views." There are several other convincing arguments to keep the article. I would have thought that if people don't care for the subject of the article, they don't have to look at it. Scientelensia (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I also note that the redirect article, Brontë family, barely (if at all) covers the contents of the deleted article. Scientelensia (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The arguments I see on the Keep side are of the ITSIMPORTANT, ITSINTERESTING and an INHERITED/there is a significant number of page views from a now-banned account. Those opining against retention base their arguments on P&G. Timotheus Canens was right to discount the Keeps and reach an ATD consensus to redirect. Owen× ☎ 00:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Endorse, basically per Owen X. I can't see any reasonable close of the discussion that kept a standalone page. The one editor who is now blocked (not banned) wasn't blocked for anything related to the AfD, but her argument wasn't sufficiently policy-based so it doesn't matter either way.
Because the result was redirect, an editor in good standing can always reverse the redirect and recreate the article with new sourcing or anything that might overcome the objection to notability at the AfD, but going through AfC might be better at this junction due to the fact that the AfD was less than a year ago. Katzrockso (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

14 April 2026

File:John F. Kennedy receiving honorary doctorate from Lord Beaverbrook at University of New Brunswick, 1957.jpg

File:John F. Kennedy receiving honorary doctorate from Lord Beaverbrook at University of New Brunswick, 1957.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I am requesting that this file be undeleted since (1) new highly reliable independent secondary sources describing the event as important were located in the meantime, including the JFK Library and a Downey book, and (2) a new article dedicated to the event was created for which the image is now essential.

The book is a dedicated scholarly treatment of the 1957 ceremony and its historical context, published in 2012 by former UNB President James Downey, O.C. The book reproduces Kennedy's 1957 convocation address in full and provides extended commentary on its historical significance. Downey is a Wikipedia-notable figure who served as president of three major Canadian universities (Carleton, UNB, and Waterloo), received the Order of Canada, the Association of Commonwealth Universities' Symons Medal, and the Council of Ontario Universities' David C. Smith Award. He is not a UNB partisan writing institutional promotion — he is an independently credentialed scholar whose papers are held at the University of Waterloo's Special Collections. This source directly and substantively addresses the gap identified by the closing discussion.

The JFK Presidential Library independently archives and publishes the full text of Kennedy's 1957 UNB speech. The Library's decision to preserve and publish this speech as part of Kennedy's documented record constitutes independent institutional recognition of the event's historical significance, entirely separate from UNB sources.

UNB's own institutional history page singles out the 1957 ceremony by name, describing the speech as Kennedy's "now famous" address "Good Fences Make Good Neighbours" — language indicating this is treated as a highlight of the university's history, not a routine footnote.

UNB's student newspaper (Canada's oldest) published a detailed retrospective in 2023 noting that UNB was the first and only Canadian institution to grant Kennedy an honorary degree, and that Beaverbrook publicly declared Kennedy "the next President of the United States" at the ceremony itself — a detail that gives the event retrospective historical resonance beyond the bare fact of a degree being conferred.

Note on NFCC#8: taken together, these sources and the new dedicated article demonstrate that the 1957 ceremony has received dedicated scholarly treatment by a Wikipedia-notable academic, independent archival recognition by a presidential library, and has been identified by multiple sources as uniquely significant in Kennedy's pre-presidential career. The image directly illustrates this sourced, cited content within the university article. Its omission removes the only visual record of a historically documented moment that a credentialed scholar considered significant enough to anchor an entire book around. This satisfies NFCC#8's requirement that non-free content contextually contribute to reader understanding of the specific content it illustrates.

Requested outcome: File undeletion, with restoration to the new article John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick rather than University of New Brunswick. Tinterest (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  • restore Given the nature of the article and the sources listed, I believe a use of the image can be made in John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick that will meet WP:NFCC#8 (note, I'm assuming the image in the article is exactly what I'd expect it to be given the title). Hobit (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    • To be clear, if the article stays, this should be restored. If it gets deleted, I don't think there will be a place where enough context about it to overcome NFCC#8 would be reasonable. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse (I was a participant in the FFD). The closure correctly reflects the consensus in the FFD. Note that the FFD was was about the usage of the image in the article about the University of New Brunswick, and this article did not even exist at that time. -- Whpq (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Restore. The rationale for the deletion of the file no longer applies - though obviously the closure reflects the consensus of the AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the article in question, though upon a quick review, the sourcing in the article didn't convince me of its notability. Follow the result of the AfD - if the article is deleted, keep the file deleted. If the article is kept, restore the file.
My comment was based on AGF on the part of the author of the article. Katzrockso (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse This article has clearly been created solely to force the undeletion of this image and the importance of the image and the subject is clearly overstated. I'm not convinced that this article needs an image other than as decoration. We rightly have strict conditionals for using nom-free media and this is something that we should applaud not look to find run arounds too. Spartaz Humbug! 11:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The appellant is being disingenuous by using the passive voice in, a new article dedicated to the event was created for which the image is now essential. It was the appellant who created this new article, one hour before filing this appeal. I'm not sure why the appellant went to the trouble of writing an article on this wholly insignificant visit of a then-junior Senator to Fredericton, just to force our hand to restore a non-free image. The new article is unlikely to survive an AfD anyway, which will land us right back at where we were two days ago. The appellant already added a mention of the event at University of New Brunswick, which is about as much coverage as it deserves without violating WP:UNDUE. I don't know if the appellant is related to Joe Stone, the photographer who took the 1957 picture, but this pointless crusade has got to stop.
    @Hobit and Katzrockso: I urge you to review the newly created article with a critical mindset, and tell us whether you believe the subject meets our notability criteria, rather than merely justify the existence of the photo. Owen× ☎ 12:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Deletion review evaluates whether the file’s use complies with policy under current conditions, not the motives of editors. WP:NFCC#8 is explicitly context-dependent, and the existence of a sourced standalone article materially changes that context. If there are specific policy-based concerns with the current use, please identify them; otherwise, speculation about intent does not address the NFCC criteria. Tinterest (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
the NFCC is clear that it requires a meaningful context to display a non free image. This is far short of that context. It's decoration and adds nothing to the text Spartaz Humbug! 15:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Tinterest, If you think you can game the system by slyly WP:WIKILAWYERING around our policies, you'll soon find out you are mistaken. The page you hastily created to save the image is not a good faith attempt to build an encyclopedia. It is an underhanded trick to get around our policies, and will be judged as such. Which is a shame, because you clearly have the skill to add valid content to the project, if it weren't for your obsession with this one photo. Owen× ☎ 15:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Independent sources characterize the 1957 ceremony as significant in Kennedy’s pre-presidential career, including coverage by the JFK Library, contemporaneous commentary by Beaverbrook, and later scholarly treatment. That level of sustained, independent coverage is the relevant consideration for contextual significance under WP:NFCC#8. A non-free image "adds to text" when it shows the actual subject/event being discussed, provides primary visual context for a sourced occurrence, or allows readers to recognize or visualize the exact referenced moment. That is sufficient under NFCC and does not require new facts, unique emotion, or extraordinary visual characteristics. This image depicts the specific encyclopedic event described in the article and provides direct visual context for that occurrence, consistent with NFCC#8. The question before this deletion review is whether the file’s current use complies with WP:NFCC#8, which is determined by contextual significance in the article, not by editor intent, assumptions about motivation, or characterizations such as “gaming” or “wikilawyering”. Such labels do not address the policy criteria under discussion. Tinterest (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Deletion review evaluates whether the file’s use complies with policy under current conditions No it does not. Deletion review determines if a deletion properly followed process. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
No. Deletion review is a review of whether a deletion was correctly executed under applicable policy, and that necessarily includes whether the underlying policy basis for deletion—here WP:NFCC#8—was correctly applied to the file’s use in context. Process and substance are not separable in non-free content decisions, because the “process” is the application of NFCC criteria. Tinterest (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have sent the article in which this image is to be used to AfD. Sandstein 16:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
You forgot to link your bogus AfD. Tinterest (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Ha! I was in the midst of writing the nomination myself. I'll add it as a !vote there. Owen× ☎ 16:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Remain deleted, and delete new article. I was the editor who originally added the mention of JFK's convocation visit to the University of New Brunswick article almost three years ago (along with other significant portions of that article). I added it as a passing mention as an interesting historical footnote appropriate for the university's article, but not as a standalone topic because quite frankly it is not notable as such. I support @Sandstein's AfD nomination as per @OwenX and for my own reasons: The visit lacks standalone notability (WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS). I considered it worth mentioning in the parent article but it easily fails holding significant coverage for a standalone article, especially considering almost all sources used in the article are from the student newspaper or deprecated sources copied from when I had previously used them in the main UNB article for my passing mention (such as the Brunswickan source(s) and the Telegraph-Journal archival site which was deprecated almost two years ago and its newspapers transferred to Newspapers.com), just with extra AI-hallucinated fluff added to expand the text. The sources document the event but do not establish that this specific visit is independently notable from UNB's general history. The article appears to be AI-generated, which is behavior that has been attributed to this user multiple times in the past, not only by myself. Duplicate sources, deprecated sources clearly indicating they have been taken from already-existing writing, etc. I raise this concern under general quality standards because we should not endorse creating synthetic content forks simply to host non-free images. It's also clear that this article was created solely to provide a host for the deleted file, which raises heavy concerns about WP:GAME as mentioned above by @OwenX. We shouldn't endorse creating articles for the sole purpose of forcing the undeletion of non-free content under WP:NFCC#8 rather than actually building the encyclopedia. Tinterest's behavior of attempting to reshape the UNB article into how they want it to be is not isolated and I've already made complaints to the user about my concerns in the past. This includes wanting to manipulate historical details and remove text related to its first graduates (as per a historical book published by the university for its anniversary over 75 years ago) based on an abandoned RfC in which they attempted to get UNB included in List of oldest universities in continuous operation, despite opposition to UNB's inclusion. This also includes attempting multiple times to replace the fair-use coat of arms in UNB's infobox with an AI-generated version, apparently due to not being able to reuse the non-free coat of arms in the {{University of New Brunswick}} navigation template (as they had initially attempted months ago). I can appreciate some edits the user has made, such as creating the navigation template in the first place (though initially insisting on including every non-notable topic loosely related to the university for some reason), but based on this type of repeated behavior this seems more to be an instance of single-purpose account focused more on making promotional edits rather than valuing encyclopedic integrity. As a New Brunswicker who is an alumnus of UNB I recognize that not everything related to UNB will hold standalone notability, this is one example of that; I love UNB and hold it dear to my heart but it is not more remarkable than most other Canadian universities and I feel that attempting to game the system with this type of behavior puts more of a bad look than it does good. This is not the first and likely won't be the last time I raise these concerns. Cheers. B3251(talk) 21:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Prior contributions or personal views of UNB are not relevant here; what matters is whether the 1957 JFK convocation has received sufficient independent coverage as a distinct historical event to satisfy WP:NFCC#8, which is the case here. Tinterest (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Which is what I'm discussing. Bringing up past behavior is relevant to bring home the point that you are solely using Wikipedia for the reason that I provided earlier: as an "instance of [a] single-purpose account focused more on making promotional edits rather than valuing encyclopedic integrity". It's not only disruptive behavior but it gives a bad look to editors and viewers interested in looking into UNB quite frankly. B3251(talk) 23:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Per WP:GNG WP:NFCC#8, sourcing depth, independence, & non-triviality matter here.Tinterest (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse the FfD as correct at the time. The new article changes things. Wait, defer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick. If the new article is kept, undelete the image. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: The event is repeatedly documented across multiple independent contexts and meets the criteria of depth of coverage, independence, and non-trivial treatment under WP:GNG. Sources regard it as a distinct narrative episode in Kennedy’s pre-presidential life, with institutional archival preservation, scholarly contextual treatment, and retrospective framing in regional press, rather than as a coffee titbit. That level of sourcing amounts to contextual significance under WP:NFCC#8 too. Tinterest (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse It feels like we are talking to an LLM, and LLM's have no standing at DRV. Jumpytoo Talk 01:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Impressions of style are irrelevant to WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT; sourcing depth/independence are. Tinterest (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
lecturing actually experienced editors on how to interpret the evidence of their own eyes isn't the winning technique you think it is Spartaz Humbug! 14:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Comments on editor experience do not address the content question; notability depends on sourcing depth and independence under WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Tinterest (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
I'm so grateful that you have drawn my attention to two policies I have been using for 20 years Spartaz Humbug! 20:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Policy matters as this is a question of WP:GNG WP:NFCC#8, not commentary on process/style. Tinterest (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Am I too involved to block this user for being disruptive and gaming the system? I have tagged his article as G15 as the very first source was 404 on publication meaning that he hadn’t reviewed the sources his LLM had produced, he has avoided addressing this on the three separate occasions I have asked about this at the AFD. At this point he is just disruptive and timewasting Spartaz Humbug! 23:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
Written and checked manually; sources are verifiable via archive where needed. Link rot does not indicate automated generation or lack of human review. Tinterest (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse Having looked at the new "Article" it is clearly pretexual--whether that amounts to bad faith or not is not our baliwick. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
“Pretext” is not a policy criterion; the relevant question is whether the article’s sourcing provides sufficient independent, non-trivial coverage under WP:GNG and context under WP:NFCC#8. Tinterest (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am not experienced with the guidelines on non-free images, but this seems to be a rabbit hole. It appears that we are being asked to restore an image in order to preserve an article from deletion, but it appears that the image depends on the article and the article depends on the image. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
The article’s notability is established independently under WP:GNG through multiple reliable sources; the image is then evaluated for contextual significance under WP:NFCC#8 within that coverage. Tinterest (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I don't see anything wrong with the FFD closure, and this appeal is too complicated and seems "off". Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
WP:GNG and WP:NFCC#8 apply; perceived complexity is not relevant. Tinterest (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Brad Skistimas

Brad Skistimas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a deletion review because I believe the deletion may have overlooked notability since the page's first deletion on December 24th, 2021. I'm not able to see the deleted page, though I recall adding several new articles since 2021. I'll outline here for review.

Skistimas became more famous and notable after Covid, right around the page's first deletion. He has been a guest on several well-known podcasts since 2021. Most notably, on 07/13/24, Skistimas was a guest on nationally recognized Dr. Drew Pinsky on Ask Dr. Drew: https://metacast.app/podcast/ask-dr-drew/X7ZMhSgi/rock-music-vs-the-establishment-sellouts-w-brad-skistimas-five-times-august-and-update-from-howard/IlZQKvf3. On that link, it reports that Skistimas' songs related to Covid-era regulations hit #1 on Amazon and Apple music charts.

This link, which provides a summary of Skistimas' background before his interview, reports that his single, "Sad Little Man," "hit it big" by reaching #1 on several Amazon and Apple Music charts: https://v13.net/2022/12/five-times-august-brad-skistimas-interview-silent-war-activism-and-future-outlook/.

This link shows it was #13 on iTunes on 11/17/21, above well-known artists like Adele, Post Malone, Taylor Swift, etc.: https://kworb.net/pop/archive/20211117.html.

This link shows that Skistimas' album in 2007 was the first independent album to be distributed at Walmart stores nationwide: https://www.theadvocates.org/libertarian-celebrities/five-times-august/. That link also reports that Skistimas performed at RFK Jr.'s Defeat the Mandates rally in Washington DC on January 23rd, 2023, and also at the 2024 Libertarian National Convention. This link is another citation for the performances: https://lnc2024.com/product/presidential-gala/.

I respectfully request that the deletion be overturned and the article restored, or relisted for a community discussion. Lyricalliberty (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Overturn the G4. The deleted article has already been restored to draft space as Draft:Brad Skistimas. It wasn't a good G4 because of the difference in titles and thus in article subjects. The AFD of Five Times August was never about whether the person was notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

13 April 2026

  • Alex Suarez (musician) – LLM pleadings struck out. We are not going to respond to LLM based arguments. This is old enough you can try and recreate but I guarantee that if you use a LLM to generate your text the redirect will be quickly restored. Spartaz Humbug! 14:19, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alex Suarez (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Restore. Requesting review of redirect of Alex Suarez (musician) to Cobra Starship, closed by Sandstein on 21 May 2022 following AfD nominated by ScottishFinnishRadish on 13 May 2022 (only 4 participants, 8 days). Consensus rested on a single claim — that no significant independent coverage of Suarez existed outside Cobra Starship. This was incorrect at the time and is clearly incorrect now. (1) Cobra Starship notability alone is sufficient: two Billboard Hot 100 top-10 singles (both peaking at #7), four major label albums on Fueled by Ramen/Decaydance, MTV VMA nominations, international touring including opening for Justin Bieber. Suarez was a founding member 2005–2014. (2) Billboard coverage of LEFTI predates the AfD by 7 years: Billboard Dance exclusive feature published December 2015 https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/dance/6804611/lefti-new-single-on-on-prince-terrence-premiere-cobra-starship (3) Substantial independent press coverage since 2019: Dancing Astronaut (multiple features 2019–2024) https://dancingastronaut.com/2023/09/lefti-releases-groovy-house-heater-get-what-you-want/ ; Data Transmission (2023) https://datatransmission.co/music/lefti-releases-get-what-you-want-on-world-sound/ ; EDM.com (2023) https://edm.com/music-releases/underground-vibes-091 ; Magnetic Magazine (2023, 2024); Your EDM (2023); iHouseU (2024); Get It Shared (2023); CULTR (2024). (4) Radio/broadcast: repeated BBC Radio 1 airplay; hosts OCHO Radio Show on SiriusXM via Diplo's Revolution. (5) Industry notability: releases on Toolroom (×5), Nervous Records, Big Beat; official remixes for Atlantic, Warner, Universal, Ultra and Island. (6) Sync placements: Vox Lux (Natalie Portman film), Vanderpump Rules, MacGyver, ESPN, Showtime's Dice, Hulu/W Hotels/SoundCloud ad campaigns. (7) Major label remix commissions (2025): official remix of Lenny Kravitz "Let It Ride" (Atlantic Records, May 2025) https://music.apple.com/in/song/let-it-ride-lefti-remix-radio-edit/1812838825 ; official remix of Khalid "In Plain Sight" (RCA Records, August 2025). Subject clearly meets WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG on multiple independent grounds. Requesting restore to last substantive version (17 May 2022). Signalost (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Endorse unanimous AfD. Four participants is quorum, and eight days is more than the required time for an uncontroversial AfD. I'm not convinced any of the sources cited here by the appellant provides SIGCOV, and listing the various remixes doesn't change things either way. That said, the appellant, who created their account to file this appeal, doesn't need our permission to submit a new draft to AfC, using the article's history as a starting point if desired. Owen× ☎ 23:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Endorse close. No other way to close this. As OwenX notes, the appellant is able to copy the article to a draft and submit through AfC. Katzrockso (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse a quick trawl through the a couple of sources shows that they lack the depth required for GNG and since the bolded text suggests this is LLM generated pleadings, I'm really not minded to extend any benefit of the doubt. Maybe we should speedy close this Spartaz Humbug! 04:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    The appellant's statement, according to LLM detectors, is AI generated. I would have procedurally closed this per your comment and WP:AITALK. Based on the instructions at the top of this page however, I think I'm prohibited from doing so due to not being an administrator. 11WB (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Any redirect can be un-redirected at any time unless it's been protected due to past abuse. You don't need to go through the AfC process, but you DO need to address the AfD reasons in good faith. Since you're listing sources that are explicitly AFTER the redirect was made, that appears to be at least plausible. Again, this is why ATD-R is so beneficial: You don't need anyone's permission or admin tools to go off and un-redirect the article and improve it in the process. Just understand the issues, address them as best you can, and even if it's not good enough for standalone notability at this time, your efforts will still be in the history and the point from which someone else, including you, can improve it further in the future. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    I disagree that “Any redirect can be un-redirected at any time”. Reverting Sandstein’s edit right now would be WP:Disruption. It would be disrespecting the AfD consensus. How long does AfD consensus last? Barring something strongly convincing, by default, I submit that it lasts for six months. If WP:CCC, WP:AfC is the process to use to demonstrate it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe, checking you're aware that the AfD and Sandstein's redirect was nearly 4 years ago? While I am far from convinced the sources are adequate, and share your concern immediately below, I'm thinking this AFD is old enough that @Jclemens is right. Martinp (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    Whoops. I thought it was recent. 4 years is old. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Properly run and closed. Respect the AfD consensus for a minimum of six months, preventing bold recreation or reversal of the redirect, unless drafted and submitted to AfC with a qualified AfC reviewer agreeing that the AfD reason for redirection are overcome. Follow advice at WP:THREE. Sorry, I decline to review the several sources listed here. Use AfC, and limit to three. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. Strong likelihood appeal was written by an LLM (by a new user where this is their only contribution), violating WP:LLMCOMM. Regardless, appellant has been advised of ways forward that do not require DRV, along with some frank commentary about the additional sourcing they (or an LLM) has come up with. Either way, there is nothing to discuss here at DRV. To the appellant: we of course have no idea what's the source of your interest in this topic, but a new account like yours will attract scrutiny in a situation like this, and prior to pursuing this further, I'd advise reviewing WP:COI, WP:LLM, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:REFBOMB. You may well be right on notability of this subject, but given the amount of promotional editing that Wikipedia fights with daily, your path forward will be very thorny unless you carefully navigate these pitfalls in particular. Welcome to Wikipedia! Martinp (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    Technically this is an endorse of the previous (4 year old) close, with no objections against the appellant or anyone else following acceptable policies to improve on the status quo (redirect). Martinp (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 April 2026

Criticism of C++

Criticism of C++ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On the grounds of procedural errors in deletion discussion, primarily that the deletion discussion was poorly formed. The user who proposed it (User:Birthay boy) made virtually minimal attempt to improve the page and no attempt to allow other users time to either fix the article or even request for help through the talk page. Various tags were added around the beginning of March (hardly sufficient time, especially as per WP:DINC: Maintenance tags may linger unaddressed for years, especially on low-traffic pages.) No attempt to request for specific groups, such as through WP:WikiProject (perhaps the most reasonable avenue to do so). The page was merely nominated shortly after I had pushed back on some of the tags that were added, while making an effort myself to improve the page, all while User:Birthay boy had apparently forsaken any attempt to fix the article themselves. Even during the process of discussion, User:Birthay boy seemed to express disapproval at efforts made by myself to improve the article's quality, describing them as "cosmetic surgery". It is definitely a failure to adhere to WP:BEFORE.

Additionally, I feel that the arguments made in favor of redirecting were justified only on the basis that the pages supposedly violated WP:SYNTH, which applied only to a select few parts of the article while parts of the article which lacked sources entirely were gradually removed. Meanwhile, very little was done to represent the side of the arguments in favor of preserving the article, only a remark about one response attempting to rebut 8-9 different things at once (with little analysis or consideration given to these rebuttals in the closing statement). ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I will add that both the nominator and the appellant bludgeoned the AfD. I chose not to mention this in the closing statement as that would violate WP:FOC. I believe my close was fair and represented the discussion that took place. 11WB (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
I apologize for calling it "snide" and have suppressed that from my deletion review, but I will comment that my complaint was not that no time was given to improve the article before closure of AfD, but that no time was given by the nominator to allow gradual improvements to be made to the article before they nominated it for deletion. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
DRV will not be able to do anything about that. As I've already said, this is a matter for a conduct board. DRV is to assess the close. 11WB (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Overturn to no consensus. The keep vote's appeal to ATD-E, which is policy, went unrebutted and is a powerful argument against all of the redirect votes. No issue was presented that wouldn't have been resolved by stubification, which is what should be done.
WP:DEL-REASON even states that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page. Katzrockso (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
I find this quite baffling in all honesty. Whilst it's well known we don't count !votes, closing as keep would mean multiple editors (including the nom) get vetoed. That would go against WP:CONSENSUS entirely. The chosen alternative was WP:ATD-R. 11WB (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • endorse This couldn't be closed any other way. Possibly a relist might have helped but with the blugeoning and walls of oddly bolded text from the temp user I can't see how any sensible user would want to get involved. The ATD argument fails to address how awful an article this was. Spartaz Humbug! 12:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

    walls of oddly bolded text from the temp user

    What are you talking about? ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    Usually it means AI has been used to generate the comments but you do you. Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    If these wild allegations of alleged LLM usage are based on the sole "evidence" that I left long comments and used Template:Talk quote inline to quote verbatim text, then I am the Emperor of China. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    your imperial majesty. Spartaz Humbug! 14:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    Per WP:LLM: The imposition of sanctions requires evidence beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications.
    If you think your wild allegations will bear any fruit, then as Emperor, we encourage you to find some more damning evidence, pal. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
    pal? That's an escalation Spartaz Humbug! 11:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Good heavens, not the p-word, anything but that! But casually accusing or implying others are writing their comments with LLMs? Not an escalation at all, right? ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    @~2026-21314-14, for the second time today. These sarcastic replies are not helpful to the DRV, and only serve to disrupt the process. Please stop. 11WB (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'd be happy to oblige, but let the record show that I was not the first to make sarcastic comments in this back-and-forth. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    FWIW, I don't see any evidence of LLM usage in that discussion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Exactly that. 11WB (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    The green highlighted text that is. I assume anyway. 11WB (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    Which comes from Template:Talk quote inline, which in turn is used to, and I quote, to highlight a short excerpt of quoted material of other editors' comments or from an article or source. There it is again. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    These smart alec comments really aren't helpful @~2026-21314-14. 11WB (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm merely explaining myself. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse: There was no procedural error. There is no requirement to wait before nominating an article in the hopes that someone else will find the article and resolve the issues. Three participants agreed with the nominator that the article was unsalvageable even after the appellant tried to improve the page, while nobody else agreed with the appellant that the text could be fixed ("procedural keep" notwithstanding). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse There was a rough consensus that the article in such a state that attempting to WP:ATD-E would need a fundamental rewrite and thus redirection was a better choice of editor time. Jumpytoo Talk 19:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment as participant: since the decision was to redirect, rather than to delete, I don't see the need for this rigmarole. Anyone who wants to turn the redirect back into an article, with improved text, will be able to do so. First, if you don't yet have one, register an account, which will make lots of things more convenient. Second, write a new version of the article as a draft in your userspace. Third, paste the contents of that draft where the redirect is now. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. (I would advise working on a few other, smaller tasks first, to soak up the vibes and get a feel for how to write in a more encyclopedic and less bloggy way. Instead of gathering criticisms directly yourself, find sources like books that have already done so, and use them to guide your hand. And, well, write happy, not angry.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    Anyone who wants to turn the redirect back into an article, with improved text, will be able to do so. Only if the new writing is good enough that no one thinks it should be deleted. If someone thinks it's as bad as the previous article, it'll just get reverted, linking to the recent AFD close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    I suppose I should have said "with sufficiently improved text". :-) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, this is the way forward: Write an article that doesn't suck, basing it off of the redirected text to the extent that it's helpful, and communicating with the other editors who thought the last version sucked to reach a consensus that the notional new version would be worth un-redirecting. This is why ATD-R is a thing: you don't need us or any admin whatsoever to do this. Oh, so Endorse the close as well. Jclemens (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - I see a statement in the AFD that the nomination reads like the introduction to a WP:ANI thread. Yes, but it reads like the introduction to a WP:ANI thread where other, more experienced editors would say, "Content dispute - Take to AFD" Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Relist - Let other editors provide more of the discussion. I think that Redirect is probably the right result, but the discussion was overly dominated by two editors. If the nominator and the appellant continue bludgeoning the discussion in the relisting, they should be partially blocked from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse. This was an inappropriate NAC, since the close did not appear to be non-controversial. I do see a very rough consensus to redirect once I go beyond all of the bludgeoning by multiple parties, so the end-result is probably correct. I am also okay with a relist to allow for further discussion. Frank Anchor 12:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Relist. A discussion with not many, but very verbose voices, bordering on bludgeoning. An NAC close bordering on being more of an !vote than a close. I'm not doubting anyone's good intentions and passion, and the ultimate conclusion may indeed be the Right Answer, but this would benefit from more voices, more concise communication, and an admin close. Martinp (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    Why do you think my closing statement was "more of a !vote than a close"? 11WB (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    I wrote "bordering on being more of a !vote" and I mean that: I am uncertain which it is. The 1st 3 sentences of your close would be an excellent !vote. So would the first half of the last sentence. Net-net, it sounds awfully close to you having an opinion what argument is right and what argument is wrong, rather than dispassionately judging consensus. Now, it is a grey zone, since we ask diviners of consensus to not count votes, but weigh consensus with attention to how closely opinions are grounded in policy. So I am not saying your close was wrong, or biased, or anything bad. But if that is the level of judgment required to effect a close, it is not a good candidate for an NAC close, since it is not going to be uncontroversial. As is indeed apparently the case here. Martinp (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
    I was summarising the discussion, which is what a closer is supposed to do, especially in those such as this. I disagree with your view, as I didn't give my own opinion in the closing statement in any way. 11WB (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse, noting that I was a participant. I count 3 !votes to redirect, 1 to keep, and 1 procedural keep. I believe it was within the closer's discretion to discount the procedural keep, since those have force in circumstances where neither the nominator nor anyone else has raised a valid deletion rationale, or if the page has been kept at AfD recently already, or if the nomination is blatantly disruptive editing... generally, due to issues with the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page itself, per Wikipedia:Deletion process. In this case, the merits of the page were discussed. I do not think an editor with 13k edits of experience should be required, or even encouraged, to avoid closing discussions just because they lack the admin bit. And, looking at the walls of text in the AfD, one would not be surprised to see it brought to DRV even if an admin had closed it. So, I find no fault with the procedure followed here. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Endorse. Correct close. This DRV retrospectively demonstrates that the discussion was contentious and the nonadmin closer should note this, and try not to let it happen frequently. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
This isn't so much contentious as simply subject to an argumentative participant Spartaz Humbug! 11:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
The only "argumentative" participant here is the one going around spreading unfounded rumors of LLM usage and then tried to play the victim after a word was used sarcastically (not before having made sarcastic comments of their own). ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Im guilty as charged but I wasn't a participant in the AFD. Maybe look for the beam in your eye rather than the speck in someone else's ? Spartaz Humbug! 15:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
I do find it strange that you single me out as the singular "argumentative participant" in that AFD discussion. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-21314-14, they didn't actually name you as being argumentative. They could have meant the nominator, or even me. It would be a good idea for you to read WP:FOC, as arguing with an administrator is generally a very bad idea. 11WB (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

10 April 2026

Template:Abraham

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

I believe the closing reasoning did not accurately summarize the side arguing in favor of keeping the article.

The closer dismissed the arguments as simply violating WP:OTHER and not making any other arguments, both of which I believe are incorrect.

First, I am well aware of WP:OTHER, which is why I made sure I followed from within that rule While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case. and I made comparisons to featured articles.

Second, there were indeed other arguments being made. These included the usefulness of being directed to multiple articles, understanding the subject better, or that discussions over the usefulness of sidebars should belong in a separate place. These arguments were not addressed in the closing.

In short, a closing to an RfC should fairly summarize the consensus and the arguments put forth, and I believe this did not happen accurately here. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Endorse. Closer evaluated consensus correctly. More generally, this argument is weak. Of course there are navboxes on FAs / GAs but this is really not that useful a point as the whole question is which navboxes make sense. Some topics meeting the bar doesn't mean other topics also meet the bar. The concerns of duplicativeness seem very valid - navbox spam is a problem. SnowFire (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)
    Of course there are navboxes on FAs / GAs but this is really not that useful a point as the whole question is which navboxes make sense. Some topics meeting the bar doesn't mean other topics also meet the bar. I made the comparison as I don't see any criteria under which these other articles would have needed the navbox but this wouldn't.
    Only one person argued otherwise, and they said the other articles had related articles (for example for Genghis Khan the articles Wives of Genghis Khan or Burial place of Genghis Khan) and that this one didn't: which is false, as I showed them multiple ones that were relevant (like Abraham's family tree, Abraham and Lot's conflict, and Abraham and the Idol Shop).
    Other than that (I believe wrong) argument, I think no reasonable difference was shown between the one deleted and the FA ones.
    Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC 1) 3 of last 4 !votes are to keep, including 2 of 3 after relisting. Trend is to keep. 2) Reasoning is not sufficiently lopsided to deride all the keeps as OSE. "Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE." is a textbook WP:VAGUEWAVE and we have one PERNOM: the Delete side is not a shining beacon of anything here. Overall, I don't see a consensus, nor that deletion is within admin closer discretion--and this was a NAC. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn to No Consensus. Both Keep and Delete are weak, so there is no consensus based on strength of arguments, and there is no consensus based on counting votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
Endorse, as participant. All of the keep votes were "well, other sidebars exist". PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
So, since you're here... I didn't particularly see your argument as being that much better, just arguing that Abraham is a too-broad topic for such. Entirely possibly correct, but not particularly compelling from a policy standpoint, is it? Or am I missing something? Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Our policy for sidebar templates is based largely on the appropriateness of the topic. If the topic and the entries are not "tightly related" per WP:SIDEBAR we should not have it. Further, what's the policy based argument for keeping it? None has been supplied and it does not seem to fit the majority of the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
Endorse (as closer). The only !votes to keep amounted to the literally definition of WP:OTHER with comments like The merits of this sidebar seem indistinguishable from those of Template:Moses. User is unhappy things didn't go their way and I will note first tried to take this to WP:ANI with this post in a bizarre attempt to have me sanctioned for my closure. Additionally Wikieditor662's claims about featured articles or good articles have nothing at all to do with this template. We are not discussing articles, but a tempalte. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree that the example you made was a violation of WP:OTHER, but I think it was the only one that did so. Any other examples would be appreciated.
Also, @Zackmann08 taking this to WP:AN was not an attempt to have you sanctioned; it was a mistake, as I thought you request the undeletion there, as I made a previous RfC overturn request there.
And the articles shown were examples that contained these templates. Since FA articles are role models, such templates would not have been contained there if they needed to have been deleted.
Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Oh please, they first tried to discuss it with you at your talk page, where you replied I stand by my decision but you are more than welcome to request a review, and then, when asked to elaborate on your reasoning, you came back with I think my closure summary explains my reasoning very clearly. If you disagree, that is totally fine and you are more than welcome to request a deletion review. They literally did exactly what you told them to do, and the fact that they initially did it at the wrong venue hardly makes it a bizarre attempt to have [you] sanctioned. XAM2175 (T) 23:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
  • overturn to NC. I believe the right way forward is to open a discussion about sidebars. In any case the arguments for deletion were basically "this template is overused" (which I think is true). The closer argues that arguments which point out that other, similar, templates exist are a WP:OTHER violation and should be ignored. But this is a about a template, not something where guidelines like WP:N exist. I'd argue this is closer to WP:OTHERCATSEXIST, a question of consistency of formatting and organization. So such arguments *are* quite relevant. In any case, I don't see consensus to delete and I don't think we quite get to keep. So... Hobit (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Brad Skistimas (closed)

More information The following reply has been added after the discussion was closed: ...
  • Brad Skistimas – Procedurally closed per WP:AITALK, without prejudice against a speedy, human-written re-appeal. Owen× ☎ 20:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Brad Skistimas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject meets the Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG) through multiple instances of significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Billboard provides industry-recognized coverage of the artist, including discussion of commercial performance and independent success: https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/five-times-august-1046687/. CBS News offers mainstream editorial coverage of the subject’s career, including exposure through placements on major television programs, representing non-trivial independent discussion: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/second-cup-cafe-five-times-august-21-03-2008/. Additionally, PopMatters published a full-length critical review of the artist’s album, providing substantive analysis of the subject’s work and positioning within the music landscape: https://www.popmatters.com/five-times-august-brighter-side-2496171118.html. Further independent coverage is provided by the Dallas Observer, which discusses the subject’s media presence and music career: https://www.dallasobserver.com/uncategorized/five-times-august-pops-up-on-the-real-world-which-is-far-less-of-a-big-deal-than-it-sounds-7078905. These sources are independent of the subject, editorial in nature, and provide more than trivial mention, collectively satisfying WP:GNG. The prior deletion appears to have undervalued the depth and diversity of available sourcing. Given the presence of multiple reliable, independent sources with substantive coverage, restoration or draftification for improvement seems consistent with Wikipedia policy. Additional sourcing can also be incorporated to further strengthen the article if restored to draft space. Lyricalliberty (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Deleting admin's comment: I G4'd this page responding to an applicable good faith tag by wikipedian User:KH-1. This subject was discussed at AfD in 2021 and these presented (2008-09 era) sources were available at that time, but were neither included in the article nor mentioned at the AfD. I'm not persuaded anything presented so far puts this subject past WP:NBAND or WP:NALBUM. Given Brad Skistimas was originally created and built exclusively by single purpose (and likely connected) accounts then later unanimously deleted at AfD, I'm not convinced my G4 deletion was the wrong call. I might change my mind, but I'd need to see much better sourcing. BusterD (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse LLMs have no standing at DRV. Jumpytoo Talk 20:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Close

Recent discussions

7 April 2026

  • Template:Ursula K. Le Guin Prize – The decision to delete has been endorsed. Wikipedia is not a democracy. (non-admin closure) CNC (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC) CNC (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Ursula K. Le Guin Prize (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Disagree with the closer's decision on consensus. The closer noted that consensus stated "delete". However, two users (including myself) were in favor of keeping the template citing WP:EXISTING, while two voted in favor of deletion, citing WP:NENAN. In my opinion this should have been closed as "no consensus" or should have been relisted for further discussion. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

two voted in favor of deletion - I see three calling for deletion: Woodensuperman, Gonnym and Pppery. Which of them are you suggesting we discard? Owen× ☎ 16:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
I apologize - I had failed to count the original nominator and you are correct that the final tally was 3-2. That being said, even a 3-2 (or 2-3, had the discussion gone the other way) vote seems not to be enough to state that consensus was reached. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY seems relevant. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The appellant is right in citing WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Neither of the two Keeps makes a convincing argument. Whether winners are notable or not, a navigation template is there to serve a navigational purpose, and this one didn't. I don't see how it currently satisfies WP:EXISTING, but am in favour of recreating it if and when additional articles are linked. Owen× ☎ 17:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I would have relisted if I was the one closing but I believe this outcome to be within the realm of discretion. As Owen said it's 3-2 so a majority for deletion with a lot of prescedence for similar deletions. I am however concerned about Zackmann not responding to the concern here at all when raised at User_talk:Zackmann08#Request_clarification_-_Template:Ursula_K._Le_Guin_Prize and ditto for my own section User talk:Zackmann08#Template:Abraham. I expect any closer to be ready to answer reasonable questions about their closes like this. Trialpears (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    Agreed. WP:ADMINACCT also applies to any editor acting in this capacity, including non-admin XfD closers. Owen× ☎ 18:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Trialpears, OwenX, and Michelangelo1992: Apologies to all. I have been VERY busy off wiki with work and kept forgetting to respond when I was here... Owen you are 100% correct that ADMINACCT applies here and I did not mean by my inaction to imply otherwise. I will be better about promptly responding to these queries in the future. Again, please accept my apologies.
    For the matter at hand, I do stand by my decision to close for the reasons already stated, but obviously bow to consensus if it is to overturn my decision. I frankly don't have a horse in this race so don't have a particularly strong opinion on the mater. Simply put, I felt it was clear that the !votes to delete were better argued and stated than those to keep. But that was just my opinion as a frequent participant at TFD. Again, I have zero objection to consensus yielding a different result. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse as the correct outcome. There are only 4 winners listed at Ursula K. Le Guin Prize, not enough need and not defining enough for each of the honored books to be defined by it. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    There are only 4 winners because the prize is only 4 years old. However the prize itself is a notable prize and the winners of it are all notable works. I understand that 4 isn't a huge number of navigation elements but that is going to grow at a rate of 1 per year for the lifetime of the prize. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a valid close either by counting votes or by weighing strength of arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The reliance on WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is misplaced in this context. That principle cuts against a purely numerical framing, not against a closer recognising where the weight of policy-based reasoning sits. On the available evidence, the template does not presently satisfy WP:EXISTING. The suggestion that this should default to “no consensus” sets the bar unrealistically high and risks paralysing other routine closures. StephenPortmore (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    — StephenPortmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. User:Bsherr !voted too weak, and no one else agreed with you. WP:NENAN is not just an essay. It need not be official policy to enjoy consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 April 2026

  • Occupation of Palestine – Relisted. Opinion is split between relisting the AfD and vacating it entirely. Given that we do not have consensus on how to proceed, I'm exercising my discretion to relist the AfD. I find the view that the opinions by good-faith editors should not be discarded entirely more persuasive. Additionally, I note that WikiMacaroons as a non-admin should not have closed this AfD, given its non-obvious outcome and the contentious topic area. Sandstein 05:32, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Occupation of Palestine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Nomination was made by sock Hassan697. Arguments for deletion of this disambiguation (from sock), and for redirect cite surmountable problems without addressing the need to disambiguate, so I don't believe there was a consensus established in the discussion. Bringing this here rather than boldly re-creating, sans-problems, given the subject area; there are several issues at play here and I don't want to run in circles, but if there's a better forum for this, I can take it there —BrechtBro (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Restore and relist. There is a rough consensus there, but without the nom, it's even rougher and there's no harm in a restoration and relist. No issue with the close, the nominator was not locked until after the discussion had closed. Star Mississippi 01:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    I don't fully understand the actions needed for @SmokeyJoe's proposal (would it be G6?)but agree with that outcome as well. I'm good with any process that results in this outcome not standing unless it's ultimately endorsed by established editors as correct. Star Mississippi 12:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    G6 abuse? Absolutely not.
    I would reclose “Procedurely closed; the nominator was a SOCK”. And strike all words from the SOCK.
    The discussion can’t be relisted becuase there is no nomination. However, any editor in good standing may renominate. They may even repeat the SOCK’s wording. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    I don't delete AfDs unless they were unsalvageably malformed, but I know some do. That's why I asked.
    Striking mine as your outcome makes it cleaner IMO @SmokeyJoe. TY
    So vacate and reclose as procedural keep. Any established (and assuming EC given subject matter) editor can revisit the subject should they wish. Star Mississippi 13:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Relist - DRV Purpose 3 defines the participation of sockpuppets as a procedural error, through no fault of the closer. There was no longer a rough consensus for the redirect. A relist seems better than trying to tease out a result. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Relist - Agree with @Robert McClenon. Attempting to salvage or reinterpret the outcome risks attributing weight to a tainted process. A relist provides the cleanest remedy, allowing the question to be considered afresh by editors in good standing without importing defects from the prior AfD.
    StephenPortmore (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    — StephenPortmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC and optionally start a new AFD. There was not clear consensus to redirect even with the now blocked user's nomination statement, such that the non-admin close was likely not appropriate. Also okay with a relist as my second choice, but starting fresh seems more ideal than reopening a now-tainted discussion from almost three months ago. Frank Anchor 13:31, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn as tainted. Do not rush to relist or start a new AfD. The SOCK nominator’s rational must not be entertained. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
    Every !vote made on a face value reading of the SOCK’s nomination is tainted by the SOCK. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that what SmokeyJoe means is to vacate the AFD itself as never properly opened, not to overturn or vacate the close. I think that would restore the set-index article and close the AFD as not having been properly opened (because the nominator was not a user in good standing). Is that what SmokeyJoe means? If so, I may change my recommendation to that, with the relist as a second choice, but I want to be sure that we agree first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yes. Not properly opened, in hindsight. The SOCK did not have standing. Treat it as invalid. Vacate. Annul.
    Don’t relist because that leaves the SOCK’s nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Vacate per SmokeyJoe. We can't reward sockpuppets by continuing/relisting the AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Relist, EC-protect the AfD per ARBPIA, and let an admin close this contentious debate. After discarding the sock nom, I see no consensus there. I don't subscribe to punishing the project to spite a sock. There were five established editors who participated in the discussion in good faith, three of whom argued for a redirect. Whether relisting "rewards" the sock or not isn't my concern. I also don't believe having one participant exposed as a sock taints the entire discussion, but am not opposed to overturning to N/C and starting a new AfD, per Frank Anchor. Owen× ☎ 11:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    The nominator is not just “one participant”.
    The discussion is tainted. I don’t see any value in judging the discussion, even as “no consensus”. I don’t agree it can be correctly closed “no consensus”. We need to ask the three redirect !voters, User:Place Clichy, User:Iljhgtn (who likes to be pinged) and User:ScottyNolan, whether they were unduly swayed by the SOCK. And User:Kelob2678 and User:Amakuru because, ping all or none.
    If closed as tainted, allow immediate renomination by any editor in good standing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    I have no problem with pinging all past participants, although I do expect !voters at an XfD to keep it on their watchlist at least briefly after it is closed, so as to notice a DRV or a WP:REOPEN relisting for it. What I do have a problem with is discarding valid !votes of five good-faith participants just because a sixth one turned out to be a sock. The three Redirect !votes come from experienced editors, and none of them is a mere "per nom". Each of them provided a valid rationale that had little to do with the now-discredited nom. You are essentially calling for a Speedy Keep close per WP:CSK#4, despite the fact that subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's blocked or banned status was discovered. We have a specific guideline to deal with this situation. I see no need make an exception here. Owen× ☎ 13:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    I think we are in near agreement.
    I don’t agree with you expectation that others will watchlist and monitor it; WP:watchlistitis is a thing that many good editors avoid. Given that none of the participants have posted here, I think pinging was a good idea.
    I do not support the words “speedy keep”, and I agree that there appear to be three strong “redirect” !votes. Nevertheless, I think the SOCK’s nomination should be struck, and the discussion renominated, not relisted. Expunging the SOCK nomination from apparent successful influence is more important than the prompt resolution of keep/redirect for “Occupation of Palestine”. The three “redirect” !votes are strong, but so are the two “keep” !votes, and with the nomination struck, I don’t think that any of “redirect”, “no consensus” or “keep” would be correct closes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
    I appreciate the ping, thanks. Indeed a watchlist mention is easy to miss, especially when you have 10K+ entries on your watchlist or do not log into WP every day. Place Clichy (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Vacate We don't generally want to see sock puppetry rewarded. If another editor who is not a sock puppet wants to start a new AfD they can do so. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse although not entirely opposed to a new discussion. The arguments for keeping this DAB/SIA as it stood before this discussion are in fact pretty weak. If we look at the AfD discussion discarding the sock's comment, there are keep opinions (2) and redirect opinions (3), the latter being IMHO much stronger. Especially, the mentions of WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY are valid reasons to exclude nearly all entries from what was in fact a SIA. The keepers failed to convince that any entry could be properly described as an occupation of Palestine, or an expected disambiguation result of this term. Also, the sock's original nomination is not rewarded by the decision, which was to redirect and not to delete. Relist or start new AFD if overturned. Place Clichy (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Relist as Owen points out the subsequent delete-based votes in the AfD invalidates a speedy keep / procedural close per guidelines; also SOCKCLOSE doesn't suggest it, but instead that remove/revert isn't the way here. CNC (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Adam Lanza – Procedural close. This seems an extension of an argument from a confirmed sockpuppet on an account created purely to raise the DRV. Not doing that either. Any DRV requires an established user in good standing. Spartaz Humbug! 18:06, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adam Lanza (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per my previous nomination the AFD had a lot of misinterpretation of policy and wasn't over. There still wasn't a clear consensus and despite the sock edits it doesn't make sense how it was a "consensus" to keep when in reality it wasn't. Blackberrybrickbreaker (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC) -->

The consensus was clear to me. I agree with the closing.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
The afd was 110% still going on and people were starting to vote delete. The keep arguments are flawed and you don't acknowledge WP:PERPETRATOR and other policy's when you say to keep the article.
Either way though there was NOT CONENSUS for keeping the article. I am tired of your WP:BLUDGEONING. Blackberrybrickbreaker (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep !voters did, in fact, adequately outline WP:PERP compliance. I don't see any flaws in interpreting consensus. As an entirely uninvolved party I think this decision should be upheld. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Most of the Delete !votes seem to be based on rationale that has little to do with P&G, and were correctly discounted by the closer. If this is, indeed a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, then a redirect would be how we normally deal with it. Calling for deletion (or even SALTing) rather than the obvious redir or merge suggests that the motives behind some of those votes were perhaps emotional rather than encyclopedic. On the flip side, some of the Keeps also strike me as odd. WP:2MONTHS is an essay about renomination, not a valid retention criterion. But considering the early renomination, I find it fitting to include the views expressed in the first AfD in determining consensus in the second one, landing us even more firmly in Keep territory.
    I'm not sure what 110% still going on means. The AfD was closed 7 days, 16 hours and 20 minutes after it was opened. That is indeed 110% of the seven days required by policy. The appellant, whose account was created for the purpose this appeal after their previous attempt yesterday was procedurally closed, would be well advised to tone down their rhetoric, both here and at other venues. A civilized, well-thought-out merge proposal, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than on pure notability, may be the most productive way forward here, but frankly, I have trouble seeing this fly-by-night account going through the process. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'll make a merge proposal in 3 months. This account is scheduled for deletion by wiki anyway so it won't be on this account Blackberrybrickbreaker (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
    until July, I'll be back. but for now, I'm going to stay off this site.Blackberrybrickbreaker (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Closer here. To elaborate a little on a few lines of thinking: the argument that a page about a shooter is to be suppressed because it may inspire others carries no weight. Policy and longstanding precedent support NOTCENSORED. "It's not notable" also carries little weight without further elaboration, when there is an article of 3000+ words and 100+ sources: those argument would need to show why the listed sources do not require a standalone page. Finally, a reminder that ONEEVENT arguments must engage with the quantum of coverage, not simply the rationale for notability. ONEEVENT does not mandate deletion of subjects notable for a single event; it mandates considering whether the material is sufficiently covered by an article about the event, allowing for the possibility that it might not be. The arguments based on redundancy I gave full weight to, but they did not have enough support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 April 2026

  • Adam Lanza – If you want to submit a DRV please log into your account and do it that way. I note that the afd was plagued by socking and we won't be encouraging that now Spartaz Humbug! 04:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adam Lanza (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was still going and consensus was shifting. The closer didn't take into account that there was a change in votes later on. ~2026-21089-04 (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC) -->

  • Procedural Close - In my opinion, an AFD that was seriously corrupted by sockpuppetry should not be deletion reviewed on the request of an unregistered editor. I fully expect some established editor to say that we at DRV have always given unregistered editors the same recognition at DRV that we give to registered editors. I know that, and I respectfully disagree. I think that should give limited standing to unregistered editors, neither no standing nor full standing. I think that a registered editor may be able to make a case for a Relist, but I won't consider that request by this appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 April 2026

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kinney Zalesne (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have reviewed the critique of Kinney Zalesne's Wikipedia Page. Below is a revised proposal that is a more straightforward account of her public positions and contributions. All sources are notable, including independent profiles of Zalesne in The Philadelphia Inquirer, Washingtonian, and Jewish Insider. Zalesne has also been regularly quoted and published in The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, Politico, The New York Times, and elsewhere. Currently, she is a candidate for Congress and has received major national and local endorsements.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-20505-58 (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)


The draft has been moved to Draft:Kinney Zalesne. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Allow Submission of Draft for Review - The title has not been salted, and DRV is not the place for review of a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have moved the draft to draft space because it was causes problems. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse the AfD close as “redirect”, and endorse the draftification already done, which is consistent with the AfD. Interesting that it was a fourteen-years stable article, I guess obscure, and owned by Kzalesne (talk · contribs), I guess the subject, editing in gross violation of WP:COI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I think this is an attribution failure. Please history merge the article behind the redirect with the new draft written into this DRV page before it was cut and pasted to the new draft page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I think that the history merge is unnecessary, because the draft has been tagged for G15 due to hallucinated references.
I admit that I did a copy-paste in the middle of the night, New York time. The inclusion of a draft with level 1 headings made the rest of Deletion Review invisible. Maybe I should have waited for someone else. I did figure out what the breakage had been. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - The reason that this was a fourteen-years obscure stable article and was then taken to AFD about six months ago is that she became a candidate for the United States House of Representatives about six months ago and the nominator noticed that she was the subject of an article but did not meet general notability. Two other candidates had articles and already met political notability. Sometimes obscure articles about non-notable living persons are not noticed because they are obscure. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - The draft has been tagged for G15 speedy deletion because it has hallucinated references. If a history merge has not yet been done, it would be a waste of time. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    I've acted on the G15 CSD nomination of Draft:Kinney Zalesne. The content exhibited clear signs of unreviewed LLM creation. Sandstein 06:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 April 2026

International Centre for Human Rights

International Centre for Human Rights (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was first nominated for deletion last month and kept. I found not a single source presented at the AfD met WP:GNG and did a detailed analysis of every source, pinged all the participants, and then repeatedly asked the keep !voters, but none could find even a single source. With permission from 3 different admins (Sandstein, Rosguill, Star Mississippi), I started a new AfD only a month after the previous one. All the keep !votes referred back to Boud !vote either directly or indirectly; Boud did present the same sources from the first AfD again and it was pointed out by Butterscotch_Beluga that none of them met SIGCOV. Boud said that WP:SIGCOV "may not be strictly needed in all cases", while both Butterscotch and me argued that SIGCOV is an absolute must to establish notability. I really, really expected the closer to weigh in on this point, but they didn't.

Now, both Spartaz and Sandstein pointed out that I made my source analysis on the talk page and not on the AfD. I accept my mistake. But Butterscotch did present an analysis of the sources in the AfD and most responders in the AfD appear to be aware of the talk page discussion. At the very least, this AfD outcome should be re-opened, allowing me to move my analysis into the AfD; I also note that the close happened a mere 4 hours after the last !vote. VR (Please ping on reply) 16:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Involved admin comment Just noting @Vice regent's assessment of my permission is correct. I was an initial closer of the first AfD and reopened per User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_26#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Centre_for_Human_Rights. I believe all participants and closers of the myriad discussions have been doing the best they can and are absolutely editing in good faith, but support this DRV for resolution which is still needed. I have neither the interest nor on wiki time to further look into the subject's notability. Star Mississippi 16:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. WP:SIGCOV is our primary notability guideline, but it is still a guideline, not an immutable policy. Moreover, the judgement of whether a source offers SIGCOV or not is in the hands of the AfD participants, not the closer. Spartaz was right to refuse your request, and close based on the clear consensus in the AfD. This consensus is even clearer if you combine the arguments with those brought up only a month earlier in the previous AfD. I can see how newly-discovered sources can change a Delete decision into a Keep, but I don't see how a new presentation of sources already analyzed by many participants as providing notability can be deemed insufficient within a month.
    The AfD was open for seven days and 12 hours. It being closed three hours after the last comment is immaterial. We don't keep discussions open indefinitely just because they remain active, if consensus is already clear. WP:DRVNOT#3 and #4 tell us that DRV may not be used to level a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment, nor to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion. You were asking the closer to cast a supervote, and he rightly refused. Owen× ☎ 17:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Our community judgment on notability sometimes requires balancing different factors, with both pro- and contra- narratives appealing to policy. It can become a struggle for an AfD closer, and if needed also at DRV, to figure out whether a line of argument that was made and not rebutted was just missed in the noise, or considered by other commenters and found uncompelling. And, if the latter, if their own comments were sufficiently grounded in policy to trust their judgement. Sometimes an extension or relist is the best solution. In this case, however, while I recognize the appellant is frustrated no-one directly and adequately rebutted their specific claims, we have sensible participants in two separate discussions, who appear to have "heard", i.e. noted the argument being made, and nevertheless reached a different consensus, many of them engaging explicitly with policy in doing so. Consensus was reached, just not one everyone agrees with. Martinp (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Martinp I agree consensus was reached, but can local consensus that SIGCOV isn't necessary override global consensus? Now, OwenX points out that WP:SIGCOV is merely a guideline, not policy, so does that mean that while WP:LOCALCON can't override a policy, it can override a guideline? VR (Please ping on reply) 20:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
    Not the right framing. LOCALCONSENSUS is about people in a given area of the encyclopedia (e.g. a project) deciding they are going to apply a set of criteria that are not consistent with global ones in that area. This discussion was about how different parts of the alphabet soup apply in this instance. That involves judgement, and there was reasonably broad consensus -- twice. It might help to think of it that we do have certain (immutable) policies (to use Owen's terminology). Other things, like guidelines, are descriptive more than prescriptive. If robust consensus is going against them in a specific instance, it means that they are poor guide in that instance, that important context that changes the picture is missing. The bottom line is that twice, reasonable people engaging reasonably with policy (taken generally), and aware of your argument, decided to not delete. It's hard to imagine what kind of "aha!" would allow closing that as a Delete, and since your point was known to those discussing, by what mechanism would extra discussion change the outcome. Martinp (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Relist I'm not sure if I count as involved here, as I advised VR on procedure as noted but haven't otherwise participated. Frankly, I think VR's position has the stronger policy basis in the most recent discussion and believe that it should have at least been relisted. Boud offered lots of citations, but essentially all of them are examples of coverage authored by affiliates of the subject. The emphasis on WP:NGO is misplaced in the absence of seemingly any independent significant coverage, and citing that ignores the overriding guidance listed higher up on the page at WP:SIRS, which also applies to NGOs (I think there's also a twisting of the "international" aspect, as the guideline clearly refers to organizations with extensive operations in multiple countries, rather than an organization dedicated to one country while operating out of exile for security reasons). Without imputing bad faith, the simple per Metallurgist/Boud !votes carry extremely little weight in their failure to even begin to address the substance of the objections to that perspective. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
    I'm really curious how you would get a different outcome based on the options expressed on the discussion page. Spartaz Humbug! 18:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
    The point of relisting is to solicit further discussion. If I had been patrolling AfD and seen this discussion, I would have likely relisted with a comment reaffirming the procedural basis of the AfD, and calling for keep-inclined participants to directly address the arguments contending a lack of SIGCOV and further justify their position. signed, Rosguill talk 18:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
    i don't see how I get to that unless I'm not going to give any weight to the 7 clearly articulated arguments that this was too soon after the previous discussion and that that consensus should be respected. To me that feels like a massive supervote bearing in mind that discouraging multiple recent nominations is long standing practise and expectation and where the original nomination was defective, lacked a coherent argument that the previous discussion was untenable and where, frankly, there was more than a touch of using another discussion to deprecate the recent afd consensus. The correct approach is to DRV the previous discussion not to keep going again. Spartaz Humbug! 09:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • strong meh I do find it amusing that this time round I'm being castigated for not casting a supervote rather than being brought to task for casting one. It seems a poor admin can't get a break sometimes. Spartaz Humbug! 18:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse - It is not clear whether the appellant is saying that the closer made an error, or that the community made an error. If the former, DRV is not AFD Round 2. The appellant is an experienced editor and probably knew that. If the latter, then it is as Spartaz says, that the appellant is saying that the closer should have supervoted. If it were intended that closers should routinely supervote, then why do we get community input on an WP:AFD? That is a rhetorical question. Maybe the appellant should drop the stick. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Endorse. Clear consensus to keep. Both times. Admins giving “permission” to do a hasty renomination are shown to have done unwisely. Follow the advice at WP:RENOM. Take the time to work out why you were not persuasive. Your interpretation of Wikipedia rules is worthless if you cannot persaude. Do not allow a renomination before six months after the close of this DRV discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I second SmokeyJoe's proposal for a six month moratorium following this DRV. Owen× ☎ 12:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
I third the WP:6MONTHS moratorium. StephenPortmore (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
— StephenPortmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
This user has been banned from project space as a disruption only /suspected sock account Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse I see no error with the close and I don't think any outcome would change with a relist. The source analysis on the talk page was included in the nomination, so editors had awareness of that discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Involved comment/question: While it's obvious a majority of the !votes were for keep, most didn't address the proposed issues at hand & as Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY those !votes should carry little weight, as stated above by Rosegull. To be clear, I don't blame Spartaz for wanting to avoid what may appear to be a supervote here as while we're not a democracy, it can be hard to feel justified going against a clear majority. Furthermore, if they did close as delete, this would've almost definitely have been brought to deletion review anyway.
    I don't think relisting this article again will change anything as, if it were theoretically relisted for deletion, participants are likely to just restate their previous positions & I can't imagine that'd lead to a different outcome. I'm also not sure how the issue could be presented more persuasively though as, if we are to consider participants to've properly examined the presented evidence & they saw no issue with the org's director being treated as independent significant coverage of the org itself, I don't see how to convince them otherwise. What I'm curious about then however is what the proper procedure is when there's seemingly a consensus to keep an article despite glaring notability issues? How would you go about improving an article when you can't find independent coverage of it? - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    This is an interesting question and I don't think there is a satisfactory answer. In this specific instance, there are a couple ways that may have helped strengthened the case for deletion. The most immediate issue was the quick renomination. While there were some procedural issues that may have affected the outcome of the first discussion, three editors made the case that the coverage was significant after the relist, with one editor who previously argued to delete the article suggesting that one of sources "may creep into significant coverage." The renomination statement did not directly address why the Iran International article did not meet our expectations, so I think editors commenting felt like the nomination was just a re-run of an article that was kept (recognizing that other editors suggested a fresh AfD).
    The second issue is that our system of determining notability is fuzzy. There are no black and white policies or guidelines that address when a subject should have a stand-alone article. As editors, we all have our own expectations of what our policies and guidelines mean. At the end of the day, if the community does think an article should have a stand-alone article, it stays in mainspace, regardless of the type of sourcing (unless it violates WP:BLP). If that happens, as editors, we can trim and rewrite material that is trivial, is not cited, or violates WP:DUE. - Enos733 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    Across the almost 20 years I have contributed I have noticed that one of the constants at AFD is that there is a firm idealistic inclination to give non harmful material a chance. This is a driver for why we discourage quick renominations unless there is a compelling reason for it. I have seen many articles kept strongly and then when the content fails to improve or sources fail to be provided, a later, better argued nomination, will often succeed with minimal challenge. Patience and treating the process with respect is always the best way forward in these matters. Spartaz Humbug! 17:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Enos733, I want to provide further context to your comments.
    17 Feb: Idontwantaaccount says "Iran International may just creep into significant coverage while BMJ doesn't"
    28 Feb: I show why neither of the 2 Iran International articles meet SIGCOV, pinging Idontwantaaccount
    1 Mar: Idontwantaaccount appears to agree with me: "I nominated it for deletion for these exact reasons. WP:NCORP states it needs significant independent coverage in independent sources. These have never been provided but people voted keep anyway"
    All of this was prior to the 2nd AfD. After my source analysis, not a single user appears to have argued that SIGCOV exists for this topic.VR (Please ping on reply) 19:55, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    you see all the editors who don't agree with you? You see my comment about the community likes given content chance and you are still arguing that with a clever argument all that institutional and local consensus can be overturned? Spartaz Humbug! 05:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse Clear consensus to keep in multiple AFDs separated by only a month. Even though the source analysis was posted in the talk page, it is referenced in the AFD and anyone can click the link. The source analysis appears to be rejected by the community. Frank Anchor 11:39, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment – Most of those Keep votes are pretty egregious. I'm not sure it's an actual trend, but I'm noticing more and more cases here at DRV recently involving cases where voters claim that a subject meets WP:GNG without indicating any specific sources, that a source contains WP:SIGCOV when it doesn't, or that a list of non-independent or trivial sources meet WP:GNG. Ultimately, I'm not really sure we have any recourse in our deletion processes for cases like these; this basically looks like an "WP:IAR keep" to me. The appellant may have more success waiting a few years before trying again, when the subject of the article is less politically salient. For now, I endorse the admin decision. Suriname0 (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    Despite closing this as keep I do agree that low policy or clearly erroneous policy interpretations are becoming a problem and it's something that does impact the consensus. The other issue is that this doesn't just apply to keep votes. Low quality delete votes don't give closing admins a policy based argument to analyse and this makes far more closed than before plain nose counts as there are far fewer policy rich arguments to influence the close. I don't see a solution right now. Spartaz Humbug! 16:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, I agree with your meh above! Suriname0 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't see the article meeting WP:N. That said, I can't say it was closed incorrectly. I'd like to see this back at AfD in a couple of months. And if no one can provide sources helpful to WP:N, it should be deleted at that time. Endorse, but with leave to relist in 2 months. Hobit (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    @Hobit – "I'd like to see this back at AfD in a couple of months", isn't that basically an argument for relist? What exactly will change in 2 months? Keep in mind that those who voted keep in the 1st AfD were repeatedly asked to provide sources,, for several weeks before the 2nd AfD. Despite implicitly acknowledging a lack of sources, they !voted keep at the 2nd AfD anyway.
    Now, above several people have argued that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, meaning in some cases the community might choose to disregard it. That's a difficult pill for me to swallow, but one that I can grudgingly accept.VR (Please ping on reply) VR (Please ping on reply) 22:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, it is an argument for a relist. I'd have argued for deletion in the AfD. But the question before us is if the AfD was closed correctly. I believe it was a close within admin discretion, so I have to endorse the close. The encyclopedia won't collapse because we have what I think is a less-than-notable subject with an article for a while. But the rapid relisting was already a reason for people to !vote to keep in the most recent AfD. Let's have a close that sets a timeframe to take a fresh look. Basically everyone step away and chill for a bit before we discuss again. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Joey Primiani (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Joey Primiani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The original draft was deleted for being inadequately sourced. Substantial independent reliable sourcing has since been identified: seven TechCrunch articles (2011–2016) covering the subject's co-founding of Backplane and LittleMonsters.com with Lady Gaga and Eric Schmidt; a Fast Company feature on his Cortex browser extension; Rolling Stone coverage of the LittleMonsters launch; Business Wire and Hypebot coverage of his 2022 Folio NFT platform. His Forbes 30 Under 30 listing (2016, Consumer Technology) is corroborated by multiple independent secondary sources. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG. COI disclosed per WP:COI; intend to submit through WP:AFC if restored. Jpblackofficial (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  • While most of the background's at the MFD, there's a little more at the blacklist request, namely the full list of previous titles and deletions. —Cryptic 02:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose The draft article was blacklisted due to abuse of the drafts process, neither the fact that the appellant is the subject of the article or the sources provided give me confidence this is not an attempt at more of the same. Jumpytoo Talk 04:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Leaning allow. In principle, this should be a simple “allow drafting in draftspace and let AFC processes apply”. However, the subject, JP, doesn’t understand Wikipedia, and should not be encouraged to further waste his and our time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
    The large number of creations and deletions are not characteristic of a slam NO, but of a borderline case.
Noting that it has been deleted at AfD, twice, with criticism of a lack of reliable sources supporting superficially strong claims to Wikipedia-Notability, I urge insistence on following WP:THREE. The problem is potential for continued waste of volunteer time, and THREE is the answer to that.
I hesitate due to
1. WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY
2. The appeal here has listed no new reliable sources. They should have supplied exactly three.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • endorse while I thank the nominator for disclosing their conflict of interest on their user page, the MFD that deleted this was unanimous. The most precious and also the nost limited resource here is volunteer time and while many of us chose to spend our time in the bureaucratic backwaters like deletion discussions there has been a long standing and concerning drain on capacity for many years. At some point we have to recognise that there has to be limit of how much attention we can offer repeated and low merited appeals and work arounds that attempt to force biographical articles on us that do not meet our criteria. At some point we have to say that enough is enough and I think we are at that point. Spartaz Humbug! 05:44, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Endorse. Spartaz explained it best. Primiani has a literal 20-year history of trying to get himself on Wikipedia. If these attempts had all been done with a single account, it would have been blocked as WP:NOTHERE a while ago. There needs to be a very compelling reason why we should let him try again. Note User:JzG/And the band played on... Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Provisional endorse. Per the above, the problem is the appellant/subject has a history of not understanding why the notability bar is not reached, and their repeated attempts have become disruptive. We need to balance the drain on volunteer time against the slim possibility that notability has recently emerged, or even has been present but missed (cry wolf syndrome). Smokey's pointer to WP:THREE has merit, but I'd put the stage gate here, due to the previous disruption, rather than just punting the problem to AfC. Appellant, please give (not just allude to, but give links to) the best 3 sources. If and only if they clearly demonstate notability in line with our policies, then I'd allow. I'd also propose that if they don't, then any additional attempts to recreate are barred for 12 months (to protect volunteer time); so choose carefully. The description of the sources above does not inspire confidence, though, since they don't sound as if they have in-depth coverage of the individual; and since their dates should generally imply they would have already been considered in previous deletion discussions or recreation attempts. (Note I participated in the last MFD.) Martinp (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse the previous closure and ignore this request. Biographical notability is based on significant coverage by independent sources. We, the Wikipedia community, do not need to waste our time considering a request by a person to include their biography in the encyclopedia, when the biography has already been deleted at least nine times (as per Cryptic in the MFD that is being appealed), largely involving gaming of titles. Common advice to submitters of autobiographies is that if you are notable, a third party who is an editor in good standing will write about what third parties have written about you. We don't need to keep this request open for seven days. Consider listing at Deletion Review Perennial Requests. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse community consensus is clear and no evidence has been presented as a reason for consensus to change since the MfD. It's time to move on. Star Mississippi 17:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Responding to SmokeyJoe and Martinp's request for three specific sources. Here are the three strongest independent reliable sources demonstrating notability per WP:GNG:
  1. TechCrunch (January 20, 2012): "First Look: Backplane, The Lady Gaga-Backed Community Platform With All-Star Investors" — Josh Constine's in-depth profile covering Backplane's platform, its investor backing from Lady Gaga and Eric Schmidt, and Primiani's role as co-founder.
  2. TechCrunch (June 5, 2011): "Lady Gaga, Eric Schmidt And Others Invest Over $1M In Backplane" — Independent reporting of Primiani's co-founding of Backplane with named investment from Lady Gaga and Eric Schmidt, then-Executive Chairman of Google.
  3. Fast Company (2011): "Cortex for Google Chrome Solves One of Social Media's Big Problems" — Austin Carr's feature calling Primiani's Cortex tool "ingenious" and naming it one of the best ideas in interface design; substantive independent coverage of the subject's creative work.
All three are independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, meeting WP:SIGCOV. Jpblackofficial (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for providing these. In my opinion, none of these 3 is sufficient for notability. #1 mentions Primiani in passing, just "Cofounder Joey Primiani is an ex-Googler and creator of Cortex". #2 does not mention Primiani at all, just Backplane. #3 also mentions Primiani only in passing, "Cortex, a free Chrome browser extension from Joey Primiani, uses...". None of these provides anywhere near the level of significant coverage needed to support a standalone article about the individual.
These sources are not recent, their insufficiency is glaring, and this article/draft has had many kicks at the can in the past, with little apparent insight as to the problems. So I endorse the standing deletion, oppose recreation at this time, and would support community-imposed steps to minimize disruption, with some (time-throttled?) crack of daylight in case notability would genuinely change in the future. Martinp (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
1. . Passing mention. Not significant coverage. Not a secondary source with respect to the topic. Not close to being a GNG source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
2. . No mention of Primiani. Not remotely plausible as a GNG source for Priani.
3. Passing mention, attributive dash the author for the free extension, Cortex. Not significant coverage of Primiani. Not secondary. Not close to being a GNG source.
User:Jpblackofficial, you are incompetent in talking to Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria. Stop wasting our time. Do not write articles about yourself or your interests, it is not how Wikipedia works. If you warrant a Wikipedia article, someone else will write it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Right. I endorse @SmokeyJoe's conclusion. Writing articles where one has a COI with the right degree of dispassionate judgment, about what to include and whether an article is merited at all, is always challenging. We have policies and processes to navigate this, e.g. requirements on COI editing, the AfC process, that work in most cases, allowing COI editors to bring in meaningful content while managing bias, perhaps improving their skills as editors as they go along, all while minimizing bias in the encyclopedia and disruption to the community. However, they are insufficient in this instance, since Mr Primiani's judgment about himself with regards to Wikipedia is off and apparently incapable of evolving. Therefore, I'd suggest blacklisting anything regarding Primiani, allowing future creation only by appeal to DRV by established non-COI editors with (GNG-compliant and recent) sources provided; and throttling consideration of such appeals (even by putatively non-COI editors) to no more than once every 12 months. The only potential downside is that if Mr Primiani were to become notable in the future, our article on him might be some months late in being created. That potential downside is worth it versus repeated wasting of volunteer time relitigating this issue. Martinp (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Endorse, per @SmokeyJoe. There is nothing to indicate this individual meets notability grounds via any available route. StephenPortmore (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
— StephenPortmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Endorse, SALT and list at DEEPER. Enough is enough. Katzrockso (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 March 2026

Felix K. Abagale

Felix K. Abagale (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am disputing the AfD result based upon criteria 1., plus incorrect statements about what is policy and not policy for WP:NPROF#C6. (Addendum, also criteria 4, added 27 March 2026, see below.)

The AfD was originally closed as Keep by User:Spartaz at 04:59, March 26, 2026 with the statement The result was keep. Keep arguments based on common sense do not get the same weight as policy based arguments. After the keep was queried by User:Extraordinary_Writ (see User_talk:Spartaz) at 12:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC), Spartaz changed the decision to The result was delete. Keep arguments based on common sense do not get the same weight as policy based arguments. I asked Spartaz about this on his talk page, quoting the relevant text from C6, and whether I should take this to DRV, to which they responded obviously I disagree but I don't make it a practise to review my decisions under the threat of a DRV so feel free to take whatever further steps you wish.

There were two Weak Keep votes with explanations based upon WP:NPROF#C6. C6 specifically allows for exceptions to be made for a Provost, and the BLP under discussion is the equivalent of a US Provost. Two people voted that this plus a little else was enough; these were policy votes, not "common sense" arguments. When I look at the overall arguments I do not see any consensus for delete, independent of the incorrect policy interpretation. From what I can see this is currently a No Concensus which should either have been closed as such or extended. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

the original keep closure was a script error.
Part 6c states in full : Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Generally, appointment as an acting president/chancellor/vice-chancellor also is not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone.
A pro-vice-chancellor is not close to the level of a provost and there was not the overwhelming consensus supporting it that invoking this criteria would require. When one side of the argument is solidly grounded in policy and the other is a stretch beyond the actual example and not widely supported, it's well within my discretion to select the policy based arguments as the consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 00:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Our own article makes clear this is a subordinate role and not the head honcho Spartaz Humbug! 00:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
I am sorry but I must correct your statement about Pro-Vice Chancellor. I did due diligence on this before I voted, and checked the university page here as well as the specific page for the current occupant, an independent source and even the unreliable page Pro-vice-chancellor. As second in command who deputizes for the VC that is the equivalent of a US Provost. As such I claim the clause "may sometimes qualify" applies. Surely the first university in Ghana must be considered as a major university, we have a page for it at University for Development Studies and according to a world ranking page it has an enrollment of about 25K. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
N.B., just to be clear, the Provost is nominally the 2nd in command at a US university. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
The titular heads of universities in the UK is the chancellor but the vice chancellor is the actual person who runs it, meaning that the pro-vice chancellor is below that level. Spartaz Humbug! 12:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
That is the same as a provost; a provost is not the "head honcho" in many cases, which is why our articles on Provost (education) states At many institutions of higher education, the provost is the chief academic officer, a role that may be combined with being deputy to the chief executive officer, while WP:NACADEMIC#C6 states Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Generally, appointment as an acting president/chancellor/vice-chancellor also is not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone..
As Ldm1954 notes above, the guideline allows for "exceptions" on a case-by-case basis. Whether the consensus in the AfD was in favor or against an exception in this case is less clear. Katzrockso (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The close is correct, although in this case, I would have gone for a second relist, if only to avoid exactly this kind of DRV. Owen× ☎ 00:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse – I completely agree with User:OwenX. Broadly, this close was reasonable given the participation level, although a Relist may have moved the needle further. Suriname0 (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Could we please not encourage relisting AfDs where the outcome isn't in doubt? Volunteer attention should be focused on more difficult cases than this one.—S Marshall T/C 11:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment In the 2+ years I have been doing fairly extensive AfC/AfD/NPP reviewing of academics and science, this is the only time I have appealed an AfD. You can check my logs: the large majority of my noms for AfD have been deleted, similarly my AfD votes are mostly the same as the decision. I have a fair amount of academic experience. To see a case where by raw counting there were three Keep and four Delete described as an AfD where the outcome isn't in doubt is discouraging. I will also add that a check of the citation level in his field indicates that his are not as bad as claimed, it is a very low citation area (plus we have to consider bias against non-western academics). It appears nobody did the the required WP:BEFORE check on comparable scientists. However, that was not raised at the AfD.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    Our actual consensus model is not to count votes unless both positions are policy equivalent. Otherwise ROUGH CONSENSUS is clear that the winning argument is the one most aligned to policy. The pro-vice chancellor argument is only very tenuously aligned with policy and actually seems at odds with the policy as written. Spartaz Humbug! 12:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    With apologies for being harsh, but as someone who has extensively participated at WT:NPROF as well as academic AfD, I dispute your claim very tenuously aligned with policy and actually seems at odds with the policy as written. The Pro-VC/Provost case is specifically mentioned, plus extensive WP:42 evidence has already been provided here on their equivalence. Please acknowledge that. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    Addendum I have decided that I will add to the appeal criterion 4 of the appeal process. The claim by the nom that it was a high citation field fails verification. You can check the GS topic], his citations and those of some coauthors , , . This is also policy, Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. This has been (endlessly) debated in various forms at WT:NPROF, see for instance WT:NPROF#[[Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#C1]] - students and hierarchy of authorship (yup, wikilink in the title), or the archives. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    pro-vice chancellor argument is only very tenuously aligned with policy and actually seems at odds with the policy as written.
    This is not correct and seems to be substituting your own views with an evaluation of the guideline (not policy), the arguments in the AfD and the consensus thereof. Katzrockso (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Relist. The closing statement, Keep arguments based on common sense do not get the same weight as policy based arguments, is misguided. Common sense arguments are derived from WP:IAR even if not explicitly cited. IAR is policy. I do not see a consensus to do anything at this point, and it is possible that another week of discussion could sway consensus in either direction. Frank Anchor 14:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Relist. The closer is substituting their personal interpretation of whether there should be an exception for this "pro-vice chancellor" (as explicitly permitted in the guideline) with the actual balance of arguments at the AfD. I concur with Frank Anchor that there is no consensus so far and that a relist aimed at deciding whether or not University for Development Studies qualifies as a "major university" as in WP:NPROF#C6. Katzrockso (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Relist - When there were policy-based arguments both ways after one relist, a second relist is usually even better than for the closer to assess a rough consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Leaning Endorse although I agree that there might need to be some further digging. In many British universities the Pro-Vice Chancellor is a very senior academic, they usually have a long career in research and independent research standing before getting the position. The Vice-Chancellor is the working "chief executive" of the university, traditionally a senior academic but not necessarily in the modern era. This may or may not map onto the university sector in Ghana. It is possible it is just an admin role, in which case I do not think it would normally fulfil the scope of WP:NPROF anywhere in the world. The complication of course is that there is bias in the academic system and there is much less scope for published research in some parts of the world than others. JMWt (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    WP:NPROF#6C explicitly permits administrative posts at e.g. "major universities" to satisfy the requirement in some circumstances. Katzrockso (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
    it permits but does not require, meaning that this has to be explicitly be supported by the discussion not just used as a gotcha to escape other policy failures Spartaz Humbug! 12:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
    The argument was endorsed by the participants in the discussion, by all of the keep !voters. What basis is there to down weight the votes of the keeps if their argument is permitted by the NPROF guideline?
    The article fails no policies, so it's unclear why "policy failures" are being brought up now (but not in the discussion or close) Katzrockso (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
    it was t supported sufficiently to overcome the overall consensus Spartaz Humbug! 05:52, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
    That is circular reasoning or vacuous/false. It was supported by all the keep votes. Do they need to write essays to satisfy you now? Katzrockso (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Relist Both sides expressed policy-based views, and neither had sufficient numerical advantage. Debates like this are important and should be allowed to run fully, as they can set a precedent for future AfDs of non-first World academics, who usually need to rely on criteria different from WP:NPROF#1. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Relist. Agree with @Kelob2678. Policies can be interpreted for both sides of discussion. There is no overwhelming policy reason for this deletion to be endorsed. Further discussion may illuminate the case for either retention or deletion.
    StephenPortmore (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    this brand new user has been blocked from project space as a suspicious account / probably sock Spartaz Humbug! 22:38, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn: Discounting the !keeps, which were based on WP:NPROF#C6 and saying that the !deletes were based on policy, when not a single !delete cited a policy other than essays (NOTLINKEDIN does not apply), is extremely misguided. This was a very poor close and should be overturned either to keep or no consensus. 11WB (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Relist. An AFD with light participation, reasonable arguments on both sides, that people seem to want to continue to debate. As it was, consensus was tenuous at best, and it seems likely more discussion can result in a clearer one. While I can't see the article, it seems there was reasonable actual debate on whether this person meets the notability bar, so I don't agree with S Marshall's statement above. The misclose (keep -> delete) was an accident, and the (in retrospect) poor wording "Keep arguments based on common sense do not get the same weight as policy based arguments" (much better would have been something like: "Arguments need to refer to policy, not just common sense, to get equal weight as those that do") didn't exactly help, but wouldn't warrant an overturn in itself. However, if a relist seems likely to lead to a clearer outcome anyway, it adds another argument in favour of doing so. Martinp (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
  • endorse I think the close was within admin discretion. The question is if the position is really the same as "provost". Per the discussion it seems more junior. And even then, perhaps even being a provost isn't enough to meet our inclusion guidelines even if true for a small school. I think I think NC might have been a better close, but delete isn't unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    For rigor, please check the details of the position, which indicate it is the equivalent of provost. In addition, a university with 20,000 students is not a "small school". Per the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education it is medium or large. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
    you can keep saying that but the reality is that this position was not widely adopted in the discussion so that counts for little. May be counted means there should be a consensus to support it not a vociferous minority trying to get around an GNG failure Spartaz Humbug! 11:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

List of Lufthansa destinations (closed)

  • List of Lufthansa destinations – The "no consensus" closure is endorsed. Those who would overturn the closure are not in agreement as to whether the discussion should be relisted/reclosed, or closed as "keep" instead. Sandstein 07:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Lufthansa destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Following this statement, specifically "I personally think that the seeming crusade to rid Wikipedia of destination lists is mistaken and even harmful" it is very clear that the closer was WP:INVOLVED in the airline destination-list area and should not be closing discussions within it. As pointed out by another editor, Stifle has also previously set out strong views in !votes case in other AFDs in the same topic area. The discussion should be relisted for closure by an uninvolved closer. FOARP (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  • endorse G4 was overturned and this was listed at AFD following a DRV. That makes the delete votes that argued G4 applied superfluous and the only error was that the closer probably should have gone keep based on the discussion rather than NC. That also somewhat negates the argument that they were involved as they therefore closed against what you claim is their stated position. Spartaz Humbug! 23:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: This makes me feel a bit uneasy as I was involved in the discussion on @Stifle's talk page and technically revived it, leading to this DRV. As such, I feel partly responsible for any outcome that follows here. For that reason, I am not going to endorse or oppose the close. I've been called out for this, including by @Stifle himself, but I can't reasonably question an administrator action. Especially not one who has a tenure as long as @Stifle's. I presented evidence in this reply, so I don't feel the need to repeat it all here. It's up to @Stifle going forward to make the determination on whether he feels INVOLVED enough or not to be able to close these AfDs objectively. 11WB (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    well if you want someone entirely involved I'll happily reopen it and close it as keep. Last time one of these came up to DRV I voted the strongest possible meh. Spartaz Humbug! 23:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    I didn't say that. An administrator, and any editor for that matter, has the capacity to decide whether they are able to perform an action objectively. In this case it was probably better for @Stifle to have left it for another admin. I have stated I don't agree with the close. If I formally oppose the close here, it would look as though I've influenced the outcome, having revived the inactive discussion on accident. 11WB (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    I have worked with Stifle for almost 20 years and I have the deepest respect for his integrity and impartiality. If he closed it he would have been able to put aside any personal biases that he might have. Spartaz Humbug! 00:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    This boils down to “this guy is my friend”. I would hope people would put that to one side, also. FOARP (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    dont be so disrespectful. Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you're looking for here. From my POV, this means there are two sorts of admins: ones who you have known for 20 years and as such can close discussions they have expressed strong views about, and ones who you have not known for 20 years and therefore cannot close discussions that they have already expressed strong views about. Possibly you think that is a viewpoint that should be respected. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    dont dismiss my considered opinion based on years of observing a colleague with some trite throwaway comment and a condescending aside. You would really do well not to keep reinterpreting what other people say to fit your own agenda and you certainly need to stop commenting on what other people think. Spartaz Humbug! 09:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Involved or not, there was no way this would end in deletion, and consensus was clear enough to make a second relisting pointless. As Spartaz pointed out, closing as N/C instead of as Keep demonstrates Stifle's ability to remain impartial and put his personal views aside when wearing his admin hat. Having this re-closed by another admin as Keep or N/C would serve no useful purpose. Owen× ☎ 01:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    P.S.: I closed the previous DRV for this, if that matters. Owen× ☎ 02:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment This is fundamentally a disagreement about these sorts of articles that has raged across multiple venues, with this being one of them. Absent a clear is-or-is-not policy consensus, administrators have no good choice other than to close each discussion based on the opinions represented. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Endorse. There is not much to say other than what Owen already did; Having this re-closed by another admin as Keep or N/C would serve no useful purpose. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Katzrockso (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Do you think Stifle should be making closes in this area that they have expressed strong views about? FOARP (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
do you think it helps your case to badger everyone who expresses a different opinion? Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
I've asked exactly one question here. FOARP (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
You have literally responded to every comment that goes against your position. Don't be disingenuous. Spartaz Humbug! 09:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
No, I clearly have not. Don't make statements that are obviously not true, as can be seen by anyone reading this thread. FOARP (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Now you know how it feels to have positions or thoughts stated by other people to advance their arguments. Maybe that will encourage you to stop it. Spartaz Humbug! 12:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. FOARP (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
@FOARP: My pronouns are he/him only, so I'd ask you to use those please. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't see why not. Katzrockso (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
@Spartaz, I am not going to enter this disagreement, however I feel the need to point out that @FOARP actually hasn't responded to every comment that opposed their view. Some of your comments have been escalatory and are not helpful to the DRV. 11WB (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse own closure. I think I reasonably assessed consensus putting aside my own views on the subject, and I am extremely grateful for the terms in which others have expressed their support here. If the consensus feedback is I should avoid closures like this in the future, I will of course do so. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak endorse. On the fence between endorsing the NC close or voting "overturn to keep," but both have the same end result. The speedy delete votes, and the nominating statement, can be discarded because their only argument was that a previous version of the article was deleted two years ago. After it was speedy deleted via G4, a previous deletion review deemed that to be incorrect. The only remaining delete vote claims there are only primary sources, which is false. The two redirect votes don't really offer any reasons why it should not be kept (beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT) but merely suggest it as an WP:ATD. Meanwhile, the keep votes offer acceptable references and cite prior RFCs. Frank Anchor 14:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn and get someone who has not expressed strong opinions on the topic to close. This whole thing and the ongoing fights it generates is entirely stupid and demeaning. JMWt (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    I second the second part of this comment. 11WB (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse (involved). I'm surprised that the speedy delete votes based on G4 were not discounted due to the DRV (explicitly, at least), but otherwise I don't think any other closer would change the outcome (NC or keep). Per Katzrockso, OwenX and Spartaz, WP:NOTBURO applies. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 01:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse:
    Sometimes No Consensus on an AFD reflects No Consensus on a class of articles over a long period of time. Sometimes these articles are allowed. Sometimes these articles are disallowed. It looks like No Consensus on this AFD and no consensus on airport destination lists.
    What does the appellant expect to gain by asking to vacate the close and leave the AFD for a new closer?
    Sometimes No Consensus is the right close, and it was the right close in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak overturn to keep (Endorse as second preference). There was very clearly no consensus to delete and no arguments supporting that outcome correctly referenced any current policies or guidelines. Whether keep or no consensus is the outcome is usually academic, but in this topic area the history of repeated re-litigation of the same issues means that a firmer statement of the community consensus is more valuable than is usual. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn since if nothing else the closer was clearly not neutral. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. A group of editors seem determined to argue there is a consensus to delete airline destination lists. However, discussions continue to prove that the community does not share that view. Opinions vary. In particular, that was the case here, where in spite of a relist and ample time for a consensus to emerge, none did. Since I don't see any way this could have been closed other than NC, I won't spend time parsing whether the ultimate closer, who generally shows good judgment, might or might not have had any bias -- since I see no path forward where the ultimate outcome would be different than the present one. Martinp (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Statements after closing don't count for determining involved status. When you close you can gain an opinion of your own on the merits of the issue and spread it as much as you like—then you are involved from that point onward, not retroactively.—Alalch E. 21:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mumtaz Hussain (general) (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mumtaz Hussain (general) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Non-admin closure. Only one source is not sufficient to establish notability. Only one comment with an actual arguemnt from a user that is now globally locked. –DMartin (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Endorse All three voters justified their Keeps based on the sources, and the nomination did not receive any support during the two weeks of the debate. DMartin has already been told not to use Zephyr's global lock as a trump card, Noting that a global lock following a courtesy vanish is standard procedure and is not a reason to discount Zephyr's participation. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse With the exception of the nominator, all of the !votes were to keep the article. While I think the case to keep the article could have been more strongly articulated, multiple editors concluded that the subject met GNG without any additional editors suggesting something differently. There is no error in the close. --Enos733 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
  • endorse this nomination is somewhat disruptive as there is no way this could have been closed otherwise and bringing this here won't change the result. Learn to read the room. Spartaz Humbug! 23:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
    I think this is overstated, and I don't find the nomination disruptive. An admin could very well have chosen to Relist in this case given that both of the Keep votes were relatively terse. In particular, I think it's reasonable to expect that Keep voters engage with a source assessment if one is provided; the votes would have been strengthened substantially by specifying which sources specifically contributed to WP:GNG, or by making more clear if they believe that the subject's military appointment meets WP:ANYBIO. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    actually no. This is classic disruption wasting the time of other editors with a hopeless case Spartaz Humbug! 09:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
    Agree to disagree, I suppose! Suriname0 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. While the "Speedy Keep" was without merit, and should be discarded regardless of the user's block, the two Keeps are well reasoned, and come from two of our most experienced editors. "Keep" was the only possible outcome here. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse an AfD without support for the nomination, closed after a relist, is unlikely to ever be overturned here, because unless it were hidden away somewhere, truly non-policy-based keep !votes would end up beckoning others to contribute. That didn't happen here. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse unanimous consensus to keep (outside of the nom) after two weeks of discussion. Frank Anchor 14:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse - It isn't clear whether the appellant is saying that the closer made an error or that the community made an error. Neither happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse - over a span of 2 weeks, the nomination to delete failed to gain any traction, and 3 editors made reasonable arguments to keep. If those keep arguments were weak, the time to engage was then, compellingly enough for other editors to agree. That failed to happen. The bar to throw out those keep arguments at closing (or at DRV) as deficient, leaving a "consensus of 1" to delete, is very high and not met. The bar to argue there was no consensus and instead of closure, a 2nd relist should have been done, is perhaps a bit lower - but again not met, since the 3 keep votes were not unreasonable and no-one was engaging to the contrary, i.e. there was no discussion to continue in the hopes of getting to a clearer consensus. Martinp (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

More information Year, Jan ...
Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2026 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
Close

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI