Wikipedia:Deletion review

Giuseppe Palamara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was told that my deletion review proposal could not be accepted because I had received help from an LLM. Fine. Since I still believe I manage very well with English, I will proceed, and this time I will not even use a translator.

So, I believe that the deletion of the page carried out by administrator Owen was unfair, because he distorted the score—which had been 3-2 in favor of Delete over Keep—into a 4-1 with two errors.

The first error attributed a Delete vote to Lijil, who had opened the AfD, but the AfD had actually been wanted by me. In fact, there is proof, which you can find in the history, that I had requested a third opinion and had discussed it on the talk page. However, not having found any participants, I decided, perhaps on the advice of an admin, to open or to request the opening of the deletion page. Therefore, Lijil's "non vote", for this reason, cannot be considered delete.

For the same reason, the vote of TortugaP cannot be considered invalid—meaning it must be considered valid, whereas Owen had instead canceled it, claiming that the user had registered just for this purpose. On the contrary, we have seen in the global contributions that Tortuga P had already been present on the Catalan Wikipedia for quite some time.

But beyond this, I generally oppose the deletion of the Palamara article because I have demonstrated updating the artiche also with the new that IHI in May sayd that is ready to start the construction of the Messina Bridge such as had do with Akashi Bridge and in 13 June the Italian and Japanese Prime Ministers had a summit and told the the Messina Bridge is very very important for the cooperation of two natios, both on the talk pages and in the deletion discussion, that 9 out of 16 sources are national. Therefore, his notoriety regarding the Strait of Messina Bridge project is high enough to be considered sufficient to have a Wikipedia page as an engineer. Moreover, there are no specific notability guidelines for engineers, but there are those for WP:CREATIVE professionals and the General Notability Guidelines (GNG), which Palamara absolutely satisfied.

Therefore, I hope I have been brief enough. I request a deletion review. --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm astounded that someone with 80,000 edits and autopatrolled status is so utterly unfamiliar with AfD and notability guidelines...

• The AfD nominator is always counted as a !vote for deletion unless it's explicitly noted (e.g. a procedural nom). It doesn't matter who "wanted" the AfD, by opening it and providing a reason for deletion Lijil obviously endorsed a deletion outcome. Your claimed alternative is facially absurd.
• TortugaP's !vote would have been discounted by literally any admin. Some random editor with 2 edits in April to Catalan Wikipedia who then ~somehow~ shows up two months later to a single AfD on English WP is already extremely suspicious, but even if it came from an editor with 50k en.wp edits it would have been discarded because it provided absolutely zero policy-based rationale for keeping the article.
• The subject of the AfD was Palamara, not the Messina Bridge. Coverage of the bridge's importance is irrelevant. I don't know why you have latched onto this "national media" distinction when you, as a very experienced editor, should already know that that holds no weight whatsoever in the absence of IRS SIGCOV of the subject. Palamara's being asked by "national media" about the bridge contributes nothing to notability. Palamara's quotes themselves contribute nothing to notability. The brief descriptions of who Palamara is before he is quoted are trivial and contribute nothing to notability.
• Palamara does not qualify for WP:CREATIVE (which I've never seen applied to engineers anyway):
  • 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. "Regarded as important" must be supported by extensive discussions of the subject describing him as such. "Widely cited by peers" means other independent engineers have directly cited his work in their own work, something that obviously isn't applicable to a non-academic non-artist.
  • 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Not applicable.
  • 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews... Not applicable, as Palamara only had a tiny role in promoting just the tourism aspect of the bridge.
  • 4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument... Not applicable.

JoelleJay (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. Properly run AfD and properly deleted. User:Kasper2006, read advice at WP:THREE. Use WP:AfC when you have found three good sources for establishing that the subject is Wikipedia-notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. First, AFD is not a vote count, especially considering one of the two keep !voters is a WP:SPA. Second, JoelleJay posted a thorough source analysis showing that all of the sources in the article and presented at the AFD failed GNG, this was not adequately refuted. Delete was the best option, relisting would have been an acceptable option as well considering the low attendance, but a second relist was in no way required. Frank Anchor 14:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• @Kasper2006: what is your connection to the subject of this article? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Question about undisclosed COI editing. I see by File:Giuseppe Palamara.jpeg that you are the rights holder of the image yet in none of the deleted revisions or here, or on your talk page have you made a COI declaration. Is there an explanation that isn't leading to the conclusion that you have been deceptively and disruptively editing with an undisclosed conflict of interest. As an editor with 80k edits I won't be accepting ignorance as an explanation Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse close. A reasonable and unrefuted source analysis established that there was insufficient in-depth, reliable, independent sourcing. While many sources were present in the article, they were not sufficiently independent (e.g. interviews) or focused on the individual and their accomplishment rather than on the bridge. As SmokeyJoe has written, the way forward would be to find 3 (at least 2) sources that are independent, reliable, and in-depth. Absent that, the AfD discussion and close seem reasonable. Martinp (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the source analysis from JoelleJay meticulously details the sources' failure to satisfy the GNG. There was no rebuttal whatsoever; a subsequent "I like it" keep !vote (with four en.wiki edits to its entire history) does contribute to the weighting at all. One small addenda - a little less righteousness in this discussion, please. Some of the comments and tone vis a vis the requestor are unnecessary and immaterial. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Giuseppe Palamara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am formally requesting a Deletion Review of the AfD for the article "Giuseppe Palamara", which was closed by administrator Owen (talk · contribs) as "delete" based on an alleged consensus. The closure and the subsequent explanations provided by the closing administrator on his talk page rely on demonstrably false factual claims regarding user registration, an arbitrary invention of non-existent participant counts, and a severe misrepresentation of community consensus.

In his talk page response, administrator Owen justified discarding the Keep vote of user TortugaP (talk · contribs) by stating it was "a brand new account created for the purpose of voting on this AfD" and implying meatpuppetry. This is factually incorrect. Global account analysis (GUC) proves that TortugaP (talk · contribs) is an established contributor active on other language projects, such as the Catalan Wikipedia (ca.wikipedia), with a clear edit history dating back to at least April 2026—months before this AfD was opened. Furthermore, the user contributes from Catalonia, focused independently on regional infrastructure and historical bridges, demonstrating zero correlation or "call to arms" with the article creator in Italy. Disqualifying a legitimate cross-wiki editor's input based on a false premise is a severe administrative oversight that violates WP:BITE and WP:AGF.

The actual breakdown of community members who took an explicit stance and voted in the AfD discussion was a tight 3-2 split:

• Delete: 3 editors (Adri08 (talk · contribs), JoelleJay (talk · contribs), Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk · contribs)).
• Keep: 2 editors (Kasper2006 (talk · contribs), TortugaP (talk · contribs)).

On his talk page, Owen claimed there were "four participants arguing for deletion" to assert an artificial "4-to-1" split against retention. This fourth distinct voting participant does not exist. While user Lijil (talk · contribs) technically opened the debate as the nominator providing structural background, they did not cast a separate, independent vote, meaning the total count of delete proponents is strictly three. Even if the administrator had valid grounds to discount TortugaP (talk · contribs), the real count would be 3-1, not 4-1.

More importantly, if we look at the independent community feedback by subtracting the two primary opposing parties—the active nominator who led the deletion push (Adri08 (talk · contribs)) and the main contributor of the article (Kasper2006 (talk · contribs))—the outside community was split at a minimal 2 to 1. A 2-1 margin (or 3-2 overall) represents a glaring lack of consensus under WP:CON. Fabricating an additional participant to claim a 4-1 "consensus" to delete is an unacceptable distortion of the process. Per WP:DELGROUP, when no clear consensus is formed, the default outcome should be to keep or extend the discussion.

Instead of evaluating the 16 secondary media sources provided—9 of which are major Italian national networks and outlets (such as RAI, Mediaset, and La7) providing independent expert coverage—the closing administrator dismissed the arguments by claiming the text "reads like it was generated by an LLM". Utilizing structural or language assistance to present a well-documented table of national media coverage is entirely within policy. An administrator cannot bypass a rigorous source assessment under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV simply by attacking the drafting style of a non-native English speaker.

Because the closing administrator relied on a false claim to invalidate a valid Keep vote, invented a non-existent fourth Delete participant to inflate the numbers, and declared a "consensus" where independent editors were split 2-1, the closure violates standard consensus-building guidelines. I respectfully request that the deletion be overturned, the page restored, or moved back to a neutral, third-party discussion. Kasper2006 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kasper2006 you have a misunderstanding of AfD. Owen did not invent anything. The nomination is their participation. Unless they explicitly say it's procedural or they're otherwise neutral, it is counted as an argument in favor of deletion. This is how the process works. That an editor of your tenure doesn't know this is bewildering. No comment on the rest of this at this stage, but pLease remove the headers and bullets from your thread here. They break the page. Star Mississippi 03:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse and Procedural Close although I am not sure that this is the right place to enter this, because of the way the appellant has broken DRV. Maybe I can explain something to User:Star Mississippi. I don't think that Kasper2006 has misunderstood how AFD works, because I don't think that Kasper2006 has written this appeal. An appeal that begins with an introduction of the form I am formally requesting a Deletion Review and is followed by three points and a conclusion is probably written by artificial intelligence. So the experienced editor didn't misunderstand how AFD works, because the chatbot misunderstood how AFD works. The Keep statement in the AFD was largely copied in this DRV and so was probably also written by artificial intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse LLM does not have standing at DRV. Jumpytoo Talk 05:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kasper2006, please review WP:LLMTALK, thanks. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The most unfair accusation that can be leveled against me is that my text was written by an LLM. I have already explained that, not being a native English speaker, sometimes I use a translator for assistance, but the arguments and thoughts are entirely my own. What is true, however, is that I am an expert wiki user. Therefore, before drawing the conclusion that Lijil automatically voted 'delete' by default simply because they opened the AfD, I would strongly advise Robert McCleon to review the entire history starting from April, when the article was first created, he can look at my contributions to see the steps I have taken. This was well before Adri08 brought their cross-wiki not-notability campaign over to en.wiki, in fact before his intervention the page had remained quiet in the namespace for almost a month. Doing so would reveal that it was actually myself who wanted the AfD process, after multiple attempts to obtain third-party opinions over several months had failed. It is a pity he did not check, because if he had, he would have noticed at least a few other editors there who had explicitly expressed their support for Palamara's notability. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify for the reviewing administrator: the previous editors who explicitly expressed support for Palamara's potential notability did so on the article's talk page (Talk:Giuseppe Palamara), which is currently deleted and thus only accessible to administrators. My extensive efforts to seek third-party input over the past months also included opening a Third Opinion request and posting on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I respectfully invite the closing admin to verify the deleted talk page history to confirm this context.

I therefore ask for a review of the two who voted endorse in light of these three new facts: 1) I rejected the accusations of having used LLM; 2) In fact, Lijil opened the AfD because after two months I myself wanted it, having failed to obtain a third opinion beyond that of the two contenders (me and Adrio08); 3) You failed to consider the fact that Owen stated something untrue by saying that TortugaP had registered to vote, in fact he had been active on the Catalan wiki for some time. Therefore, the 2-3 could not be considered a 1-4 by Owen (the addition of Lijil's vote if, even if it is true that he opened the AfD, I had understood this myself and the justification for the deletion of TortugaP's vote is not true).--Kasper2006 (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Loveworld Records (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The merge discussion was not tagged at the merge target. It had the deletion tag on the page but no one responded to the deletion discussion. It was therefore closed after one relist as consensus to merge to the proposed target. The proposed target is the wrong target. The correct target would be Christ Embassy. I only noticed this when consensus to merge was tagged on a page I watch (Chris Oyakhilome). It is not clear that there's anything to merge though, and straight deletion might be better. Either way, discussion should be relisted for another week, with a tag at the proposed merge target, so that editors watching that page can be involved in the discussion. Attempted to request this be done informally yesterday at closer's talk page but the closer has not responded, despite continuing to edit (and close discussions). Requested action is to Relist for one week, properly tagged. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Our procedures for nominating for merging segue with deletion, and and are under significant churn at the present time. These procedures should either be ignored, and DRV is well placed to do this, or should be examined in precise detail to be sure of the correct procedural status at each relevant time. Thincat (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The AFD started as a nomination for deletion so there was no relevant merge target. Then it was switched to a merge discussion using, I think, an undocumented but often used procedure. Thincat (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus because there was no consensus. If the "merge" closure was correct there seems to be no adequate closing procedure documented for delete nominations. Thincat (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Neutral – It really slipped under the radar here. Since it was an AfD with low participation, I view any administratively made decision favorably. Svartner (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Also pinging @Chubbles: to explain the reasons for his vote. Svartner (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Relist Closure was reasonable but arguably wrong. I doubt anyone would have much heartburn with the alternative merge target, assuming both articles meet our inclusion guidelines themselves. I don't see a reasonable case for deleting if that's the case per WP:NNC, because merging only verifiable content can sometimes devolve to a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• This is a classic case of WP:SOFTMERGE, which states, A soft merge closure may be used when a discussion receives very few or no comments [...] any editor can reverse this by splitting them back out [...] the discussion does not need to be relisted. @Svartner: if you agree, please change "merge" to "soft merge", and we can close this DRV as resolved. Owen× ☎ 16:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Svartner (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'll close this. Owen× ☎ 23:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Soft merge or alternatively relist The decision to close as merge was not wrong, but I agree with others that the merge target articulated in the discussion may not have been the most optimum choice of target. Merge has always been a plausible outcome at AfD, so I do not agree that notification of a plausible target is necessary by editors at AfD. --Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Soft merge per above. FaviFake (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Relist per nom. Notifying the target talk page of a merge proposal is procedurally necessary, absolutely. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

List of brands notable for sponsorships with content creators (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was closed 8 days after it was opened, by which point it only had a few comments, which I thought had only indicated mixed consensus so far. I talked to the closing administrator, who provided this rationale:

there is no set length of time beyond a minimum of 1 week and I believe in closing things once a consensus has been established. That said I did ponder for longer than normal about whether to relist or close it and I ultimately decided there was a consensus established and 4 editors is enough to establish such a consensus. Because it is not a vote, I did not simply count numbers but instead considered the comments in finding there already was a consensus. The comment, while not leaving a bolded !vote, cast doubt on the reasoning behind the keep !vote. This echoed the concerns of the 2nd delete !vote (the first being the nominator) and thus was enough to find a consensus.

Although I consider these points to be fair, I still think this discussion was closed too soon for the consensus to be considered quite clear just yet. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

What he excluded from that comment is that I asked him Do you have substantive reasons to offer for it being kept? as if he did I was prepared to relist it. However he did not and apparently does not being instead focused on process concerns. I look forward to the feedback from others here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse but relist, this is a valid reading of the discussion, but a very slim consensus. We have an established editor who, I presume, wants to add to the discussion. More days for a firmer consensus does not hurt anyone. Star Mississippi 00:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  @MrPersonHumanGuy can you confirm that you would like to add to the discussion? When you wrote I was hoping for other AfD participants to be able to find enough additional sources to potentially rescue the article and didn't answer my question I got the impression that you were concerned about consensus rather than looking to add. However, as I said above if the answer is "I have a !vote I wish to add" I'm happy to reopen and relist this myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  If I was planning to !vote in the discussion, I would've done so as soon as I became aware that it was nominated for deletion. (I didn't unintentionally "miss my chance" to do so) When an article is nominated, I assume it means that the nominator thinks the existing source coverage is insufficient, and I don't think I could personally argue against that myself. (although other editors might be able to) I would appreciate the AfD being relisted. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  struck that part of my comment per your followup, MPHG. I guess a relist isn't technically needed if there isn't someone looking to add to the discussion? Firmly meh as I'm not sure what the answer is here. Do we need to spend seven days here? Star Mississippi 02:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  My assumption is that, even if I have nothing to add, at least one other contributor (besides any of us so far) may decide that they themselves would've wanted to add to the AfD if they become aware of it, so I'm leaving this DRV open just in case. Only time can tell for certain whether my hope for that will turn out to have been valid or misplaced. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can't recall DRV ever reopening a discussion merely because someone said they wanted to add to the headcount. Searching, I can find a couple where we (well, I) have indicated willingness to reopen a discussion someone had missed if they had something concrete to add like an unconsidered source, and said what that was here at DRV (1, 2, 3). While that's never been successful, I still think it's a good metric.

  I'd intended to ask MrPersonHumanGuy what, precisely, they planned on saying if we reopened this afd for another week, but looks like we've gotten the answer while I was still searching for precedent. Hoping someone else will come along and rescue the list, or perhaps that another closer will read the same discussion and come to a different conclusion, isn't sufficient reason, I'm afraid. Endorse. —Cryptic 02:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can't recall DRV ever reopening a discussion merely because someone said they wanted to add to the headcount. I was going to say I did, but then realized I'm probably thinking of talk page discussions where - as was the case here too - closer says essentially, "OK, will relist if you have something to add."

  To any potential closer, don't let my !vote hang up consensus. I'm firmly split in that the close was fine but a relist would be too There's probably no wrong outcome here other than seven days of bureaucracy Star Mississippi 03:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• We are normally loathe to treat DRV as AfD round 2. But in this case, I'm with Barkeep49: I'd like to see what argument for retention the appellant presents before I decide. There was no procedural error; eight days is more than the required duration. Barkeep49 gave the appellant every opportunity to present his case on merits, yet MrPersonHumanGuy chose to appeal on procedural arguments I see as baseless. MrPersonHumanGuy: the floor is yours; tell us why the page should be kept, rather than why the AfD should be reopened. Owen× ☎ 01:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Relist a 2 v 2 discussion, not previously relisted, even with one side having a better grip on policy, is probably best relisted just to avoid situations like this where even if this might have been the right final answer (and I'm not advocating that it unequivocally is; I have no opinion on the topic), it just looks bad for a numerical tie to be closed conclusively in either direction. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know how you get a 2v2 discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Relist. With only two users who opposed retention, there was not a quorum to delete. Take out any keep arguments and it would be a soft delete, subject to immediate restoration upon any good faith request (e.g. this DRV). The presence of keep votes takes soft deletion off the table, meaning the discussion should have been closed as no consensus or relisted. I would opt for the latter as there is an interest in continuing this sparsely-attended discussion. Frank Anchor 12:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Relist - the discussion was not well attended, and while I don't feel that Barkeep's close was unreasonable, given the good-faith request to relist I now see no reason why we should not. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Relist. There was no quorum to delete here, so a deletion closure is improper, per Frank Anchor. Katzrockso (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: as the original AfD nominator, I will not oppose the outcome of this DRV whichever way it goes. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Relist - Two Deletes, one Keep, and one Comment is not a quorum to delete, and after one week it is usually preferred to relist rather than to try to tease out a consensus that isn't really there. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Trout to the appellant. Requesting to reopen or review an AFD simply because of timing is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

ArbCom has found that most of the editors who voted to delete this article were involved in meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing across this and other Michael Jackson-related discussions, producing a skewed consensus. Another editor who voted to delete, 2BOARNOT2B, was not included in the ArbCom case but is now suspected of being has since been banned as a sockpuppet of Mr Boar. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2BOARNOTOOB. Popcornfud (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: what is the remedy you are seeking? Owen× ☎ 11:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the article ought to be restored. Popcornfud (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus and, optionally, start a new AFD. This AFD was heavily influenced by canvassing/meatpuppetry as all but two of the redirect voters were included in the linked ArbCom case (of the two, one had four edits prior to that AFD and the other is currently being investigated for sockpuppetry, though that case is still open a confirmed sock). With, at best, two one good faith voters supporting redirect, there is not a quorum to do so and the article should be restored. The presence of keep votes makes NC the best option. No error made by the AFD closer as it was closed correctly based on information known at the time. Frank Anchor 12:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

modified vote based on now-confirmed sock investigation linked above Frank Anchor 11:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment What is the current problem that DRV needs to solve here? I'd be inclined to Vacate the AfD and allow anyone to un-redirect without this discussion being labeled as consensus, but at the same time I would be hesitant to spontaneously un-redirect it ourselves, as a lot may have happened since the article was first redirected. Also, I really don't like the naming of the two articles and am almost positive a better naming convention could be established with community discussion that we're not going to hold here at DRV. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  I initially just un-redirected the article myself, then discovered the DRV process and thought that seemed like the more proper route, so self-reverted. Happy to do it myself if DRV is deemed unnecessary. Popcornfud (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Vacate AfD as tainted by meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, with no prejudice against a new AfD, basically as Jclemens explained. The page should be restored (as it seems to have been done already). Katzrockso (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Vacate the AFD as tainted by collusion as found by ArbCom. Restore the article from the history and allow a new AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment to User:Popcornfud - It appears that several DRV participants think that DRV is the appropriate forum, so thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Hi, I just became aware of this discussion through a Reddit comment (https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/s/vfpcyM7wDq

) and am concerned that it may constitute inappropriate canvassing in support of Popcornfud. According to that comment, an article with substantially the same content, albeit under a slightly different title, was deleted only two or three months ago following a repeat AfD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Overview_of_Michael_Jackson_sexual_abuse_allegations ).TroVes6 (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi TroVes6, the Reddit post that you linked to appears to have been scrambled using a tool (which is equivalent to the Reddit user deleting it). According to its metadata, the post was created on 28 February 2026 and last edited on 13 March 2026 (UTC). How is it that you "just became aware of this discussion" through the comment when it was scrambled over three months ago? — Newslinger talk 11:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• From a procedural viewpoint, I'm inclined to restore the article. The newest AfD (linked above) does, however, indicate that such an "overview" article may not have support. I'd probably prefer we find another way forward. Perhaps bring this to AfD with a link to the last-real version of the article and discuss it rather than restoring and hosting what the last AfD concluded was non-ideal material (SYNTH etc.) which may have BIO issues. But second choice is a regular restore and allow AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Marija Brenčič Jelen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reliable sources seem to exist for this person and she seems to meet notability requirements to have her own article. Article in Slovenian already exists and is a good start. StructuredFlorescence (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Allow recreation. This is a low-quality discussion from 12 years ago. Even if we want to evaluate the close (which a delete close seems reasonable here), WP:Consensus can change. Katzrockso (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy close / recommend withdrawing, see WP:DRVNOT #2. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the close, but it doesn't appear to be. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Allow submission of draft subject to acceptance or Allow creation of article subject to AFD (but DRV was not required for those permissions). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus and REFUND to draft. I know, it's a 12-year-old AfD, and the inexperienced appellant is trying to relitigate the case without presenting a valid appeal rationale. But the appeal rationale is right there: there was no quorum to delete, let alone consensus to do so. The nomination was supported by one participant. Even if we discard both Keeps, it can't be closed as anything stronger than a declined PROD. There's no valid reason to force the appellant to start from scratch, when we can provide them with a better starting point in draft. Owen× ☎ 09:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse but chide the closer for twelve years closing a contentious discussion per BADNAC, chide for “please request it at deletion review”, although it was before draftspace, refunding to draftspace does not require DRV, unless unreasonably refused at WP:REFUND.

Refund to draftspace.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

How on earth was this a "bad non-admin closure"? —Cryptic 15:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Every !vote was weak. The nomination was very weak. The closing statement didn’t explain anything and anticipated objection. It could have been closed “no consensus”, and so the nonadmin (I believe there were?) supervoted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

SarahStierch was sysoped over a year before the AfD. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks. So that’s not a problem. Still, it was a poor quality discussion, an unimpressive close, and twelve years ago. It is no barrier to recreation, even if the closing admin said to come to DRV. There is no basis to make someone come to DRV to get the deleted page draftified or userfied or emailed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• The Slovene article and sources were considered at the afd, and it's gotten no new sources since then, and, for that matter, is barely changed at all. All the sources were present in the English version of the article, too.
  Which isn't to say we can't have an article on this person, or even that it'd necessarily be speedy deleted if recreated verbatim, but you're going to have to do much better than just point at the Slovenian article again. —Cryptic 15:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Allow submission of draft If new sources have emerged, they should be evaluated at AFC. --Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Darializa Avila Chevalier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Spartaz closed the AfD with the summary The result was delete and redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. In discussion on Spartaz's user talk page, CopyleftEverything offered a robust assessment of the AfD, including:

On the merits of the deletion closer: I mostly agree with إيان. (Disclosure: Both of us !voted "keep", so we may be biased.) By my count, there were 9 !votes for keep (Tiamut; إيان; BobFromBrockley; Chao Garden; Edittttor; CopyleftEverything; Tbrechner; Katt Wilm; Smgraves623), 6 for delete (CambridgeBayWeather; EaglesFan37; CharlesBluth; Cachedio; Stanloona2020; and Pretzel Quetzal would've !voted), 6 for redirect (Enos733; Cfgauss77; FantinoFalco; pburka; William.E.Goat; Biosketch). That's 9-12. Closing this as delete is not unreasonable. But there was NOT a clear consensus.

IMO the debate was essentially between WP:GNG through WP:SIGCOV (for "keep") versus WP:BIO1E (for "delete"). I think the sources, including those listed by إيان above, clearly meet WP:GOLDENRULE coverage of activity before & outside the election campaign. The election campaign itself is arguably notable in-and-of-itself -- the coordinated Mamdani-DSA-JusticeDem effort to unseat a powerful incumbent received an enormous amount of coverage. After the article's deletion, there is no coverage of this effort on Wikipedia.

To point to a recent AFD for a challenger candidate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner. When that article was listed for AFD, it had 6 sources. But it was kept, long before the election, because a few months later, it had 27 sources, the vast majority of which WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. It is hard for me to see why that page should've been kept, but not Darializa Avila Chevalier, when DAC's article contained more sources and a similar amount of WP:SIGCOV.

To close with WP:THREE: 1. City & State's June 2026 profile of DAC; 2. NYTimes's May 2026 profile of DAC, 3. The City Reporter's January 2026 profile of DAC. Each discusses DAC's past activism, present campaign, and ideology in detail.

Spartaz then expanded on their close summary:

Firstly the relevant policy here is NPOL which is a special use case of 1E. Consequently, coverage has to be outside the context of elections. At least in this case the keep side put forward some sources but these were not universally adopted, were challenged and after the last relist the consensus very clearly coalesced around a redirect. While maybe unfair on the early votors, I find the opinions of users who come to a more mature discussion are usually the most informed and have the benefit of the whole source picture put up by the keep side. That they were unpersuaded by the keep arguments was what directed my conclusion

As I had stated in the AfD discussion, NPOL is for presumed notability. It does not supersede SIGCOV and the policy explicitly states:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

The !votes to delete the article, a number of which appear to be drive-by !votes, do not provide any convincing argument against this. إيان (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse involved. Editors split 9 (keep) - 12 (delete/redirect) on leaving the page as a stand-alone page and deletes and redirect comments were grounded in policy. This is the second AfD of the subject, which was closed initially as delete in February 2026. In addition, 5/6 editors who commented after the relist were to delete or redirect the page (after sources were provided in the discussion and in the article). --Enos733 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have no objections to the revised close retaining the article's history. - Enos733 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse redirect but restore the deleted history behind it. Counting noses is a fool's errand. If the entire SIGCOV cited by the Keeps revolves around one election cycle, coverage in the relevant election article may very well be all that is encyclopaedically warranted. Enos733 said it best, and their !vote, along with those who agreed with Enos733, carries more P&G weight than that of the Keeps. That said, I see no valid argument to delete the history behind the redirect. If there's any copyvios or other policy violations there, those--and only those--revs can be deleted. But the rest should be restored, allowing anyone to selectively merge relevant content to the target while observing WP:DUE. Owen× ☎ 22:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  The issue with covering candidates in the election articles is that their traditional standardized structure is not beholden to contain the encyclopedic information that is covered by the sources. Where in 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 13 (an already overburdened article) would you suggest the policy positions of each candidate (which are often covered by reliable sources) go? There is plenty of pertinent and encyclopedic information in an article like this . Katzrockso (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I concur that there is a consensus against retaining a standalone article in the discussion, however, so overturning to redirect is the best outcome. Katzrockso (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to redirect (with history retained) largely per OwenX. I do see policy based consensus to not keep as a standalone article. However there is not consensus to delete rather than redirect, nor is there any valid argument to not redirect or to delete the article history. As the argument for not keeping the article is BLP1E, a redirect to that 1E is a very reasonable ATD. Frank Anchor 23:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Spartaz, was there anything particularly concerning in the history that prompted the delete & redirect? This is a BLP, so the risk of something inappropriate in the history is much higher than entertainment content. I'd really like to hear the rationale behind delete and redirect, because like the above 2 !voters, I'm not seeing a compelling reason--or arguments in the AfD--to support delete and redirect instead of a simple redirect. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  To be fair, in retrospect I probably flubbed the delete part and would be prepared to undo that part of the close. I suspect that I was swayed by the split of later votes between delete and redirect. I stand by the clear consensus to redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to Redirect if this is what we should say to restore the history. The close of Redirect was correct, but I don't see a reason to delete the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• I have restored the history below the redirect. In retrospect I think I was swayed by the post relist voters being split between delete and redirect but logically the correct outcome is to maintain the redirect and leave the history below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, Spartaz. I believe this now addresses the only overturn issue brought up by participants other than the appellant. No objection to a SNOW close of this DRV. Owen× ☎ 12:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, this addresses all my issues and would make it easier for editors to recreate the article if Avila Chevalier wins her election and/or gains more significant coverage. I wouldn't object to a SNOW close either. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Pretzel Quetzal and Spartaz: Thanks for restoring the history. :) As a keep !voter, this is better. Looks like consensus here remains against keeping.

  I am frustrated at this consensus. To revisit my example of Graham Platner: That AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner) was closed as "no consensus" (with 22 keep, 17 redirect/delete). That's roughly the same ratio as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darializa Avila Chevalier (2nd nomination) (with 9 keep, 12 redirect/delete). The kept version of Graham Platner had 0 RS predating the election (of 27 sources) and 6 non-lede paragraphs about Platner's life before the campaign, most of which about his military job and bartending job. The deleted version of Darializa Avila Chevalier had 6 RS predating the election (of 45 sources) and 10 non-lede paragraphs about Avila Chevalier's life before the campaign, most of which about her public protests. (It hasn't been WP:10YT yet, but I remember the 2018 Marion Sims protest!) Beyond that: Both Platner and Avila Chevalier are DSA members whose campaigns represent a noisy fight between the socialist/progressive Left wing and liberal/centrist Right wing of the Democratic Party, and IMO are notable in their own right. TLDR: If the Platner article deserved "no consensus", then the DAC article deserved "no consensus".

  I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc etc, but it's frustrating. Anyway, thanks for the undeletion. :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  If you are counting votes then you won't get that this was a genuinely no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  The arguments in both discussions are very similar. Both cite the same Wikipedia guidelines around sustained coverage, routine coverage, politician presumed notability, and enduring notability. I am engaging the substance and suggesting DAC's article should pass even more strongly. CopyleftEverything (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  FWIW, if Graham Platner were renominated today, I'd argue to delete that one, too. No consensus shouldn't be confused with a consensus to keep. pburka (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  The difference is in the flow of the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Which itself presents a game theoretic problem, since many editors are partisan on these type of deletion issues, it incentivizes postponing a vote to show a change in opinion. Or it can equally just reflect a random change in the proportion of partisans from 'each side' (i.e. more non-elected politician lovers showed up after the relist and never would have been convinced by the delete arguments). Katzrockso (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, this is a big challenge with candidates at AfD. There are incentives, especially of supporters of the candidate, to come out an support positions to keep the article, thinking it will either help their candidate or to argue about fairness: "their opponent has a page." The answer is not to discourage deletion discussions of candidates that do not meet our expectations of notability, but perhaps we should recognize that a closure in the middle of a campaign may not be the final word. - Enos733 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  They are never the final word as circumstances might change at anytime and previous consensus will change as soon as the policy basis for inclusion will change. This has always been the way we handle these Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why especially of supporters of the candidate but not editors who seek to suppress coverage of the topic? إيان (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  oh please. Suppress? That's real battlefield language and fundamental failure to assume good faith. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  !votes are not votes and consensus is not established by tally, but by evaluation of arguments grounded in policies and reliable sources. إيان (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I definitely share your analysis of the similarities between Platner and Avila Chevalier, and their representation of this wider fight within the Democratic Party. However I think Platner is much more notable than Avila Chevalier as he is running in a swing Senate seat, whereas Avila Chevalier is running to unseat an incumbent Democrat. Platner has been discussed a lot in national politics whereas at the moment I have seen little discussion of Avila Chevalier outside of NY and progressive circles. Obviously this could easily change, if Avila Chevalier were to win tomorrow it would (I think) be the first incumbent Democrat to be primaries (apart from Al Green in Texas where gerrymandering forced two incumbents to run against each other), and she would likely receive significant coverage. Actually a few hours ago, the Guardian covered the race as well , which would be further international coverage. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't really understand the rush to run these articles into main space. It would make far more sense to concentrate our editing efforts on those candidates who win their primaries or, god forbid, actually win the general. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t really understand the reticence. If the sources to establish the notability of a subject are there, why not make sure the information is represented on Wikipedia and available to readers precisely when they are seeking to learn more about the subject in order to make an informed decision when they cast their ballot. إيان (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  One of the many things Wikipedia is not is an election guide. If we want voters to make informed decisions then we ought to include biographies of every candidate. That is one reason why I, and many other editors, believe that no candidates should be included (unless they're notable outside of election coverage). pburka (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  If they meet GNG they should have articles. إيان (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  إيان, you seem to be relitigating the AfD here. DRV is not AfD-round-2. We are here to determine whether the AfD was closed in accordance with a reasonable read of consensus there. If you believe the AfD participants erred in their assessment of the sources, start a spinout discussion at Talk:2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. DRV is the wrong forum to conduct a source assessment.

  If they meet GNG they should have articles - that is incorrect. WP:PAGEDECIDE makes it clear that not every subject that meets GNG must have a standalone article, especially if the subject can be adequately covered in another page. Unless you have any new argument relating to the closing of the AfD, I'll ask one of our regulars to close this DRV. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just responding to some comments here. Not opposed to closing this DRV. إيان (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I just want to make a point that GNG is not the standard we are using here and NPOL is the controlling guidance dusted with a generous sprinkling of 1E. There is absolutely no value in fighting an established consensus in an area is a contentious topic. You should really reflect on that and ask yourself if your enthusiasm is helping yourself or the project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  GNG has a big carveout that you're ignoring: WP:NOT. pburka (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Overturn (to redirect, with history intact). There was not justification to delete the history. There was a clear consensus to redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody suggested draftification? I think it should have been draftified. Unelected candidates for elections, who were not notable before becoming a candidate, are routinely required to remain in draftspace until they are elected. There are good reasons for this. I encourage proponents to ask for the history to be moved to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)