Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Instructions

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please:

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

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.


1.	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 May 21}}</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 May 21}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2026 May 21\|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 {{temporarily undeleted}} 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

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

Active discussions

21 May 2026

20 May 2026

Category:Saudi Arabia articles needing expert attention

It has the {{Empty category}} template. In the future, it's not impossible that pages may populate this category. The category must exist in order for pages to populate it. If the category is deleted and pages later are tagged with Expert Needed (in this specific topic), the category will not show as a redlinked one at the bottom of the article. See aslo CFD. Utfor (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Why have you not discussed with the deleting admin? Why have you not notified them of this discussion as is mandatory. Please explain why this category can exist as an empty one when it's policy to delete empty cats? @Liz: Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Spartaz is right, and the appellant has not discussed with the closer (which is preferred) and has not notified the closer (which is required in connection with all noticeboard filings) (and is not a nice-to-do because it is required). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Overturn the C1 closing as an empty category. This was a maintenance category, which may be empty some of them time or even most of the time. This category could have been used by an editor who was a subject matter expert on Saudi Arabia who would check the category to see if any articles had been assigned to them, and address the issues, and remove the articles from the category. The category is not deleted because there are no articles needing expert attention, because another article might need expert attention in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Re-create looks like a goof, but an empty category has no usable/unique/history data, so there's really nothing to do here. Can/should have been handled on deleting admin's talk page. Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

16 May 2026

Comparison of orbital rocket engines – Procedurally closed as disruptive. An essentially identical appeal, by the same appellant, has already been adjudicated recently, where the AfD close was soundly endorsed, and the appellant rebuked for their behaviour. The appellant is strongly advised to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and stop disrupting the project to make an invalid point. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Comparison of orbital rocket engines (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Wikipedia editors need to know if speeding closing a controversial AfD by a non-admin is a good practice or not. This AfD should have been discussed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dncmartins (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Comparison of orbital rocket engines – Procedurally closed as disruptive. An essentially identical appeal, by the same appellant, has already been adjudicated recently, where the AfD close was soundly endorsed, and the appellant rebuked for their behaviour. The appellant is strongly advised to WP:DROPTHESTICK, and stop disrupting the project to make an invalid point. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia editors need to know if speeding closing a controversial AfD by a non-admin is a good practice or not. This AfD should have been discussed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dncmartins (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

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

15 May 2026

MV Hondius

This was a very contentious discussion and the closer did not provide a closure statement, so it is unclear why they closed as Keep. Though "numerically" the Keeps were ahead significantly, many of the Keeps were not policy-based and from temp accounts. Several people have reached out to the closer, but he has not replied 15+ hours later. (Disclosure: I contributed to this discussion, !voting Redirect.) Natg 19 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I dunno, but I think your demands for an explanation might have been better if you had waited for the closing admin to start editing again instead of impatiently charging off to DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

15+ hours is a very short amount of time. MEN KISSING (she/they) Talk to me, I don't bite! - See my edits 21:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. The close was obvious. However, the discussion was very long and perhaps too long to expect someone to get through it all again. Is the lack of closing explanation a closer’s failing? I default to lean that way, but not here. I asked AI to summarise and it replied:

Consensus favored keeping the article because editors found sufficient independent coverage and distinct subject matter beyond the hantavirus outbreak.

Perhaps we can add a tool to ask AI to summarise excess verbosity like this AfD? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t realise that User:Natg 19 is a 19-years 233K-edits user.

I think, in my opinion, a thin article on a ship, and a heavy article on a major event on the ship, are better structured in two articles, and certainly are better structured in two articles in the short (~ 6 months) term. It takes time after an event to see how sources will treat the two related topics. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. I agree with the appellant that many of the Keeps lacked P&G basis. They should have been discarded, and for all we know, they were. Doczilla is a highly experienced AfD closer who doesn't subscribe to nose-counting. But that still leaves us without consensus against retention. Would you have found a no-consensus close more palatable? Split the difference and renominate in four months if you believe it is worth the community's time. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer a no-consensus close, though to be honest, I am not sure if I would personally renominate in the future. I do agree that it would be against consensus to overturn this to a delete/merge /redirect. Natg 19 (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

What were you hoping to get out of this DRV then? It seems a pointless use of other editors' attention. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Endorse At a certain point, even if a large number of the !keeps did not follow policy, the very strong opposition starts becoming WP:IAR territory. And there is no canvassing accusation to make it seem the keep votes were unnatural, it is likely people came from reading the ship article via current events topic. Try again in a few months (or years if it becomes another pandemic) once the news has died down. Jumpytoo Talk 00:50, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak overturn to no consensus. Evaluating the arguments, it does appear that the redirect/merge voters have a strong case, probably stronger than the keep side. However, there is absolutely no way that you can divine a redirect consensus out of that AfD without supervoting. Katzrockso (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Endorse - Sometimes a large number of Keep votes, including some that follow P&G and some that are just I like it, really is a stronger argument than a smaller number of Redirects. Sometimes we can't discount all of the heads. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse A closer could not have closed this in any other way. I do agree that supporters of keeping the article could have done a better job of framing their arguments in P&G terms, but enough editors did the work (especially the sources found by Tupsumato). At the end of the discussion, there was certainly no consensus for deleting or redirecting the page, and the volume of keeps tips the scale towards being an obvious keep. --Enos733 (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse and I want to call out that closers are sometimes in a damned-if-you-do dilemma: Write a closing statement, and you're accused of a supervote. Don't write one, and you're accused of not weighing the arguments. Would no consensus have been within closer discretion? Maybe, but there's no difference in outcome, since a no consensus means the article stays separate and un-redirected. No error on the closer's part, consider RENOM later if desired. Jclemens (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. While some of the keep votes are not P&G based, there are enough of these that are indeed P&G based. Argument strength wise this could be a no consensus close, but 1. it doesn't change the outcome of the article being retained, and 2. the number of keeps makes the keep close a reasonable one too. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 04:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. AFD can come to the results of delete, merge, or "neither", and changing between any of the flavours of "neither" can be taken forward on the article talk page if this is desirable. It doesn't need to come here. Stifle (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse. Does not agree with the reasoning behind the nomination. I can see more than enough keep votes with substantial reasoning to keep the article other than some random IP's. Also it is better to keep two seperate articles. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Weak endorse the keep close as a reasonable read of the discussion, even if many keep votes didn't really engage with policy. Certainly not a consensus for anything else, though I would also have endorsed a NC close. That said, a mild troutslap to @Natg 19, for rushing here after only 15 hours. Why not wait 24-28? And a 2nd mild troutslap to the closer, @Doczilla. It is generally helpful to provide a closing rationale, except in the most obvious cases, and this one had noise. 2nd, even if someone jumped the gun bringing to DRV, it should be basic admin accountability to reasonably explain your thoughtprocess when asked. It can be OK to say, Not many of my closes go to DRV. When they do, though, I try to butt out. (as you have answered on your talk page when you were back online), but that "butting out" is much more defensible if you've left a clear record of your thinking already. If not, a brief explanation would really help. Martinp (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Pirojsha Adi Godrej

I am requesting a review of the "Delete" close due to a procedural error where a headcount of unsubstantiated opinions was prioritized over policy-backed sourcing. While the closer was communicative on their talk page, the rationale provided for the closure departs from the requirements of WP:CLOSE, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:DGFA.

During the AfD, three independent, staff-written profiles (Forbes.com, Fortune India, and Mint) were introduced after the first relist. Deletion proponents didn't engage with these sources or explain how they fell short of WP:SIGCOV requirements.

On their talk page, the closer explicitly stated that "the headcount sometimes pushes stuff over the line" and that they deferred to "experienced editors" even while noting those editors "may not provided evidence to refute" the new sources.

This close departs from community standards in the following ways:

WP:CLOSE and WP:DGFA require weighing arguments, not counting votes. Giving dispositive weight to unsubstantiated opinions over unrebutted policy-backed evidence—while noting those opinions lacked evidentiary support—constitutes a procedural error. The closer's talk page response explicitly stated that deletion proponents "may not provided evidence to refute" the new sources, yet a raw headcount was permitted to dictate the outcome.

Chronology matters. After the new evidence was introduced, the discussion timeline shows a strict 1-1 split. Earlier "Delete" !votes were cast before these sources were unearthed and cannot reasonably be treated as evaluations of them. A close that fails to account for the chronological shift in evidence violates the requirement to evaluate the "state of the discussion" at the time of closing.

Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, "When a deletion discussion ends without consensus, then the result of the discussion is to maintain the "status quo", generally with the content being kept". The explanation that a headcount was used to "push stuff over the line" confirms that a clear consensus to delete was absent. In such circumstances, policy supports a result of No Consensus, rather than a discretionary decision to favor deletion.

Because the evidence for notability went unrebutted by policy-based arguments, the discussion lacked a consensus to delete. I therefore request that the close be overturned to No Consensus. EmilyR34 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. The appellant effectively asked the closer to dismiss the source assessment of two of our most experienced editors, as well as discard the views of two other veteran participants, and supercede those with her own assessment, or perhaps with the closer's own supervote. Spartaz went out of his way on his Talk page to patiently explain the reasoning behind his close, but to no avail. I find the appellant's claim that After the new evidence was introduced, the discussion timeline shows a strict 1-1 split to be disingenuous. There were three valid arguments for deletion before her Keep !vote, and another one after it, not counting Geschichte's questioning of the reliability of those sources. This type of self-serving truth-twisting makes me reluctant to AGF and accept any request for draftification or userfication, especially with a user who shows so little respect for consensus. Owen× ☎ 17:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment @Spartaz: any reason you did not close as redirect at least? the only opposition to that was Are we going to have a redirect for every member of his family?, which seems pretty weak. Jumpytoo Talk 01:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Can an administrator please temporarily undelete this article for review? I'd like to see if the sources Emily34 provided were cited in the article. Katzrockso (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I have explained my thinking to exhaustion on my talk page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Was this meant to be a reply to me @Spartaz? I have been having issues with replies showing up in the wrong spot in DRV lately. Katzrockso (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

yes it was Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I saw that conversation already, I don't particularly see its pertinence to my request. Katzrockso (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't alter my exhaustion with the topic I'm afraid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't blame you for being exhausted. Katzrockso (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Cryptic you usually do the temp undeleting at DRV. Katzrockso (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I've temp-undeleted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Katzrockso (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Overturn to Redirect - When there are votes to Keep and to Redirect, it is usually better to Redirect as an alternative to deletion than to delete, both to aid a possible search, and to assist in preparing a new draft if the subject becomes notable. There was no argument that is a reason not to redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
Overturn to Redirect. Delete was not a terrible close, but redirect would have been the better option. There was clear consensus to not keep as a standalone page, but there was not consensus to delete rather than redirect. In fact, no delete !voter made any objection to the suggestion of a redirect. And per Robert McClenon’s reasoning above. Frank Anchor 12:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Overturn to redirect. This is a complicated issue and I don't find too much fault with the appellant for bringing this close here, even though I do not think a no consensus close would be correct. I believe the appellant errors in not realizing that sources provided were already contained within the article and that the first three !votes are (presumably) a response to the sources in the article.

If the sources provided by the appellant hadn't been in the article, I would agree that the presentation of new sources would mandate that the closer downweight the earlier delete !votes that the subject did not have WP:SIGCOV (see On the other hand, if an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but then an editor has added the missing references, that argument for deletion is no longer persuasive). The argument that the subject does not have significant coverage is refuted by the presentation of sources that contain SIGCOV of the subject. In this hypothetical scenario, the new arguments (seemingly in reply to the appellant's !vote) that the sources were unreliable or promotional wouldn't strong enough to produce a consensus to delete, meaning a no consensus close would have been correct.

However, the sources presented in the AfD were already in the article at the time it was nominated for deletion. For better or worse, closers have to assume that the delete !votes evaluated the sources in the article and found them wanting for WP:SIGCOV. This means that the initial delete !votes cannot be discounted as a result of the keep !vote, and the consensus against a standalone page stands.

~~However, I agree (per Robert McClendon) that there was no policy based argument presented against the suggestion in the AfD to redirect, meaning that the close should have been redirect.~~

Katzrockso (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being blind here, but can you please help me point out which sources in article are the ones matching the appellants vote? Looking at temp undelete, I see while there are articles from Mint and Forbes sourced, they are different articles. (Godrej Properties IPO may pave way for more vs How Pirojsha Godrej changed India’s real estate business for Mint, and Pirojsha Godrej takes over as Godrej Properties chairman vs Pirojsha Godrej Builds On His Billionaire Family's Name for Forbes (article vs appellants source)). I plan to vote basically along your logic but want to make sure its the right way round. Jumpytoo Talk 01:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Nice catch, I saw that the outlets were the same and didn't check the titles closely enough to notice they were different - I guess I didn't think these two outlets were have so many articles on this person. Let me strike my vote for now while I rereview everything. Katzrockso (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Katzrockso: for the thorough policy breakdown, and to @Jumpytoo: for independently verifying the page history. The actual history of the article mirrors your exact hypothetical scenario. As Jumpytoo pointed out after reviewing the temporary undeletion, the three in-depth profiles I introduced (Forbes.com, Fortune India, and Mint) were not present in the article at nomination. I unearthed these sources during a WP:BEFORE search after the first relist. Because the initial !votes preceded this evidence, they cannot reasonably be treated as evaluations of those sources. Once this WP:SIGCOV was introduced, the discussion no longer reflected a clear consensus to delete, and the newer sourcing was not substantively engaged with or addressed during the discussion.

Per Katzrockso's reasoning, because the argument that the page lacked SIGCOV was refuted by the presentation of sources that contain SIGCOV of the subject, the original deletion rationale became less persuasive in light of the additional sourcing. Relying on the numerical weight of earlier !votes to "push stuff over the line" – while also acknowledging that the newer sourcing was not substantively addressed or refuted –— is difficult to reconcile with WP:CLOSE, WP:DGFA, and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.

Regarding Katzrockso's point that the new arguments (seemingly in reply to the appellant's !vote) that the sources were unreliable or promotional wouldn't [be] strong enough to produce a consensus to delete, meaning a no consensus close would have been correct. – I second this. This has been my central argument from the beginning. Because the newer evidence was not substantively addressed on policy grounds, I continue to believe that a "No Consensus" close would have been the procedurally correct outcome here per WP:NOCONSENSUS. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Nomination looks very LLM-y. Stifle (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
Overturn to redirect per Robert McClendon and WP:CHEAP. Indian sources can be tricky to evaluate for independence--but I think we have enough to justify a redirect. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
Overturn to No consensus: Per WP:ATD, Redirection is an alternative to deletion and there was no clear consensus to delete here. Even the first relist note suggests there was no consensus for a Redirect also. Per above, new sources with significant coverage were later brought up to support standalone notability, and those sources were not really discussed in depth afterward. because of which, the discussion does not appear to have reached a clear consensus to delete. Redirecting at this stage may end up bypassing those newer sources and the arguments based on them. So for now, keeping the article per WP:NOCONSENSUS and WP:NEXIST seems like the safer procedural outcome. That would still allow editors to fully evaluate the newer coverage and renominate the article at AfD later if concerns around standalone notability or source independence continue to remain.Thilsebatti (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Artlist

Hey, I'd like to ask for this to be overturned or at least sent back to draft space. The old deletion discussion decided the company didn't have enough independent coverage, but things have changed a lot since then and it clearly passes WP:NCORP now. Artlist isn't just a small stock-media startup anymore. Recent financial reporting from tech outlets like Ctech/Calcalist shows they just hit over $300M in ARR and have hundreds of employees. There's also solid older coverage of their KKR funding round from TechCrunch and Reuters. Since there is a ton of deep, third-party source material available now that either didn't exist or wasn't looked at during the original AfD, we should be able to get a proper draft going. Thanks. ~2026-29052-60 (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Were you involved with the article? Did you participate in the AfD? A ton of sources is often a bad indicator. Read WP:THREE. Your assertion that sources exist is far less persuasive than linking 2 or 3 qualifying sources. Are you familiar with WP:CORP? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

My search for sources didn’t turn up anything that would meet the WP:GNG. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Endorse if this is an appeal from the 2023 close, but the unregistered appellant hasn't given any reason to overturn the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Allow Submission of Draft, because the appellant doesn't need permission to submit a draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Do Not draftify or userfy the deleted article without a better explanation of why the deleted article should be restored. Working from an article that failed notability or verifiability is not always the best way to develop a new draft, and the appellant has not explained why this is a special case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Comment While I'm an ardent critic of NCORP setting the sourcing bar higher for corporations, I'm also not willing to AGF that an unregistered request necessarily represents a non-COI requestor by default. Can we make COI declaration a DRV expectation when the removal of a possible COI target (vanity BLP, corporation, etc.) is appealed? Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
I firmly agree that anyone in DRV should be declaring a COI Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse. I find it rather telling that the appellant, as well as almost all the "KEEP"s at the AfD, were accounts essentially created to vote in these discussions. Even if revenues and employee headcount were NCORP criteria, which they aren't, the $300M and "hundreds of employees" aren't impressive figures. The vague wave in the general direction of ton of deep, third-party source material isn't helpful. As others noted, I'd be surprised if the appellant does not have a COI with the subject, but at this point, it hardly matters, other than to limit their editing to draftspace. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

14 May 2026

Nkombo Island – Speedy close. We do not entertain LLM-generated deletion review requests. Stifle (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

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

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

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

I request review of the deletion of Nkombo Island, closed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nkombo Island as “delete” and treated as WP:G15.

The AfD nomination raised a WP:LLMNEW / G15 concern based mainly on a hallucinated or incorrect academic reference. During the discussion, that specific invalid reference was removed and the article was substantially rewritten with more accurate sources. The only follow-up comment in the AfD noted this cleanup. There was otherwise very limited participation.

My concern is that the close appears to have treated the page as G15 based on the nominated version, rather than assessing whether the final revision at the time of deletion still met WP:G15. G15 applies to pages that still show clear signs of unreviewed LLM-generated content, such as user-directed AI text, placeholders, or implausible/nonexistent citations. If those issues had been removed before close, I do not think speedy deletion under G15 was appropriate.

I am asking that the G15-based deletion be reviewed because the cited defect appears to have been addressed before deletion. I have already asked the closing administrator to review the close on their talk page.

Requested outcome: restore the article, relist the AfD, or restore to draftspace/userspace for cleanup and source improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FactotumPrime (talk • contribs) 10:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Why didn't you go to WP:REFUND or the closer's talk page? This was soft deleted due to minimal participation, so any good faith opposition would restore the article. Katzrockso (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

it wasn't soft deleted it was a G15 Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, apparently I'm illiterate Katzrockso (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

there was a soft deletion note on it so easy to misread Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Userfy. Properly deleted. User:FactotumPrime looks like a newcomer who is still learning the ropes. How to review LLM before posting. How to sign posts. How to ask the deleting admin before ploughing through the heavy DRV listing instructions. Let them fix the problem before moving back, WP:MOVE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Removing the hallucinated reference doesn't alter the fact that LLM text is unwanted. Nothing stops you writing an article with your own words Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Userfication of deleted material allows the user to reflect on what was deleted and why. It in no way implied, as dies draftification, that it might be welcome back in mainspace after some little fixes. Userfied, it sits in the watchlists of others, and we can look forward to them tagging it {{db-u1}} as a sign of understanding. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

If they merely remove the worst thing, it will show us that we didn’t explain well enough.

It is possible that this real topic could be shown to be Wikipedia-notable, without LLM, I recommend the advice at WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. Proper WP:G15 deletion, as the cited source existing in a different journal is proof that the article was LLM-generated. Katzrockso (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment Requesting temp undeletion to check the article was substantially rewritten with more accurate sources claim by appellant. Jumpytoo Talk 02:05, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse the G15 deletion. The place appears to be a legally recognized populated named place, and so is notable, but the article is fruit of the poisonous tree. The originator or the author can build a new draft or article without the improper assistance of artificial intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse and speedy close. This request has clearly been generated by AI and should be closed per WP:AITALK. As others have stated, G15 was appropriate here. StartOkayStop (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Endorse as the original nom. The point is that pages should be created by humans, the reference fairly clearly was not and therefore the page likely wasn't either. The simple solution of changing the reference does not change the machine edits. In too many occasions the detail (in this case the clearly wrong reference) is mistaken for the wider problem (use of llm). Human edits, however bad, are always better than machine edits. JMWt (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
Speedy close. We do not discuss AI-generated nominations. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)