Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October

Suicide of Nautica Malone (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Several months ago this page was speedy deleted as it was targeted by trolls who vandalized the page due to this, good faith editors such as myself who wished to document the events that had happened (the drive-through exposure, the suicide and the mock vigil afterwards) in good faith were tarred with the same brush as trolls who wanted to mock this man's death.

Regardless, this event was a very notable event in internet culture and there are articles on other suicides such as Suicide of Ronnie McNutt and Suicide of Amanda Todd which have articles. I believe there needs to be a review of this deletion several months after the events have passed.

I could find the following sources reporting on the events after the article's deletion on the 5 February. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Relevant AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Nautica Malone. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion and subsequent speedies. There's nothing stopping you from writing a draft and either going through AfC or moving it directly to mainspace. Similarly there's nothing stopping an editor from filing another AfD at which time the new sources can be assessed. This does not need DRV. Star Mississippi 19:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Re-close as Delete. WP:SNOW is not a speedy-deletion criterion. I'm generally against pointless bureaucracy, and am often the first here to chide appellants for calling to turn a Keep to a N/C or vice versa. The problem is that less experienced editors see such closes, and believing that SNOW, which isn't even a policy, is a valid speedy criterion, we end up with non-admin "Speedy keep per SNOW" here at DRV. If it's a speedy delete, cite the relevant CSD. Otherwise, it's "Delete - early close per WP:NOTBURO" or similar language. Owen× ☎ 20:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse, and Allow Recreation because DRV does not need to allow recreation. I concur with OwenX's criticism of the language of the close, but will note that in this case it was an admin who mistakenly cited the snowball clause as a Speedy criterion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Call it TNT of a bad attempt if you like. For recreation, I recommend WP:AfC and following the advice in WP:THREE. If your three best sources aren’t good enough, don’t waste our time by throwing up more worse sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Everything I said at the AfD in re WP:BLP1E still rings true. "Speedy delete" should not have been the close rationale, but given how much it was snowing an early close was likely to happen in any event. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 04:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
• Fix close to delete (not speedy) and evaluate G4s I've not seen anyone say that the subsequent attempt was substantially identical, but it appears unlikely to survive an AfD regardless. While the Harpers' article is in depth, everything else seems contemporaneous, and one big article using a one-off event as a jumping off point for an article about the person involved is usually a non-starter. See Murder of Robert Eric Wone for a more comprehensive, sustained set of coverage. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • The only G4 citing this I can find is at Nautica Malone (where it was moved after being created at this title). It was a sentence long, entirely negative in nature (but not entirely unsourced as WP:G10 requires), and identical to the first sentence of the much more substantial version deleted by El C. Plus, it was a clear G5, though that wouldn't be discovered until about a week later. Same sock was the user to first move this into mainspace, too, FWIW. —Cryptic 19:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the eval. Somehow, I'm entirely unsurprised that G4 didn't apply but another valid speedy criterion did. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse clear and overwhelming consensus to delete. The fact that it was incorrectly called a “speedy delete” instead of “snow delete” does not change that, and the end result is the same. Recreation is allowed already as the title is not WP:SALTed. My recommendation is the appellant or any other interested user incorporate the sources into a draft and go through the WP:AFC process. Frank Anchor 18:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
• As a practical matter, I don't see how this needs any more coverage than the single sentence it already has in Bikini barista#Reported incidents. —Cryptic 19:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) While I think that speedy closure was against policy, there was a very low chance it would've been kept even if the AfD stayed up. The article clearly violates WP:NOTNEWS. So, functionally speaking, it doesn't really make much of a difference. It is WP:TOOSOON for such a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse there's nothing to re-review per the appellant - the outcome was essentially correct and a new draft would be needed before anything else can be determined. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse as Frank Anchor says, this wasn't really a speedy deletion, it was a speedy close per SNOW. And a clearly correct one. Local Variable (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• update the wording of the close to delete It shouldn't have been listed as a speedy deletion as SNOW isn't a criteria for a speedy delete. And yes, feel free to recreate. My sense is that the topic meets our sourcing requirements--the Harper's article is so strong that combined with the contemporaneous sources we are well over the bar. But I'm more lax on such things than most and I don't know how an AfD will come out. Hobit (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to plain delete, not speedy, mixing and matching SNOW and speedy delete is wrong. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
• Reclose with the correct language as others have noted. Small effort.—Alalch E. 22:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

This was closed as a keep without a rationale, implying it was an uncontroversial keep, which surprised me heavily. It was a fairly even split between keep and delete, especially considering that several keep arguments were WP:VAGUEWAVEs that failed to engage with the argument in my nomination. I'd expect it to have been relisted or at the very least a no consensus closure, which, if the rationale was well reasoned enough, I'd find understandable.

The closer of the page also states that he does not discuss AfD closes on his talk page notice, which strikes me as insufficient, given that communication is required. "All Wikipedia editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to use talk pages to discuss issues when needed.", which doesn't line up here. This is after his no consensus close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony T. DiPietro was overturned and the article deleted just last month. Much wasted time at DRV could be saved if he was simply willing to accept a potentially entirely valid argument as to why a close was unmerited. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Reopen I would probably still !vote keep on this, but I get where you're coming from and it probably should have been relisted, at the very least because the keep side is largely arguing related to WP:GNG and the delete side is largely arguing related to WP:NOT/WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In my view the two sides are not necessarily talking past each other, but there has not been meaningful refutations, especially from the keep side, of how the list is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I think re-opening the discussion is likely the best way to seek consensus, as it is a good start of a discussion. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 14:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. I agree with Zxcvbnm that some of the Keep !votes carried no P&G weight, but the same is true for some of the Delete ones. For example, this is not a simple copyright violation. That fact that some of the sources cited as "0%" now show a movie at "6%" is not a valid deletion criterion. And while we prefer to have at least two or three SIGCOV sources to establish notability, NLIST doesn't specify that One source is not enough. So at best, I see this as a no-consensus, and as such, I'd allow early renomination. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  If reopened, what I'd likely argue within the AfD is that INDISCRIMINATE means that things must be "put in context". How can we put "film with a 0% Rotten Tomatoes rating" in context? That is to say, what is the importance of specifically having a 0% rating? Do people have an answer besides "it means it's really bad"? We already have a separate list for "really bad films".

  In any event, whether it succeeds or not, I do think that this manner of close that implies it was totally open and shut was unmerited, without any explanation whatsoever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that the close would have benefited from adding a brief explanation. And while Stifle is within policy to keep his closes laconic and to refuse to discuss them on his Talk page, this only ends up wasting other people's time here at DRV. As for your arguments for deletion, those are outside the scope of a DRV. Owen× ☎ 15:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse own closure as an accurate reading of consensus. Much as I dislike listcruft, a delete outcome would have been patently wrong.
  I do not wish to make a side discussion distract from the DRV but the nominator's incorrect assertion that my closure of the Anthony DiPietro AFD was overturned cannot go unanswered. The DRV was not closed as overturn, it was closed as no consensus with "a plurality endorsing the closure", and the closer of that DRV opted, as is his right, to exercise his discretion to relist. It was only the further contribution after that relisting that tipped the outcome towards delete. WP:COMMUNICATE is an essay and not binding. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  "Policy allows me to do this!" is a rather weak reason to force anyone who questions your unexplained closes to take the case to DRV. Yes, WP:COMMUNICATE is an essay, but there's a reason why the rest of us (with the possible exception of Explicit) bother to add a few words of explanation when closing potentially controversial XfDs, and engage with editors on our Talk page. This isn't just a matter of civility or WP:ADMINACCT (which is policy!). It's an attempt to save the rest of us from having to waste time here at DRV. Owen× ☎ 15:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  OK, feedback accepted. I am removing the "I don't discuss AFD closures" from my talk page and edit notices. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Owen× ☎ 17:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Just a note here to say that they still won’t actually discuss AFD closes, and the note on their talk page more or less still says that they won’t. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I would be happy to receive your feedback on my talk page as to why you feel my note says I won't discuss AFD closes so that I can make it adequately clear. I didn't ignore your recent message; I was on vacation. Also, he/him pronouns please. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse closure with deletion. I can't see what went wrong. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Relist - There was a majority of Keep votes, but some of them were vague waves, so another week is a good idea. After one week, I think it is even better to relist than to tease out a rough consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse Each Keep vote need not repeat the RSes that multiple do provide in order for them to gain consensus. The arguement was NOT vs. GNG, and NOT lost, as it should have. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• endorse I utterly hate crufty lists but the policy winning argument was the sourcing and Stifle could not possibly have closed it otherwise. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse a brief closing statement might have been preferable but the closure was plainly correct for reasons explained above. Local Variable (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was a general consensus that the sourcing was adequate to pass GNG and NLIST. Relisting would have been a reasonable choice as well, though I don’t see any way that consensus could form to not keep the article based on the “keep” support already present. Frank Anchor 14:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  In which case the relist would not be a reasonable choice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  My personal opinion that resisting would be incorrect does not preclude it from being a reasonable option. Frank Anchor 03:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. The discussion contains proof that the topic is a notable list. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I completely disagree with the result, but I'm not sure there was another way to close the discussion, and INDISCRIMINATE is really tough to argue at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. An explanatory closing statement is not mandatory. When the close just states what the outcome was, the closer says that the participants decided to do that by consensus. There was consensus for this outcome, because the the delete side's argument for deletion was defeated by the sources brought up by the keeps.—Alalch E. 22:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Tukde Tukde Gang (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

There was not a consensus to delete here. Beyond mere pointing to NEWSORGINDIA or unsubstantiated accusations of the sources being unreliable, editors did not address the significant coverage listed in the deletion discussion. By a pure head count, there are 4 keeps, 8 deletes, 2 merges, but 2 of the delete !votes suggested merging or redirecting as ATD as well. I tried to discuss this with the closer at their talk page, to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katzrockso (talk • contribs) 04:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. The closer gave the appellant a clear, detailed explanation as to how he arrived at the Delete result. The appellant has not brought up any argument that hasn't already been adequately addressed by Doczilla. No objection to anyone adding verified, encyclopedic content about the subject, if any exists, to one of the proposed merge targets, and recreating the page as a redirect. Owen× ☎ 13:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  The closer discounted PARAYANKA's vote based on the misguided notion that they were expressing a personal point of view, which is not an accurate reflection of their !vote by any plain reading of it. Closer failed to address the strength of the arguments instead of mere headcounting - a mere vague wave to "policy-based arguments" is not a "clear, detailed explanation" as to which policy-based arguments were the basis of the decision to close. Any appeal to AADP to discount Svartner's vote would discount an equal or greater amount of delete !votes that similarly made other "arguments to avoid" (as I already noted at the closer's talk page). Katzrockso (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  The closer is under no obligation to address the strength of the arguments to a level that would satisfy you, and I see no evidence that he engaged in mere headcounting. The explanation he gave you on his Talk page went well beyond what he was obliged to do as a closer. The fact that you aren't pleased with the result changes none of that. Even with a very accommodating read of consensus there, I don't see how this could be closed as anything other than Delete, or at best, Merge. Owen× ☎ 17:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Weak overturn to merge. I don't think delete was necessarily a "bad" close, but I see merge as a better option. There was clear consensus to not keep this article as a standalone page, but merge was suggested by several users (Merge and redirect were also considered a valid option by multiple "delete" !voters). There were no arguments made in opposition to merge as an ATD. Frank Anchor 14:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: removed “weak” from my !vote based on comments from other supporters of “overturn”. Frank Anchor 15:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• I think that's a fair assessment. Had the appellant asked the closer to restore the page history behind a newly-created redirect, in order to aid with merging the content to the proposed target, my guess is that the response would have been more favourable. Owen× ☎ 14:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse - The closer made an accurate assessment of the consensus, the arguments for deletion were much stronger than any of the keep arguments . Koshuri ^(あ!) 14:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. The close was within discretion. A willing administrator might provide a list of sources used in the article. It is possible to add content about this topic to a relevant article for this topic without any further admin action.—Alalch E. 15:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to merge: Frank Anchor hits the nail on the head. I agree that there is a consensus against keeping the article for the reasons set forth by others, including the closer. However, since a sensible merge option was suggested and there was no explicit opposition to it from delete !voters, and no explanation from the closer (including at their talk page) as to why delete was chosen over merge, the latter is the better choice. Left guide (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to merge even the delete !voters were very clear about the appropriate merge target. A consensus that there should not be a standalone article is not consensus to delete without a redirect and the vehemence of some of the delete voters strongly argues in favor of a redirect being the most appropriate way to handle it: the things that no one cares about should be deleted; the thing that offend people rarely should. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. Close call, but “merge” is not viable, because it means “keep until merged”, with “redirect” being wrong due to the title not being mentioned at the target. “Draftify” is an option. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

”Merge” is not viable, because it means “keep until merged” is probably the most nonsensical argument I have ever seen at a DRV. Of course the article is kept for a short period of time to facilitate a merger. Was there some copyvio or attack language that needs hidden? It did not appear so from the AFD so there is no reason that this can’t remain as an article for a short time while the merger is in process, especially since there is no deadline. I will also reiterate that there has been no policy-based opposition to a merger, either at the AFD or on this DRV. Frank Anchor 22:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

There was a rough consensus to delete. There was a strong consensus again minority “keep”s to not have a standard alone article. The “merge” !vote was weak, a vague wave, I read no intention from anyone to actually do the merge. An immediate redirect would be policy noncompliant as the title is not mentioned at the target, and when I looked I did not see an obvious spot to put it. So, ENDORSE deletion and recommend Draftify to allow interested editors to attempt to merge. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

That's a really lame take, in that it's entirely a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem, and there's no assertion that this was G10-11-12 material. Redirect with history intact allows merging later, and a deletion allows nothing of the sort, which is why ATDs are preferable to outright deletions: you don't need an admin to finish the fix. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s a neologism, a political jibe, changing over the years as to who it applies to. Originally criticised for having no reliable sources, in the AfD sources brought up are transient commentary mentions the terms used.

I do not think adding coverage at the target is simply “surmountable”. I predict attempts to merge will meet rejection, due to it being off-focus and lacking definition.

The ATD of “merge” is a half-baked vague wave. A redirect is unjustified as it is not covered at the target. The option of “Draftify for possible merge” is workable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the reference to WP:ATD (shortcut to WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, policy), I wrote a policy and consensus analysis that Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022. There have been subsequent discussions, but no material policy changes. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

please help me understand this. You gave evidence in an Abitration case. Which any editor can do.

You then are posting it here. Why is it relevant? Why do you think your personal opinion offered as evidence is somehow binding on this discussion? JMWt (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

My comment is intended to prevent readers from accepting Jclemens's assertion that ATDs are preferable to outright deletions without examination. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Flatscan disagrees vehemently with my obviously correct policy interpretation and will consistently show up to point out the disagreement. In all seriousness, it's a position that has been gaining traction for years, and I continue to believe that it's a key way to defuse many contentious battles by introducing, and preferring, non-boolean options in these discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Then you're welcome to try to make policy actually say that, in the correct forum - the policy and its talk page, not individual deletion discussions and reviews. You might recall that the last time that was tried, it was summarily reverted, and the ensuing discussion strengthened the wording of policy against your position. —Cryptic 22:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse, reluctantly - there's a clear majority to delete, and only one person advocated for a merge. While that usually can be enough, I didn't see enough in the discussion that would have made me settle on an ATD, and there is no reason why the topic can't be briefly added to another article without merging. SportingFlyer T·C 08:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to merge - without going deep into the topic, it seems to me that the solution which satisfies most of the AfD participants would be a merge. The !delete votes seem to me to be largely spurious as political slogans often have sources showing they are notable under the GNG. I'd have likely !voted merge and encouraged the topic to be split out in time if the notability was more obvious. JMWt (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse There was a majority that voted to delete. Some of them may have identified merge as a secondary preference, but the consensus was clearly in favour of deletion. Zalaraz (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not required to perform an ATD instead of deletion. Several users, including multiple delete !voters, voicing their support for merge is enough especially with no opposition to it. Frank Anchor 15:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I think there is a legalistic understanding of consensus (which mostly involves counting !votes) and there's another which weights arguments and concludes with a position that most can "live with" even if they're not happy with it.

Few suggested !merge but I think there was a stronger weight to not-delete.

I don't see much weighing of the !keep arguments given that they seem to not be based on policy anyway. Even Indian media can surely be seen as showing notability of political phrases. It's true that they might be exaggerating or using the phrases in different ways, but they're clearly showing that the phrase is in use, which is the point of the exercise. JMWt (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse - Delete was a reasonable conclusion by the closer. Merge would have also been a reasonable conclusion by the closer, but we are not providing our own closes. Editors should be allowed to request refund of the deleted article to user space to merge content into another article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse Closer accurately weighed the opinions of participants based on the relevant P&Gs, and while some preferred a merge it would have been a supervote to have closed it as a merge with only one person advocating in its favor. Let'srun (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  That's simply not so; a single merge opinion, unrebutted, is preferable per WP:DGFA "When in doubt, don't delete". An ATD is always available to any closer, and does not rely on even a single participant advocating for it if the discussion can be shown to support it, as this one does. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  An ATD is always available to any closer, and does not rely on even a single participant advocating for it if the discussion can be shown to support it That would be a rare situation. Decision making in Wikipedia is by consensus, and is rarely unilateral. Local Variable (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  If 100% of people mentioning an ATD support it and none refute it, and the discussion is not a clear keep, then the ATD is the group's consensus, even if only one edito mentions the ATD. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  I generally support this, being within discretion of an admin or experienced close, but in this case support the closer having not done this. There is too much pointing to the material being entirely unsuitable for mainspace even within another article.

  However, nothing is lost, as anyone may request draftification and start merging. If the redirect becomes justified, it can be created. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse Correct interpretation of consensus. In the context of this debate a single suggestion to merge did not prevent the closer reaching a conclusion that there is consensus to delete. With respect to those who disagree, views to the contrary elevate the weight of a sole !vote far above what it ought to have. Local Variable (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

It was not a single suggestion to merge, but it was two merge !votes AND multiple delete !voters supporting merge and/or redirect as an ATD. Frank Anchor 10:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

You're right, it's two; but I'm still not convinced it's sufficient. Local Variable (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. Reflected consensus. Contrary to certain views, ATD is to be interpreted and applied to each XFD by the contributors to that XFD, with those contributors coming to a consensus whether deletion or an alternative is appropriate in the circumstances. Supervote closures contrary to a consensus to delete should expect to be brought here and overturned. Anyone wishing to change policy so that "an ATD does not rely on even a single participant advocating it" or suchlike, should look to gather a consensus for that change in the usual way. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

3 + 3 (math) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

May be uncontroversial, but I don't think this meets A10, and no response yet at WP:REFUND even with pinging two admins and I have asked Liz to review it on their talk page, but no response yet. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 19:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I've got a response at WP:REFUND now, but they ended up saying:

BodhiHarp, I'll be honest, regardless of whether that page technically met WP:A10, I really can't see how it could be considered useful... — Salvio giuliano 20:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment from deleting admin The page, as created, basically stated that 3+3=6 and listed several other basic addition and multiplication facts (e.g., 2+4) with the same result. One can find this same information (arithmetic facts) in the table at Addition#Single-digit addition – with the new article neither substantially expanding on it nor the title making for a plausible redirect – so despite not being a word-for-word duplicate, I believe this still falls within the scope of A10. And while I will not veto another admin undeleting it, I'm reasonably sure an AfD would conclude with a WP:SNOW delete. ^Complex/_Rational 21:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• @BodhiHarpl: This is the second low value DRV that you have raised recently. You either do not understand community norms about content or are trolling. Either cease the trolling or go spend some time in mainspace and learn a few things before asking for any new discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Pinging more admins: @331dot, Premeditated Chaos, and Jauerback: - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 21:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that pinging a seemingly random group of admins is not helpful to building consensus. Are you hoping to have your draft undeleted, or is there another issue at play that has not already been discussed? ^Complex/_Rational 21:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• I concur with ComplexRational. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• So do I. Whatever you think you're doing, please stop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Support and close: I seriously doubt you can explain the reception, development, and significance of 3+3. Going off ComplexRational's description, I don't think this is (or can be reworked to) an encyclopedic article.--Thegoofhere (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy close as disruptive, if not outright trollery. The appellant is treading precipitously close to WP:NOTHERE. Owen× ☎ 22:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Someone, please close this. A10 may be incorrect in this case, but fine. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 01:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Category:Swedish Hockey League players (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Non-admin closure, where I don't see a consensus to delete, not even close. Furthermore, I don't understand the rationale. The categorization is very relevant - we want to know all the players, past and present, with Wikipedia articles who have played in the Swedish Hockey League. Deleting a category for [league] players would be unthinkable in the football part of Wikipedia. It is not possible/feasible to find SHL players via club categories. I seeek an overturn, the category reinstated and probably relisted - though it should probably be as a 2nd nom. Geschichte (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Geschichte, I hope you'll forgive my hazy memory, this was two years ago after all. As I recall, the category was by and large a container category; it didn't contain individual players. (It is not possible/feasible to find SHL players via club categories. - you seem to agree with the deletion here.) I still see a consensus in that discussion - there was no one who outright objected to it, and Kaffet i halsen (as nom) and Peterkingiron (who suggesting merging which was functionally equivalent to deletion in this case) explicitly supported, and Crowsus concluded with The question is whether it should be repurposed to mirror the football usage (a lot of work), or just deleted. which implicitly offers weak support for deletion. CfDs are very rarely relisted more than twice, and I saw no reason here to break with tradition. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

(I now realise I didn't mention this, but I'm the closer of the CfD.) — Qwerfjkltalk 17:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Too late, Endorse. This was a line-ball call on an unimportant question over two years ago. CfD doesn’t delete content. The CfD nominator, User:Kaffet i halsen, is active. Try asking them to discuss a way forward. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Allow recreation/restore The close wasn't obvious and wasn't explained. I see the argument provided above and I get it, but while CfD generally deletes with a lower bar than most xfDs, I don't think we're there in this discussion. Now, it is 2 years old and I've no idea how much of a technical pain this would be or what has changed since then. So if there is a good reason at this point to not restore, that would change my view. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• (original nominator) I can confirm Qwerfjkl's memory that it was a container category, with 15–20 something players of team categories (the same construction as e.g. Category:Liiga players) with teams that had also played in other leagues than Elitserien/SHL because of promotion/relegation and being active before 1975 (start of the league). This may not be entirely clear from only looking at the discussion now. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was a consensus to delete the category, it is clear what was deleted and why, the close is correct, treating "merge" as cognate with "delete" in this particular case was an objectively accurate interpretation, there are no NAC-related concerns, and discussion having been closed by a non-admin is in line with established CfD practices.—Alalch E. 17:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse the conclusion to merge/delete Typically the first step is to have a conversation with the closer about the reasons if they don't understand them. Here's a link to the discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Category:Swedish Hockey League players. I think that this is really too stale to reopen for a CFD. Perhaps the closer and nominator can have a talk page conversation with Geschichte about what it means to be defining here. ^SMason_Garrison 23:46, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• This was deleted because it was a container category. If Geschichte wants to recreate it as something other than a container category, then he's free to do that and WP:G4 wouldn't be an obstacle. I don't think there's anything for DRV to do here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  DRV can endorse the NAC as an acceptable one in the context of CfD and endorse the finding of consensus as correct. —Alalch E. 22:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Stephen Matthews (writer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

An afd for one subject that deleted a second. Yes there was clear consensus that there should not be an article for the Stephen Matthews that occupied that page at the time. No disputing that. However there was no consensus to delete an article on another subject, Stephen Matthews (1946-2024), who had occupied the page prior to Hijacking. I believe that part of the page should be restored. The afd was about the one Matthews (and largely focused on the current state of the article) and the the only non vague wave to the other Matthews suggested merging and not deletion of anything on him. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• I've temp-undeleted. The diff in question. —Cryptic 13:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Restore old version - This is an unusual case that requires common sense by Deletion Review (us). As Duffbeerforme notes, the deleted article had hijacked a previous article about a different person with the same name. I have my doubts as to whether the previous article satisfies biographical notability, but the previous article was not discussed. The deletion discussion was about the (lack of) merits of the replacement article, so that its deletion should restore the old article rather than delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Emirates SkyCargo Flight 9788 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

WP:NAC. While acknowledging the ratio of Keep! votes, there was little substantial engagement with the arguments or policy-based reasoning, as most Keep! votes were variations of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:WAX, which was also noted by another editor. Closer cites the essay WP:AIRCRASH, which is explicitly marked as non-policy and recommended not to be cited in AFD discussions. XYZ1233212 (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Closer here. I agree that the quality of discussion had room of improvement (and debated whether I should wade in myself), but the thrust of the opposing !votes was clear disagreement with your claim that a jumbo jet crash leading to fatalities at a major airport is a "routine kinds of news event" (WP:EVENTCRITERIA #4), which was the only policy-based reasoning you cited as justification for deletion. WP:RAPID was also correctly cited in the arguments, and it was an oversight on my part not to list that in the SNOW rationale. Asamboi (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse per above and WP:RAPID. We can expect further actions and responses in the coming days (such as criminal investigations) which, if true, would give more notability to this accident. If not, an AfD request may then be submitted again. It may also carry enduring historical significance (the deadliest aviation accident in the Hong Kong airport since China Airlines Flight 642) but it would take more time to shed light on this. ~~ J. Dann 10:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Reopen. While the initial avalanche of keep !votes was voluminous, there was very little engagement with policy in them. In particular, most if not all participants seem to be using "notable" in the sense of memorable, unusual, or interesting; rather than engaging on actual WP:N elements. One of the reasons we by default run deletion discussions for days is to give a chance for a discussion that starts off not very policy-based to migrate to a more policy-based one. The early closure here precluded that. While applauding the closer's enthusiasm and desire to help, this was not a good candidate for a speedy NAC close. Martinp (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Endorse. Proper, and obvious, application of WP:SNOW. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse - Closure was appropriate. Hull losses of major airliners generally result in articles. Such articles generally survive after AfD discussions. Mjroots (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Reopen per Martinp. The !votes during the first few hours of an AfD are often unrepresentative of the community, since they usually come from those involved in editing the article or those canvassed by them, rather than by those who find the discussion as part of their regular AfD scan. In this case, it resulted in most Keeps basing their vote on a fundamental misunderstanding of what notable means on WP. There was no valid reason to cut the discussion short after 7 hours, especially seeing the poor quality of arguments entered up to that point. Owen× ☎ 12:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Reopen or start a new AfD – WP:SNOW is not a policy, and the essay itself states that "... there are sometimes good reasons for pushing ahead against the flames anyway; well-aimed snowballs have, on rare occasions, made it through the inferno to reach their marks." If the arguments were well supported by policies and guidelines, a SNOW close would have been warranted. In this case, the discussion, which had majoritarily garnered low quality arguments, was closed less than seven hours after it was opened, with the given rationale leaning towards a WP:SUPERVOTE:
  The closer states that "The nomination has gathered 15 Keep !votes and no support since it was proposed...". However, Wikipedia is not a vote and the АfD had only been open for seven hours prior to the closure, effectively removing the possibility of anybody supporting the nomination. The closer also went on to cite WP:AIRCRASH, an essay that has no bearing on notability, and something which nobody else had cited. Deletion review is not a place to rehash arguments and determine whether or not the accident is notable. It's here to determine whether the closure was correct. Taking all into account, along with the fact that this was closed by a non-admin, the discussion should be overturned and reopened. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse while SNOW was at one point understood to need 6 unanimous votes/24 hours, this was 15 votes in 6 hours-ish. The arguments are sufficient. Follow RENOM after appropriate delay and work on improving the article in the mean time. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  At some point, one has to begin to question whether WP:NOTHERE applies to the AfD/DRV filer. This is a relatively new account, XYZ1233212 sprung forth fully formed earlier this year and has been participating in current events coverage to the near exclusion of other participation. While it's certainly a possible legitimate usage pattern, the brief survey I have done of contributions suggests a less than organic or typical editing pattern, suggesting prior participation not visible in the contribution history of this account. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse a valid application of WP:SNOW given how lobsided the vote was. The article can always be re-nominated in the future for AFD is editors feel the issues are still present. And while one can argue that the AFD was closed to quickly, it can also be argued that the article was hastily nominated for deletion as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - This wasn't mentioned during the AFD, but it turns out that the plane itself is somewhat notable, seeing as it was also a Pokémon Jet back in the day (see https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/boeing-747-400-tc-acf-airact/ron61e), so there probably would be some interest in having the fate of this plane documented on Wikipedia. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Good point, but it would need a reliable source other than planespotters.net WP:PLANESPOTTERS. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/major-incident/airact-747-veers-off-runway-in-hong-kong-strikes-ground-vehicle/ does this count? 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 21:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, since its Flightradar related. Grffffff (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

  Planespotter.net is not reliable and honestly, i think it should be blacklisted and deprecated from here as it is heavily user-generated and other deprecated source such as Encyclopaedia Metallum and Crunchbase were deprecated for reason that i think are very similar to planespotter.net Stmbus (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  10mmsocket mentioned that already, and I'd like to refer you to https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/flight-tracking-news/major-incident/airact-747-veers-off-runway-in-hong-kong-strikes-ground-vehicle/, which clearly provides the same information about the plane's former pokemon-themed livery 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thx. Ill take that into consideration. However, it doesnt mention any date or anything related to its life post ANA Stmbus (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  @HotMess The flightradar24 source is a WP:BLOG (see the URL) and should not be used over reliable sources. Also your signature was slightly challenging to decipher, I don't suppose you would consider making it easier to read for dark mode users like myself? 11WB (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  @11WB In all fairness, I noticed that the flightradar24 source had already been cited on the article in question (and nobody raised any objections to that previously being cited in the article), hence why I pointed to that source. In the meantime, it looks like someone else found another source which mentions it (in chinese), and I've found yet another source (this time in English) which also mentions it (which has since been added to the article).

  Also, re signature - is this version more legible in dark mode? Not sure if you're using the dark mode gadget or some other dark mode tool, so idk how to properly fix it on your end. (As a sidenote, is your username meant to be 11wallisb or 11WB? kinda hard for me to tell from your signature) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  Happy to continue the signature discussion on a talk page, I merely mentioned it here as a sidenote. I haven't checked the sources you've mentioned, but as long as they aren't self-published, they are probably fine. 11WB (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  @HotMess, I checked the source you mentioned. Unfortunately, it is not a reliable source. Rather the opposite. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 482#Dimsum Daily. 11WB (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  sorry about that, thought I searched it there, but I guess I accidentally selected the 'help:' namespace instead of the 'wikipedia:' namespace 😅 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 09:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  I replaced the unreliable Dimsum Daily source with one from Flug Revue [de], a wholly more reliable aviation subscription journal from Germany. The article also had a source from Times Now, which is not reliable per WP:NPPSG. The FlightRadar24 blog should also be changed with another source that isn't a blog. 11WB (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Why is this request open? If this isn't maliciously attempting to use wikipedia guidelines against itself then I don't know what is. This is an international news event, because it is a major hull loss, by an international airline, coming from an accident, at one of the major airports of the region, with loss of life, with the added peculiarity that the plane ended up in the water, and the unusual circumstance that this major incident occurred after the plane was already on the ground. Taxi incidents of major airlines that lead to hull loss and death can be counted on one hand in the history of aviation. 2001:4C4C:135E:4800:F5D4:9FE3:710A:C48B (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse overwhelming support to keep the article such that there was zero prospect of the AFD closing in any way that would not result in the article being retained, making this a highly appropriate SNOW close. My advice to the appellant is to consider a better rationale for deletion in at least two months and after news of this topic dies down, or to improve the page. Frank Anchor 03:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse No matter if there is no fatalities happened. I suspected the nominator is abusing the guidelines and should be labelled as vandalism. Fatalities, plane heavily damaged. Everything enough for label the incident as an "accident". I don't know why AfD could be reopened or restart. The result was Keep per WP:SNOW but in my opinion, it should be Speedy keep or Speedy close, which no one thinks of, instead. KyleRGiggs (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Good close in all respects, and the closer above eloquently refutes the rationale for this review. Andrewa (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Reasonable invocation of wp:Snow and an appropriate non-admin closure.—Alalch E. 10:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse Goes against WP:NOTNEWS if we're going by the letter of policy, so the nom is technically not wrong, but in this case it's 99.9999999% certain it will have sustained notability simply due to the nature of the article as a major airplane accident so an AfD didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding and using some common sense was in order. I think the closure was therefore accurate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  Could you explain in a bit more detail how you think NOTNEWS applie to this, Zxcvbnm? I'm obviously of a different opinion, but I genuinely wonder how you think that policy could be used to delete this. Jclemens (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  It was nominated for AfD the same exact day the event happened. There was no time for WP:SUSTAINED to apply even with the most lax interpretations of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  So? Some events, like this one, are obviously going to get sustained coverage based on historic patterns of coverage for previous similar events. I'd invite you again--what specific wording in NOTNEWS did this run afoul of at the time it was nominated? Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse as a valid early close based on the snowball principle after 15 Keeps in two days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I understand where you get "two days" from; the AFD was closed 6 hours and 45 minutes after it was opened. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse there's not a snowball's chance in hell this is getting deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Young Republican group chat leaks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Given the divided participation between keep and merge combined with canvassing suspicion, I disagree that this merits an unexplained speedy SNOW keep by a non-admin after being open only two days. Left guide (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Left guide did not follow DRV procedure by coming here instead of posting on the closure's talk page.

Anyway, I ask anyone to look at the discussion and see whether it could be closed any other way, at the time of closure or five days later.

There is a real cost when current events are put up for deletion that efforts are diverted from improving the article to participating in the AfD. (t · c) buidhe 05:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse This is an entirely reasonable instance of what we're discussing at WT:SK currently: deletion discussions left open on current topics of general interest make us look bad. I applaud the closer for taking the initiative, and agree that SNOW keep, at least for now, is reasonable. However, in the spirit of that discussion, a relatively speedy renomination, 2-4 weeks, should allow the news cycles to run and see if this has lasting coverage. I suspect it will not, but little is gained by fighting over this right away. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy renominate, this time EC-protecting the AfD, as WP:CT/AP allows us to do, in hope of curbing the canvassing. The closer, who acted in good faith, was tricked by a barrage of canvassed voters into misinterpreting the discussion as SNOW. I see none of the AfD regulars there. The mostly inexperienced Keeps exhibited gross ignorance of our guidelines, making their pile-on (!)vote meaningless. Relisting would be fruitless, since the discussion has already been befouled by the canvassed votes. The current Wait-and-See RfC at WT:SK isn't likely to pass. This means our existing guidelines are still in force, requiring us to wait for notability before publishing, rather than wait for the dust to settle before deleting. Owen× ☎ 08:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Making major assumptions about canvassing. Just because some, for example, were not "one of the AfD regulars" doesn't mean that canvassing took place. This is a subject area that interests a lot of people, so it's no surprise that it caught the attention of newbies. 172.56.13.52 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, when north of 10,000 people are seeing the great big "You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion" banner, I don't think canvassing is the most parsimonious explanation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Are you seriously accusing Wikipedia of canvassing against it's own article? How does that even work? Trade (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, I'm saying there's a more innocent explanation than canvassing, which is that readers just saw the notice and decided to share their opinions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I can see the SNOW rationale was open to reasonable objection but it looks to me a speedy close was valid by WP:SKCRIT#1 because the nominator was "only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging) and no new delete rationale appears in the deletion discussion". The nomination and discussion were unsatisfactory. Thincat (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Bad close summary. Change it to “The result was keep per WP:SNOW; merge proposals can move to the article talk page”. “Speedy keep” is not correct. Advise the closer to read WP:SK#NOT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I am someone who rarely participates in AfD discussions (and voted Keep) but that doesn't mean that I'm ignorant of how they work. Maybe speedy keep was the wrong play, but this is a topic of, at this time, international significance at the moment and the options were keep/merge. A later relisting seems fine but I also think keeping it for now seems merited. Jessamyn (my talk page) 15:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Reclose, at minimum, per SmokeyJoe. That said, merge proposals (as well as redirects), may get wider participation at an AfD than on the talk page of an article, and closers should not prematurely close a good discussion about an article, just because it may meet the criteria of an early close. In this case, a 7-day discussion probably would have led to more clarity (although at the end, the result probably would be the same). --Enos733 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Merge proposals belong on talk pages. Merging is too complicated for AfD. When it comes to actually doing the merge, the merge material might get rejected at the target, and further talk is needed, which is not compatible with it having been decided at AfD.

  Redirects are well discussed and decided at AfD.

  At this AfD, there were a few “merge” !votes and zero “redirect” !votes.

  - SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  What was the deletion request for Youravreageavaitor (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Youravreageavaitor: You can see the previous discussion here.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Young_Republican_group_chat_leaks

  Hope that helps. 172.56.13.52 (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Reclose as a non-snow speedy keep (SK#1) and start a proposed merge at the suggested target article's talk page. This laughable AfD(-in-name-only) was not a deletion discussion; what editors would like to do is discuss merging, and they need a bit of procedural assistance.—Alalch E. 11:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Reclose as non-SNOW speedy keep, the rationale was clearly WP:WRONGFORUM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Reclose. It's a clear keep. It can be re-nominated in a few months if necessary. In the meantime, I'd like a section added to the article about reactions from public intellectuals and non-partisan groups such as NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, if they exist and are sourced by reliable sources. The article could also use some careful copy editing. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
• Reclose as Speedy Keep 1 because this was not a deletion request but a merge request. TROUT to the closer for conflating a Speedy Keep and a snow close. The closer is an experienced non-admin editor and should know to use terminology correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that's very harsh. Even Newyorkbrad wasn't whacked with a trout when he got confused (allegedly) (diff). Thincat (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe better to just trout everyone then, for purposes of inclusivity. 172.56.13.52 (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse - The closer's assessment appears to be reasonable after reading the deletion discussion. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Jirard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Look At It! (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Review it burn it play it complete it sell it (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Completioner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Too-hasty closure of an RfD associated with redirects created by Humanbeing9 (talk · contribs). The defense given by the only !voter is pretty strong. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Relist all This is a case where admins trying to stop a spamming user got a bit overzealous. See ThatOneVideoGamer, which I created in 2023 and it got deleted with R3 even though it's not recently created and it's mentioned in the article and this edit where an admin reverts a valid addition to a name SIA because of a false positive by CluebotNG. In my opinion, this shows that all redirects to The Completionist that were deleted recently need to be checked. This includes "Jirard" which should get the full 7 days at RfD like any other redirect. Warudo (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm also updating my !vote to relist all the redirects involved per my rationale above. Warudo (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Relist. The discussion was closed after just a few hours with no explanation and against the sole !vote. If there was some newly discovered speedy delete reason or some other development, this should have been explained in the close or in a comment to inform the assessments of other editors in an ongoing discussion. Sometimes editors with a history of bad redirects create one that is appropriate. The standard 7 day discussion allows other editors to weigh in. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 14:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Relist all and WP:TROUT the closing admin for this obvious overreach. One user’s opinion is never consensus to delete, particularly with a good faith keep !vote present (as in the case of Jirard) and particularly when it was only listed for four hours (though I support relist even if this RFD ran for a full week). Frank Anchor 15:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

While my vote was originally just for Jirard, I support a relist of all the referenced articles for similar reason. Frank Anchor 16:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• LaundryPizza03, why didn't you discuss the closure with Brandon before filing a DRV? Why are you only contesting this closure and not the other closures also done at the same time: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 17#Completioner, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 17#Completionist catchphrases!, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 17#Review it burn it play it complete it sell it? I would agree all of these discussions were hastily closed, but I cannot support a DRV that is also hasty. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  How do I list multiple XfD's in one nomination? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  nvm,  Done. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and I was going to do a deletion review on Review it burn it play it complete it sell it because this was closed early without good enough reason, there was not consensus to delete and there is no agreement to keep or delete, and the discussion is not thorough at all. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 16:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Relist all. RfDs and CfDs are often poorly attended, forcing the closer to determine the right course of action based on just a couple of !votes. But in closing the RfDs within 4-6 hours after they were opened, this was essentially a speedy deletion, with no CSD criterion spelled out by the closer. I'm reluctant to pull out the old trout before hearing what Brandon has to say. For all we know, this could have been a clerical mistake that he can correct by relisting and procedurally closing this DRV. Personally, I cannot think of any valid reason to keep phrases like Look At It! or Play It! as a redirect to a Youtuber who happens to use those expressions. But I also cannot in good faith dismiss them as CSD-grade patent nonsense or vandalism. This means that once started, the RfD should be allowed to run its course. Owen× ☎ 17:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• endorse all besides jirard. i guess we can just consider them snow blocks, since they weren't really plausible. no opinion on jirard, though, since i can't really name other people with that name. also, note that some of those are being undeleted also without discussion, which is kind of annoying consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Voiced linguolabial lateral approximant (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

This is an odd case, but I have requested undeletion at WP:Requests for undeletion. However since articles deleted per a deletion discussion cannot be undeleted there, now my option is to ask the deleting admin, but they said no, so now my only options are to do a deletion review or contact other admins. I have improved the article in my sandbox and I want it to be restored in a user subpage until it is notable, which will be when an editor reviews it. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 16:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse and decline draft. The new draft is no better than the deleted version in terms of sourcing, relying entirely on a PhD thesis that--as far as I can tell--has never been published outside that university. I have no objection to adding the subject as a line to the table at Linguolabial consonant, and recreating the deleted page as a redirect to it. Owen× ☎ 17:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe then: restore it, paste in my improved version, then redirect to Linguolabial consonant. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 17:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Endorse and respect the AfD decision for at least six months. Your sandbox draft has weak sources, and I suspect that on deep analysis it might be revealed to be largely Original Research (WP:OR), whether yours or the PhD thesis. It looks hyper-focused, and good, but Wikipedia needs it to be covered, explicitly, elsewhere before it is covered as an article in Wikipedia. I like the advice above for you to add some information at Linguolabial consonant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I would wait to see if the hypothetical introduced coverage at Linguolabial consonant is stable before creating a redirect. All the explanations are in the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe I found out that this also says it occurs in disordered speech. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 04:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The topic is way too skinny for an article. I lean to thinking that it is not worth even a mention. Maybe we can label it “too technical” for Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse as a valid closure, but I am puzzled. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Question - What is being requested from Deletion Review, and why? The appellant has created a draft in a sandbox. It appears that the appellant is requesting that the deleted article be refunded to draft space. Why? The appellant can submit the sandbox for review. OwenX says that it will be declined, but DRV does not review drafts, although any of its editors can. The appellant does not need the deleted article, either in draft space or elsewhere. What is the purpose of this request? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• For context, it seems that the appellant's now my option is to ask the deleting admin, but they said no can be found at User talk:Premeditated Chaos#Restoring Voiced linguolabial lateral approximant (permalink). Left guide (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse This is functionally a waste of volunteer effort. The nominator should step away and learn how to use the GNG appropriately to assess sources. Until then, their efforts to get this blatantly non-notable crud into main space need to stop. This is only barely borderline disruptive at this point Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. The last AfD has not been challenged. Pro forma "endorse". This is about whether a user can have a certain user subpage; they want the subpage to be created via undeletion of an AfD-deleted article. But at the same time, the user has created a new draft, so the user does not need this. Therefore, it appears that the user is asking for something they do not need. That's the only thing which makes for an odd case here.—Alalch E. 11:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, maybe I could do it this way instead:

• Keep developing the draft, which is now a user subpage.
• When I believe it is notable, I will have an editor review it.
• If accepted, I will request that the page Voiced linguolabial lateral approximant be undeleted, right after being restored, I will paste in my improved version, and I will request deletion of the user subpage.

- BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions) 03:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It is possible to move a draft to article space. More importantly, drafts aren't notable or non-notable. Topics are. Non-notable topics do not become notable by editors developing a draft. —Alalch E. 17:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Lawrence Udeigwe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I request a review of the recent AfD closure (“delete”) of the Lawrence Udeigwe article. The discussion was closed prematurely without full consideration of new, significant evidence establishing notability under WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Disclosure: I am the subject of the article. This request focuses solely on procedural and policy issues, not personal or promotional concerns. Grounds for review: 1. Late substantive evidence not considered. A “Keep” argument by user User:Isaajibola (posted 13 October) presented multiple reliable, independent sources including All About Jazz (2016, 2018), Punch Nigeria, Daily Times, PM News, and African American News, showing sustained coverage across several years. These clearly meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, but the AfD was closed on 14 October—before any editor could assess or respond to this new evidence. 2. Low participation and unclear consensus. The discussion included two Delete votes and multiple Keep arguments (at least one valid Keep before relisting and a detailed Keep by Isaajibola just before closure). Shortly after the latter, editor David Eppstein inserted a “not a vote / canvassing warning” template and related commentary that appeared to pre-emptively discredit new participation. The article was deleted only a few hours later. Given WP:AFDCLOSING, which advises relisting when new evidence or arguments are presented late in low-participation discussions, this sequence suggests the closure was premature and potentially influenced by procedural irregularities. 3. Questionable conduct and bias. One Delete comment contained a discriminatory remark (“A Nigerian male? That’s even more of a case for deletion.”), violating WP:NPA and WP:UCoC. Such remarks compromise the integrity of consensus and should not influence closure. 4. Reliable coverage meets WP:MUSICBIO. All About Jazz reviews by professional critic James Nadal provide detailed critical analysis, which qualifies as significant coverage. Combined with major national press coverage (Punch, Daily Times, PM News), this demonstrates sustained, independent attention over nearly a decade. Requested action: Please overturn the deletion and restore the article, or alternatively reopen the AfD for proper reassessment with the new evidence considered. Fractal2024 (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Lawrence Udeigwe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Hi everyone, I’m resubmitting this deletion review because the earlier one was closed as procedural. I'm a real editor and would like the community to take a fresh look at the AfD close for Lawrence Udeigwe.

The AfD was closed only a few hours after new reliable sources were added in a Keep vote by User:Isaajibola. These included two detailed reviews from All About Jazz (2016 and 2018) and national press coverage from Punch, Daily Times, and PM News. These show sustained, independent coverage of Lawrence Udeigwe’s music career and appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. However, the AfD was closed on 14 October, just before any editor could respond to or even evaluate this new evidence.

The discussion had very few participants overall: two clear Delete votes and a few Keep votes. Shortly after the last Keep vote, editor David Eppstein inserted a “not a vote / canvassing warning” template and commentary that seemed to discourage additional participation from more editors. The article was deleted only a few hours later.

One Delete comment also contained a discriminatory remark (“A Nigerian male? That’s even more of a case for deletion.”), which violates WP:NPA and WP:UCoC. Remarks like this compromise the integrity of the consensus and should not influence closure.

Also, before the close, user 173.79.19.248 posted an accusation against Isaajibola for alleged undisclosed paid editing, only hours after that user’s detailed Keep argument. There was no evidence presented and no administrative action taken before the close, yet this claim appears to have affected the decision. This represents a procedural irregularity inconsistent with WP:AFDCLOSING and WP:UCoC since it undermined fair consideration of valid evidence.

Given the late submission of significant sources, the limited participation, and the procedural and conduct concerns noted above, I request that the deletion be overturned and the article restored, or alternatively that the AfD be reopened for proper reassessment.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Fractal2024 (talk)

• I haven't more than glanced at this yet, and may or may not eventually take a closer look, but there's a now-blocked user that used at least three completely different sigs in this afd. —Cryptic 17:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have blocked OP, as taking this thread in tandem with their first edit and only edit prior to filing at DRV, it is obvious that they are engaging in paid editing on behalf of Lawrence Udeigwe and are WP:NOTHERE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Lawrence Hunt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request for Deletion Review – Lawrence Hunt Background: The article Lawrence Hunt was deleted following concerns about insufficient independent coverage, promotional tone, and possible conflict of interest. Reason for review: A new, fully rewritten draft has been prepared that addresses all of the issues raised in the original deletion discussion. The updated version: Draws on multiple reliable, independent sources, including Evening Standard, The Guardian, The Telegraph, FlightGlobal, and UK Parliamentary records, all of which provide significant third-party coverage of Hunt’s career and public role. Has been rewritten in a neutral, encyclopedic tone with all promotional and self-sourced material removed. Uses proper citation formatting in line with Wikipedia’s verifiability and sourcing policies. Request: I respectfully request that the page Lawrence Hunt be undeleted and restored to draft space (User or Draft namespace) so that the new, policy-compliant version can be reviewed for potential reinstatement. This new draft demonstrates clear notability under WP:BIO and meets WP:NPOV and WP:V standards. Sources demonstrating significant coverage include: Evening Standard, “Down but not out: Airline boss brought low by the herd instinct,” 11 April 2012. The Daily Telegraph, “Silverjet: The rapid rise and fall of a business class-only airline,” 30 May 2008. FlightGlobal, “Lawrence Hunt: creating a new premium market at Silverjet,” 19 February 2007. UK Parliament, Passengers’ Experiences of Air Travel, 2007 (evidence listing L. Hunt). Thank you for considering this request Ash17e (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse unanimous close, and allow recreation. The inexperienced appellant created the new draft as a wiki-markup formatted PDF file, oddly enough. I didn't review the new sources, but if the appellant has a COI with the subject, this should probably go through AfC anyway. Owen× ☎ 12:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose recreation LLM generated appeal & article. Jumpytoo Talk 17:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - User:Ash17e is insulting DRV with a request written by artificial intelligence. However, if there is a new draft, it can be submitted for AFC review, if the draft and any accompanying writing is by humans. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

the consensus was to delete it but seeing as how Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 13#1.414213562373..., etc. is still ongoing and this is a similar redirect, it would make sense to restore this redirect and add it to that discussion. Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• No. —Cryptic 02:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse and speedy procedural close as this appeal runs afoul of WP:DRVPURPOSE which says (emphasis in original):

  Deletion review should not be used…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)

  Left guide (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Prof Dhruva Kumar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

The current version of the article on Prof Dhruva Kumar is substantially different from the previously deleted one. It has been completely rewritten in a neutral, encyclopedic tone and now includes multiple independent reliable sources (e.g. ANI News and other media outlets) verifying the subject’s notability and coverage. The issues raised in the prior AfD—namely promotional tone and lack of independent references—have been fully addressed.

Requesting restoration or undeletion for community review so the improved version can be assessed on its own merits. Vijaysvijay (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion of Dhruva Kumar per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhruva Kumar, and from what I recall (I did some work cleaning up the article prior to its deletion) the current article looks remarkably similar to the one I cleaned up (for example I distinctly remember changing the sentence In 2018, he was appointed Head of Curriculum for Marine Engineering at the City of Glasgow College, where he oversees training for approximately one-third of the United Kingdom's marine engineering apprentices which is supposedly reference by this whicjh only says Kumar, who moved to Scotland in 2006 and now works at City of Glasgow College). FDW777 (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
• No LLM generated appeal, hallucinations and all (no ANI News source is used in article) Jumpytoo Talk 19:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  I believe it refers to this press relase, which contains the disclaimer The above press release has been provided by VMPL. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same. FDW777 (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. OP appears to be contesting the {{db-g4}} tagging on the current version of Dhruva Kumar, not the result of the AFD. ✗plicit 00:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Template:Authority control (arts) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Per User_talk:Vanderwaalforces#Template:Authority_control_(arts), there was never really a consensus to merge here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Vacate BADNAC No way that shows a clear enough consensus for a NAC--I'd argue it hadn't reached consensus at all, so either an admin reclose or relist would both be fine. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Vanderwaalforces has over 50,000 edits, and has been closing discussion for years. I don't think it's fair to argue an incorrect conclusion was reached due to inexperience with editing or closing. Nor do I think someone is better at closing just because they're an admin. I'm an admin who rarely uses admin tools, and I have much less experience closing discussions. -- Beland (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is an invalid argument. TFD does not require NACs to operate a certain way. Consensus to reach X is allowed for any non-admin closer. Izno (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry if I'm not used to nuances of here a NAC, there a NAC. I don't do TFD at all, but my default assumption is that a non-obvious close needs an admin, and this one clearly appears as such to me. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  It's a point of education then :^): At TFD, it's fine to say the close was bad. It's not fine to say it was because they were not an admin. Izno (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm still not sold on the idea that a NAC is fine at one venue, bad in another. That's special pleading. I do note that my immediately prior edit was a NAC here at DRV... but that's because there was zero disagreement between established editors and doing so is well within the page precedent. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  It's not special pleading though. TFD is set up to allow anyone to close. That's ignoring that "BADNAC" is an essay, despite its referrers trying to apply it elsewhere (for any of several possible reasons). Ignoring that, of course, none of the reasons laid out in the actual section on BADNAC apply in this specific instance to the specific NAC: The topic is not contentious, VF has plenty of experience editing Wikipedia, this is TFD where non-admins can do things, and they were uninvolved in the discussion.

  WP:NACD does exist: VF indicated they're not an admin, they don't appear to have violated ADMINACCT/UNINVOLVED, and it's TFD as above. And a few other bullets mostly echoing BADNAC's list.

  But from NACD, Close calls [...] are better left to admins. which is reasonably relevant. But it's better left to admins and not verboten for non-admins. Among the criteria, I don't find this collection of facts strongly an argument for a toss on this dimension. Izno (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Meh I don’t agree that this is a badnac. Some XFDs have to operate in an environment with nacs because there are simply no admins interested in that area who understand it well enough to interpret those arguments. That said it, despite being open two months, I wouldn’t like to have to find a consensus there - but see my previous comment. The argument that we are removing a redundancy has some attraction to me though so I’m firmly in the meh camp. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  While that claim was definitely true of TfD in the past, these days TfD has at least 3 active regular admin closers and most discussions are closed by admins. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:12, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Which doesn't excuse an incorrect suggestion that this was a BADNAC. It may be BAD, but that it was an NAC is irrelevant at TFD. Izno (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Which is also true; the issue here isn't that the closer doesn't have enough experience to close contentious discussions, it's just that they made a close which (IMO) doesn't reflect the consensus the discussion came to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the outcome, though it would have probably been better to be left to an administrator. Policy-based votes show a rough consensus to replace, considering the main “keep” argument is that it would take a considerable effort to replace the thousands of instances across Wikipedia. The closer correctly gave that argument less weight as there is no deadline to complete this task. Frank Anchor 14:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, or re-open There was never really an explanation of the technical merit of merging. Put the other way, what technical debt or problem is incurred leaving it in place as a shortcut? I wouldn't readily dismiss the argument that a substantial number of edits are required on a merge either; that's not determinative, but it's a relevant consideration. Local Variable (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
• Neutral as I have a history with this topic (as does Pppery). I've offered bot support to migrate this over, and I've drafted code at - it's straightforward to implement but it needs to go through a bot request before I can run it, which I'll start after this discussion closes, if needed. I think that @MSGJ, Fram, Grimes2, Izno, WikiCleanerMan, DavidBrooks, WomenArtistUpdates, Antibabelic, Beland, Frietjes, and Photographer's Box: should also be aware of this discussion since they participated in the TfD. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
• I don't know exactly how to !vote on this request to vacate a Bad non-administrative closing. Don't vacate the closing? I do know I want this "Authority control (arts)" wrapper, or template, or whatever the heck it is, to be deleted. The consensus was to delete this, the result languished for months, if not years. I can't even find the original request for deletion, but nobody uses this template except the template's creator, who, after applying the template without consensus, is now claiming that it would be too much work to delete and has started this discussion up yet again. In the words of James Brown "Please, please, please..." --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Aha, I see several !votes on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 17#Module:Authority control (arts) requested simultaneous deletion of the module and the template that was created for the module. It seems the deletion of the template fell between the cracks. -- Beland (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure deletion of the template follows from deleting the fork of the module. Deleting the forked module is easy, deleting the template in question necessitates a huge number of changes in articles. Local Variable (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  If the template had been deleted after that discussion, a DRV would have rapidly overturned it. You can't nominate a no longer used module for deletion, and then hijack that discussion to delete an in-use template which isn't even tagged for deletion and for which the reasons for deletion of the module don't apply (and even less so when the people arguing for such stealth deletion are the same ones who argued for its deletion in the previous TfD which ended in keep). Hence my fear that once they get rid of the wrapper, they will then remove the functionality as that wouldn't require a more public TfD but could just be done with a template talk page discussion among very few people. I still don't get the reason why those people don't want this to exist and believe that it is sufficient to have e.g. 18 relevant Authority Control links at Vincent van Gogh, but want instead to show 49 such links, all with the same info but in different languages (). All of these and many more are available from Wikidata, why all of them need to be visible on an enwiki article is never made clear (apparently "for librarians" as if they can't and don't use Wikidata when necessary). Fram (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. Except in unusual circumstances which don't apply here, every deletion discussion requires each page it would apply to do be separately tagged and listed in the header. And if I had seen it at a time when the consensus wasn't obvious I would also have supported deleting the module - it's fine, and probably a good idea for the same backend code to be used. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  There never was consensus to delete this. On the contrary, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 26#Template:ACArt (where you voted delete) closed as "Keep".

  "the template's creator, who, after applying the template without consensus, is now claiming that it would be too much work to delete and has started this discussion up yet again." I didn't start this DRV, and didn't claim that it would be "too much work" to delete.

  Can you please stick to the facts? Fram (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Nor did I claim it was too much work to delete - if there were a strong reason to delete I would have been fine with it. My !vote there, expanded, is that by doing this you would have run a bot to make 16,000 edits, and what you would be accomplishing by doing that? Nothing but making things look slightly tidier. (I don't buy Fram's fear that the entire functionality will be neutered in a later module update). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  For me the facts are that this thing was created for no reason except one person found the regular authority control template to be too cluttered on the desktop version. The art specific template serves no useful function, it just satisfies one (1) person's aesthetics. The template was deployed by a bot making replacements before any meaningful discussion took place. This has now evolved into a years long technical debate that will keep reappearing with someone new asking "why does this even exist?" every once in a while. It doesn't save any space. It doesn't make the information any clearer one way of the other. For every Vincent van Gogh example there can be another one produced to show why all the data IS interesting.

  I see no compelling practical reason that this be kept. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Like many things, it was created by one person, but then debated by the wider community at the TfD I linked to above, and that closed as keep. So the "one person" argument no longer applies. Feel free to list your counterexamples though. Fram (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  And it was never deployed by a bot. That´s the third blatantly incorrect claim you make now. This is disruptive. Fram (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Are you claiming that you manually changed 16,000 entries? --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Are you claiming that anybody changed 16,000 entries? —Cryptic 23:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC) Nevermind, misread which part was being claimed to be deployed.

  I've taken a closer look, with a sample of 20 random articles currently transcluding the template (which is too small, but all I have time to manually look at right now). In none of them was the template put in place by a bot. In one article, Rufino Tamayo, it was placed by Ymblanter; in all 19 others, it was deployed by Fram using AWB (still not a bot!), between 9 February 2021 and 11 June 2021. —Cryptic 17:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn, bad close. I have no idea what the "stronger policy-based arguments" are that the close is based on. Which policy? Fram (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  I find a need to address this comment, especially since it is a question. One of WP:TFD#REASONS is that "the template is redundant to a better-designed template", I'm sorry but imagine if the creation of this template was done now in 2025, I wonder who would use it instead of just using the normal template with a |show=arts parameter. FWIW, imagine someone creating a template called "Reflist (indent)" when editors could just simply say "Reflist|indent=yes". So, yeah, I found the argument of 16k bot edits to articles being a problem to be of less weight compared to the argument about complexity and, as I stated on my talk, avoid confusion for editors and ensures that future changes only need to be made in one place. I am sorry if this was a BADNAC, and I stand to be corrected. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  "the template is redundant to a better-designed template": that's a possible reason why a template may be nominated for deletion, not a policy reason that it has to be deleted. Otherwise why would we even have the discussion? Every wrapper template is redundant, feel free to propose a speedy deletion to get rid of all of them. Here it feels like a supervote. Fram (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  No it is not a super vote, it is exactly what I avoid when closing discussions. My explanations are branches of my close, not to try to become INVOLVED in the discussion process. Thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  In the original TfD you said you had "no objection" to merging these templates if the same functionality is retained. Why have you changed your stance? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  DRV is not about "did the close align with my !vote", but "did the close correctly summarize the consensus". Fram (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Eyeballing this, I'd put it in no consensus or relist territory. "I don't want a bot to replace 16k uses" is not a terribly strong rationale at TFD, which does that all the time. "This is extra complexity" isn't a terribly strong rationale the other direction (for this case at least). Having two separate templates use the same module under the hood means there's functionally no code duplication. And that's the entire lot of the set here. There is a good argument for deletion here which is that having the separate template is "redundant to a better-designed template." (one supports parameters, one does not), but this wasn't made or weighed explicitly. Izno (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  The wrapper supports all parameters as far as I know? Are there parameters it should be able to use that don´t work? Fram (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  That's a misread of the point I tried to make that could have been made; instead, it was just "template A works with no parameters, template B works with 1 parameter" to achieve identical functionality, and we typically tend to prefer templates with more functionality per template than less. But as I said, a discussion point for the TFD to have decided (or decide). Izno (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse I agree with the closer that supporters of deleting the template have the stronger policy-based arguments, despite the number of !votes in the discussion. Editors arguing to keep the template suggested that a change would be cosmetic and there are 16k changes needed. These arguments are usually not strong arguments to make in a deletion discussion. In contrast, editors supporting replacing the template pointed to depreciating redundant wrappers. --Enos733 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) - Per WP:NOTAVOTE. I think that the closer made the right call, as there was a valid argument for modernization of the template in favor, and some weak arguments against that were countered by the final comment in which assistance with a bot to make the changes was offered, leaving seemingly little downside to modifying the template. Why not allowing a bot to make the changes would be bad to the point of overriding the benefits of modernization of the template was not fully expounded upon. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn. The closer said ...deprecating redundant wrappers to reduce maintenance complexity. ... what maintenance complexity? No one in the discussion made a direct reference to maintenance or maintenance complexity. It isn't clear what this maintenance complexity might be from the discussion or in general. The template source code is {{#invoke:Authority control | authorityControl | show=arts }}. The template reached a stage where there's nothing to maintain. The close resembles a supervote. There was not a consensus for the challenged outcome.—Alalch E. 21:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Alalch E.: My !vote did specifically say 'it just adds extra complexity that can confuse editors'. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. I missed your comment when reading the discussion in order to comment in this DRV. Would it be fair for me to say that the complexity you refer to is the situation of an editor being unsure about which template to pick, and not a "maintenance complexity" as in a need to synchronize the two templates if one changes, etc.? —Alalch E. 18:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Alalch E.: Broadly yes, the complexity is mostly on the user side rather than the maintenance side, since this template is basically a redirect to the Lua template with a manually defined parameter. However, there is also documentation maintenance complexity here since Template:Authority control and the module supports more parameters that aren't currently documented (but do work) via Template:Authority control (arts), such as the 'suppress' parameter, and this template blocks the choice of multiple whitelists, which also isn't currently documented. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  "For a description of other parameters, please read Template:Authority control/doc." is already present in the documentation of this template, and can be given more prominence if needed. "and this template blocks the choice of multiple whitelists" would only apply if you needed arts and lighthouse at the same time at the moment... Are there other combinations it doesn't allow? Fram (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Overturn. NACs are allowed because they help. When an NAC causes more trouble, it was not helpful. In hindsight, the close is an obviously BADNAC. The close was a close call. It could have easily been called “no consensus”. The closer should convert their closing rationale to a !vote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse This user does close things from time to time, but I would have closed it as replace - the votes to keep were "it's too much of a pain to change" which isn't really policy based. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

  Neither are the votes to replaces because "it's too hard to maintain", which simply isn't true... Fram (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Also this misstates my argument - my argument is that the value gained from doing this replacement is less than the effort it would take to do, not that the effort is in an absolute sense too much. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Relist or overturn to consensus. Not a BADNAC, just not an accurate read of consensus per Izno and Alalch E. I didn't find the arguments on either side particularly strong either, emphasised by lack of counter-arguments overall, and thus the balance of opinion being roughly the same with matching numerical weight. I therefore can't relate to endorsers assigning significantly higher weight to deprecate/replace in order to ascertain consensus. CNC (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Vinland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Was not originally part of the deletion discussion, but added late into the discussion. Open to recreation instead with different contents. This was an dab page to two pages that both redirected to Vinland. A battle in Vinland is already specified at these points in the Vinland article. The existence of these sentences where never brought up in the deletion discussion.

Saga of the greenlanders: "The explorers were then attacked in force, but managed to survive with only minor casualties by retreating to a well-chosen defensive position, a short distance from their base. One of the local people picked up an iron axe, tried it, and threw it away." This is also mentioned in chapter 6 of Saga of the greenlanders, https://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/graens.htm , in Icelandic. I was also able to find another battle in chapter 4, although that one was started with an ambush by the explorers.

Saga of Erik the Red: "One day, the local traders were frightened by the sudden arrival of the Greenlanders' bull, and they stayed away for three weeks. They then attacked in force, but the explorers managed to survive with only minor casualties, by retreating inland to a defensive position, a short distance from their camp." This is also mentioned in chapter 11 of Saga of Erik the Red, https://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/eirik.htm , in Icelandic

My proposal is to have the page as an redirect to Vinland#The Vinland Sagas, which is the parent chapter for both of the quotes. Snævar (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Burj Khalifa logo.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Discussed with deleting admin. I believe the there was a significant doubt in the freedom of the file, brought by Altenmann. The precise integration of the tower silhouette and bilingual lettering may reflect a degree of creative authorship (unique layout, proportions, negative space, etc). Whilst Arabic calligraphy isn't protected, constraining it to a space and adjusting it in a way is, in my opinion. Either way, this is a borderline case, and per WP:NOCONSENSUS we should err on the side of caution. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 19:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse keep closure. The closing administrator closed on the strength of arguments and most importantly clear US Copyright Office policy, which the nominator here has disregarded in favor of an appeal to aesthetics. The closing administrator mentioned following the precautionary principle, which requires significant doubt to kick in (note also that this is a higher standard than is required as it is a may not a must under the discussion of WP:PRPR at WP:NOCONSENSUS). IronGargoyle (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse, the keep argument was clear as to why this is PD in the US, and is correct. The "tower" logo is text arranged in a simple geometric shape (a triangle), and the US Copyright Office has been very clear that things like that are not eligible for copyright. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

  @IronGargoyle and Seraphimblade: Calling this a "simple geometric shape" is dubious at best. The USCO text linked by Cryptic reads:

  Pictorial or graphic elements that are incorporated into uncopyrightable characters or used to represent an entire letter or number may be registrable. Examples include original pictorial art that forms the entire body or shape of the typeface characters, such as a representation of an oak tree, a rose, or a giraffe that is depicted in the shape of a particular letter

  Looking at File:Burj Khalifa.jpg, we can see the tower isn't a triangle. It is a essentially bunch of bundled tubes. The logo reflects this - if you look very carefully, the logo fans out in bumps, which reflects the towers real design. Whilst the Arabic text isn't copyrightable, constraining it in this way is copyrightable, or at least makes this a borderline call in which case we should err in caution. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 17:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

  It is not more stylized than the Best Western crown, and that was found ineligible. Sorry, but I stand by my assessment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

  Agree with Seraphimblade about comparable ineligible logos. I also see no correspondence between the "bundled tubes" of the real Burj Khalifa and the edges of the triangle in the logo. Using Arabic characters to form a triangle is naturally going to produce edge lines which are not perfectly smooth, but this doesn't appear to be intentional. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Calligraphy, even intricate calligraphy, is specifically ineligible for copyright in the US. Artistic elements which are not integral to the calligraphy may be copyrightable; but an isosceles triangle with two slightly curved sides is not. The guidelines published by the United States Copyright Office on the subject are in sections 906.1 and 906.4 of this document.
  I do agree with the nominator that we're often too liberal in deciding whether something's PD-simple when we really should only be making that call when there's no realistic chance a judge might disagree. I have no problem making that call here. In contrast, the flame outline of File:Al Jazeera Calligraphy.svg, which was raised in the FFD (and is visible, albeit in a small rendering, here), might or might not be determined to be copyrightable, so it's reasonable for us to treat it as copyrighted and usable only under our stricter non-free use standards. —Cryptic 01:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

List of albums containing a hidden track (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Covers the listed article and its 29 related pages. The AfD was closed before significant improvements to pages A and B could be discussed. In post-closure conversation, the closer stated, "I disagree that notability alone should determine inclusion...Consensus was that while the subject of hidden tracks was certainly notable...no sourcing would overcome the consensus that the list itself is unencyclopedic." Respectfully, this interpretation seems to contradict WP:NLIST. Furthermore, after a list of potential sources was identified to meet NLIST, there were an equal number of recommendations to keep and delete. While opinions are not votes, this suggests that there was no consensus that this topic was not encyclopedic. Also, all of the articles included in this AFD were not tagged, meaning involved editors may not have been notified of the AfD per proceedure.Rublamb (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

• List of albums with tracks hidden in the pregap seems an odd choice to be the lone remaining member of Category:Lists of albums containing hidden tracks. —Cryptic 15:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• It looks like none of the 28 sublists included in the nomination were tagged, which means we pretty much have to reopen this afd at least briefly. But I'm not happy about it, at all. Every one of these sublists was edited, many times, by the petitioner here during the afd (and most of them by nobody else); you could've tagged them at any time. Any of the participants at the afd could've, too - there was no lack of experienced editors there, and they can't all have just glanced at the essentially-empty top level list of lists, never clicked on any of the sublists where all the content is, and ignored the big honking block of bluelinks at the top of the afd. Extra big trouting to User:Liz, who went so far as to comment on the omission at AFD, but didn't actually do anything about it except holler at the nominator who, at 66 edits total and none since starting the afd, couldn't really be expected to know better yet. —Cryptic 15:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• Procedural relist because of the tagging issue. Star Mississippi 16:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• Relist with the sublists properly tagged, as per Cryptic and Star Mississippi. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy Procedural Relist per the above. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
•  Done; (closer here) I restored all 28 subpages and relisted them, this time with an AfD tag, per the unanimous consensus I see here. This doesn't address all of the appellant's concerns, so I don't know if this DRV can now be closed or not. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

  from my POV, your relist (thank you @OwenX) addresses the meat and with the AfD now reopened, it resolves the rest of @Rublamb's inquiry. If they're OK with it, happy to close despite participating since I think we're all on the same page. Star Mississippi 13:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

  That is fine with me. Rublamb (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Tai Lopez (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Since the last deletion discussion in 2018, Lopez has received significant coverage, most recently due to the SEC investigating him (CBS News and NYMag for starters) for running a Ponzi scheme. Nighfidelity (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Go to WP:REFUND and request draftification. Use WP:AfC to improve the draft with your new sources. Submit the draft to see if an AfC reviewer agrees.

Why did you come here to Deletion Review?

-SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment to User:SmokeyJoe - You know why the appellant came to DRV. You don't need to ask why they came to DRV. They came because of that troublesome DRV Purpose point that is being discussed that tells them to come to DRV if "significant new information has come to light". Please reread the guideline against biting the newcomers. Or are you asking them to get more input that that purpose point is confusing? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  Please don’t field my questions to the newcomer. You corrupt my purpose. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the 2018 AFD close. Submit a draft to AFC for reivew. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment As others have said, AfC would be the easiest way to get a the subject back into mainspace. According to the previous AfD, the previous version had promotional issues, so I recommend the appellant start from scratch. Even though he is a public figure, please be careful and take note of WP:BLPCRIME as he has not yet been convicted of the accusations. Jumpytoo Talk 00:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the info! Nighfidelity (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

AccesRail (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

There has been significant coverage of AccesRail's air-rail programme in multiple partner airlines and news articles, which serves as secondary sources of the subject. Examples include — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miklcct (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural close. This is a five year old AfD, and the page isn't SALTed. The appellant doesn't need our permission to recreate the article. However, if these are the only sources found to establish notability, it doesn't bode well for the next AfD. Owen× ☎ 14:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Procedural close per OwenX. Local Variable (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Procedural close per above, but I also agree with Owen that if these sources were presented at a future AfD, I would vote to !delete the article. Recommend appellant reading WP:NCORP to understand what is required then going through WP:AFC process. Jumpytoo Talk 17:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse the 2018 closure of the AFD. I haven't reviewed the sources, because I don't think it is in scope for DRV to review new sources when the appellant can submit a draft or create an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Wrong forum. Endorse the 2020 AfD as properly run and closed. Send the applicant to WP:AfC, but first read WP:CORP and WP:THREE. DRV is not for giving advice on sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Josh Wilbur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article “Josh Wilbur” was deleted in an AfD in 2018. The deletion rested on objections about lack of notability and uncertainty over whether he personally won a Grammy. Since then, independent, verifiable new evidence has surfaced that directly addresses those objections. I respectfully request that this deletion be reviewed under Wikipedia:Deletion review, and that the page be restored or userfied so it may be rebuilt using reliable sources. Evidence & Argument Grammy recognition now confirmed The official Recording Academy website lists Josh Wilbur as a Grammy artist/winner: → https://grammy.com/artists/josh-wilbur/7728 Trade/press credits on major releases Billboard credits him as producer on Lamb of God – Resolution: https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/allbum-review-lamb-of-god-resolution-1067149/ Billboard interview mentions his ongoing role with Lamb of God: https://www.billboard.com/music/rock/lamb-of-god-vii-randy-blythe-interview-6568867/ In Wikipedia itself, the Wrath (Lamb of God album) page lists Josh Wilbur as producer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrath_%28Lamb_of_God_album%29 The The Order of Things album page also credits him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Order_of_Things_%28album%29 Biographical / industry profiles NAMM Oral History: profiles Wilbur as a significant recording engineer: https://www.namm.org/library/oral-history/josh-wilbur URM Podcast EP 293: interview with Wilbur discussing his career, philosophy, credits: https://urm.academy/urmpc293-josh-wilbur/ Genelec “One on One” interview: refers to him as a “Grammy Award-Winning Producer” and discusses his studio approach: https://www.genelec.com/-/grammy-award-winning-producer-josh-wilbur-dials-into-the-8351s How this evidence addresses the 2018 objections The key 2018 objection — whether he had personally won a Grammy — is now clearly resolved by the Recording Academy listing. His producer/engineer credits on high-profile albums documented in Billboard and internal Wikipedia pages show he is not a peripheral or trivial contributor. The biographical sources give credible third-party narrative around his career, not just bare credit listings. Collectively, this meets WP:MUSICBIO and the general notability standard: he has substantial coverage and verifiable contributions in the music industry. Proposed plan if restored / userfied If the page is restored or moved to user space, I will expand it using the above sources into sections such as: Early life & education Career highlights & major credits Awards & recognition Selected discography / engineering credits Media coverage & interviews This prevents it reverting to a short stub and ensures it addresses earlier criticism about lack of depth. Anticipated objections & responses Objection Policy-based response “He’s just a behind-the-scenes producer, not a solo artist — not notable.” Under WP:MUSICBIO, significant producers/engineers with documented credits on major works qualify. His roles are central (not peripheral). “We already had consensus in 2018; no need to reopen.” DRV policy explicitly allows review when new, relevant evidence arises post-deletion. That is exactly what this case presents. “This seems promotional / PR fluff.” The cited sources (Billboard, NAMM, URM, Genelec) are third-party, editorial, and independent. They are not self-published press releases. “I don’t trust the Grammy listing.” The Recording Academy is the authoritative body on Grammy awards. Its own site is a primary source for confirming winners/nominees. Call to action & closing I respectfully ask that the Deletion Review community reconsider the 2018 decision in light of this new, verifiable evidence. Please restore or userfy the “Josh Wilbur” title so we may reconstruct a fully sourced article. Thank you for your time and evaluation. — Michele Lu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michelelu (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Note: I've fixed up this request. @Michelelu: it would be better of this request if you would specify what the "new evidence" is. the request got botched up by the bot, now fixed with slight formatting adjustments to keep the bot happy. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment The appeal seems WP:LLM generated. I'm inclined to not support the draft/userify request as no article is better than one that is written by a robot. Jumpytoo Talk 03:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Decline to consider, best regards. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Dismiss provided sources, and the LLM nom, do not inspire confidence. Local Variable (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Dismiss without prejudice against a proper, human-written appeal. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Dismiss as apparently written by artificial intelligence.
  • Allow submission of draft or creation of new article subject to AFD, because the appellant would have those privileges if they hadn't submitted this robotic request.
  • It isn't necessary to review the 2018 closure, both because the appellant can can submit a draft or create a new article, and because there hasn't been a valid request to review the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse the 2018 AfD. If you want to re-create, go to WP:AfC and make a draft. AI submissions may need a process to summarily reject them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Tonal whiplash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Listed result was to create a Wiktionary page and to target a soft redirect there. However, this was only discussed as a possibility, and as far as I know no action had/has been taken to create such a target (wikt:Tonal whiplash does not currently exist). The actual votes in the discussion called for deletion of the existing page regardless of what may or may not go down at Wiktionary, and that the page still exists, seemingly untouched since the end of the discussion, reads as the opposite of that consensus to me. I think the result should've been deletion with the possibility of recreation as a redirect, not to leave a consensus-delete page sitting around and waiting for a redirect target that may never exist. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Unless things have changed recently, Wiktionary categorically rejects transwikification of pages from Wikipedia, so this wasn't a valid closing option to begin with. If at some point, someone wants to create wikt:tonal whiplash (note capitalization; it makes it be a different page over there) with the help of what used to be here, we can provide the deleted content and attribution to them. —Cryptic 16:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• @QuietHere: You know, you could have discussed this with me...of the four participants, two clearly preferred a wiktionary entry, and your objection was a practical one, that would be obviated by the creation of a wiktionary entry. As such I stand by my reading of consensus as favoring a wiktionary entry over deletion. But I wasn't aware of a prohibition against transwikification, and we cannot redirect without a target. If @ReaderofthePack: or @Metallurgist: don't wish to create a wiktionary entry, I would delete this page. A full-fledged DRV is not a good use of time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93 apologies if it was inappropriate for me to not have contacted you first. I don't believe I've ever participated in a deletion review, so I'm unfamiliar with the formalities. However, I stand by my assessment of the discussion, and I'm not sure why this review is such a big deal. I hold no ill will toward you for your judgment. It's not an unreasonable assessment of the discussion, just not the best immediate solution for the situation. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  @QuietHere: It isn't a big deal, and if you haven't participated before it's not an unreasonable thing to do. But it's typically seven-day discussion soliciting opinions from the community: so if the matter can be handled by discussing it with the administrator, that is preferable from the standpoint of community time.

  We're in agreement here that the continued existence of the page in mainspace isn't ideal. My proposed solution is to allow the two editors I pinged, the ones who supported a wiktionary entry, a little time to create such an entry, to redirect this title to that entry if it is created, and to delete it otherwise, as I believe that would follow from the AfD result absent a wiktionary entry. Is that agreeable to you? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  I would support overturn and deletion. I did speculate on using wiktionary, but that was not my !v. I would think DRV is the appropriate venue for this and is not meant to be a slight at a closer. Putting such a concern on the closer talk page is far less public. Metallurgist (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

  Altho I can see how my commentary could be construed as supporting that. It was essentially delete and someone can put it there. I think reclosing this as delete and if someone wants to create it on wikt, they can, or ask an admin to get the info later. Or save it. Metallurgist (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe draftify? That would honor the clear consensus against keeping the page in mainspace, while allowing the content to still be referred to for creating a Wiktionary entry, which is presumably why it's still there. A soft redirect can be created whenever the entry is ready. Left guide (talk) 08:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete We are concerned with this project's policies for inclusion, not other projects. I am concerned by a closing rationale like this, because it's a tacit endorsement that the page *is appropriate* for wict, but that will depend on that project's criteria, of which I know very little. If a user gets into trouble over there for creating bad entries, it'd be no answer to say the folks at enwiki did it by consensus. In the interests of inter-project harmony, I don't think we should be debating its suitability for wict on enwiki. It's entirely up to them. Local Variable (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Overturn (to delete) per Cryptic. The transwiki won’t happen, and so the close devolves to “keep”, which is contrary to the discussion. If someone wants to try to transwiki, or to put the content to any worthwhile use, allow draftification. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Extra Credits (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Please can I have the Extra Credits article restored into my personal draft space? The article, in the form it was deleted, was awful but there was at least one better version in the history. I found quite enough valid sources to make a decent short article about it (slightly more than a stub) and having the old article and it's history, poor though most of it was, would make that easier than starting from scratch even if the new article would need to actually follow the sources and not bear much resemblance to old one. Thanks. DanielRigal (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason to oppose this request, especially when coming from a respected, longstanding editor such as you. But why didn't you simply ask the closing admin to do this before bringing it here? I doubt Salvio giuliano would deny this request. If I see no objection here, I'll restore to draft. Owen× ☎ 12:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

OwenX, no objection at all. I would have done so myself if asked, and only refrained because this DRV had already been started. —  Salvio ^giuliano 12:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

File:Haldhar Nag Kutir before renovation, in June 2005.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|revisions|restore)

This image was deleted because it was placed in an inappropriate location. In this revision, I have placed it in the correct location. Please undelete it. Thyj (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Dismiss the appeal as a misrepresentation of the facts. The image was deleted per WP:NFCC#8. The misplacing of the image in a gallery was only brought up as an aside, and was not the reason for the deletion. Will reconsider if the appellant amends their appeal to state the facts honestly. Owen× ☎ 12:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the fact it was in a gallery was only a subsidiary point. The main problem was the fact it's not contextually necessary, and that's plainly correct, and I don't think it's even arguably wrong. It can be adequately explained in text. I don't think it's ideal to direct link to a copyrighted photograph as a reference either, per the external link policy, the reference should be to the web page it's hosted on. Local Variable (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @Local Variable: I not only think it's arguable (which I did below), I don't see how there is a reasonable claim it doesn't meet NFCC#8. Could you explain what's wrong with my argument? Hobit (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

    I've think I've seen the photo, presuming it's the one still linked. That photo is focused on two people talking inside the house. It's not focused on the building or its state. Incidentally, it helps show its state because you can see some Coke cans in the background. But I don't think it adds anything to what is already described in the text of the article. Local Variable (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

    You mean the one from ref 5? That's not it - it was an exterior shot of the building with no people visible, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqixUS-XWS4&t=478s. —Cryptic 02:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• The non-free-use rationale was invalid too; it was largely cut-and-pasted from a rationale for a website screenshot. —Cryptic 00:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• So that non-admins can participate: Do we not have a free picture of the location from before the renovation? Can someone point me to the image in question? It does seem within the scope of NFCC#8 if no free image exists. Text, or a line drawing, can only do so much if the place is notable enough to warrant an article (which seems questionable to me, but whatever), we should provide the context we can. If this were, say, the White House, and there were no free version from before a major renovation, I'd think we'd allow a non-free version to provide the needed context. But I'm willing to be educated about why NFCC#8 is an issue. Clearly the "Before" part is described in reasonable detail in the article. I'll note I also cannot see the non-free rational, so I can't judge that... Hobit (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I've temp-undeleted the file description page only. The image was from sometime during the slow zoom-in on the white building starting about a half second after the timestamp linked to in the given source. —Cryptic 04:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
• The provided justification for no free use is poor (the renovation should be mentioned too), but otherwise it appears to meet all of NFCC including #8 (per my comments above). overturn This is exactly when we should be using non-free material. It's not replaceable by text, no free version exists, and I struggle to see commercial impact. Those arguing otherwise need to explain more than just saying "NFCC#8". If the building is notable enough to have an article, it's not unreasonable for the history of the building to be covered (which it is). And showing what it looked like before a major renovation seems important--text just isn't going to cut it. Nor a line drawing. Hobit (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Also, the only !vote (other than the nom) was to keep. I know that XfDs can close that way. But such closures should be treated very carefully at DRV. Hobit (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse We should only be using non-free material if they genuinely add to the reader's knowledge; this screenshot is of such poor quality that it does not. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • So if a better non-free image existed that would pass muster? For the record, I found it enough to be able to understand the renovation much better than with just the text. Hobit (talk) 00:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
    • The only difference I could spot from the image of the building's post-renovation state is that the latter has a plaque; most of the text talks about the interior, and the rest of it is about the roof (which isn't visible in either image). Hard to see how it meets the usual "destroyed, demolished, or otherwise permanently altered" standard, even to the minimal amount that would justify reopening the FFD. —Cryptic 00:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse: I'm pretty much in agreement with what Cryptic posted above in that I don't see how the inclusion of this particular before renovation screenshot/image significantly improves the reader's understanding of the building's appearance to extent that not seeing it would be detrimental of the understanding per WP:NFC#CS. I also have concerns about the quality of the three sources cited in support of the content describing the building prior to its renovation: one is to a YouTube video, one is to a photo and one is to a non-English article about the building. Citing the video might be OK since it doesn't appear to be a copyvio per WP:YOUTUBE, but the cited photo has zero value as a reliable source (at least in my opinion); moreover, according to Google Translate, the cited non-English article doesn't really meet WP:RSCONTEXT for the content about the building's appearance and doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough to meet WP:NFCC#8 on its own. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)