Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 April

Comparison of orbital launch systems (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Speedy keep without allowing editors cast their votes in the expected time window. Speedy keep should not be used to prevent discussion and force a single editor view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dncmartins (talk • contribs) 17:37, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - OP is currently the subject of an ANI discussion regarding their behavior on their mass deletion nominations, and there is a discussion on the state of comparison articles right now. Moreover, the article in question has 214 citations (!!!) and was a featured list candidate in the past. There is no way this article is composed solely of WP:OR. EvanTech10 (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse as the non-admin closer. While I'm not broadly opposed to the nomination of multiple articles with the same rationale, nominator lazily called this article and others I closed original research without actually providing any actual reasoning for it. It's clearly not a good faith nomination but instead a copy-paste of the rationale used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands, where nominator's own article was deleted. There is no indication that these two pages have any substantive similarilities besides the first two words in the article titles. Reywas92^Talk 18:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse. Much like the subject AFD, this deletion review was opened in bad faith by Dncmartins. Please refer to the above linked ANI discussion and a another ANI discussion from March 2026 to show evidence of bad faith and WP:POINTY edits by this editor. Frank Anchor 18:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Changed vote from speedy to regular endorse per OwenX’s rationale below. Frank Anchor 00:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy endorse per the above. I think something needs to be done to stop the disruption. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. A recent RfC about adding mass, low-effort AfD nominations as a speedy keep criterion failed to gain consensus. However, I believe the AfD at bar already qualifies for a speedy keep under CSK#1, and depending on the outcome of the ANI referenced above--possibly under CSK#2. An article with dozens of high quality sources may or may not meet our guidelines, but it certainly deserves more than a drive-by seven-word nomination, including a baseless claim of "WP:OR". When viewed in context of the appellant's other low-effort nominations and the event that prompted this barrage, I can only consider these nominations to be retributive, rather than a bona fide attempt to improve WP.
  I oppose a speedy close for this DRV. While the AfD nomination was disruptive, the appeal raises a legitimate question, and deserves to be heard regardless of the locus standi of the appellant. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's fair. If not being speedy helps to get this sorted out properly then I'm happy to take speedy off my !vote. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  To be fair, it still has the possibility of a WP:SNOW closure EvanTech10 (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you both. I'm fine with a SNOW close, if it comes to that. No point in wasting the community's time on a foregone conclusion, but I'm not sure we're there yet. Owen× ☎ 01:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. Closers should be empowered to close disruptive minimal-effort mass AfD nominations more often. Katzrockso (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Involved endorse, disruptive nomination. This DRV should not be speedily closed unless a sanction from the ANI merits it. Star Mississippi 01:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)edited for clarityStar Mississippi 01:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Star Mississippi when you say "should not be speedily closed", you mean the DRV, correct? Katzrockso (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks for flagging. I've amended my comment. Star Mississippi 01:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the close, but change it to Speedy Keep 2. Speedy Keep is only for one of six defined reasons, and the closer should have indicated Speedy Keep 2, which is bad-faith nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse and classic WP:REICH behavior for which rolling back all disruptive edits would be appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  I respectfully agree with the others who think this was not an appropriate NAC close. It was, however, an absolutely fine IAR close, because the action being quashed was ridiculous on its face, textbook DE/POINT. I'm OK with clarifying that such that people don't read too much into controversial NACs being sustained here. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose speedy keep there is no consensus after two and half weeks at ANI on whether or not the nominator is disruptive, and this closure itself feels pointy. There is currently a discussion at Village Pump about banning product comparison articles, but this is not a product. I think there is a valid discussion to be had about classifying articles as "comparisons" when they are basically curated lists, and whether or not this breaks WP:NPOV as none of the sources (this article is rare in having many) make any comparisons themselves. The closure was premature, unilateral and seems not to WP:AGF Orange sticker (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  The characterisation as a comparison, rather than say a list, seems like a valid concern, but not grounds for a deletion. Maybe you could start a merge or move discussion? CommonsKiwi (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. This was an obvious correct application of speedy keep points 1 (obviously invalid deletion rationale) and 2 (nomination made for the purposes of disruption, specifically retaliation). Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse but change the rationale to Speedy Keep 2. While AfDs do not create precedent, I don't think we should leave the impression that a poor nomination statement that references a policy is missing a deletion rationale and thus could be unilaterally closed (WP:SK1). To me, it is not obvious that there was an invalid deletion rationale, and the only reason it was closed was because of disruption. --Enos733 (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  I do agree with SmokeyJoe's point below - the close would have been better if it was made by an admin. - Enos733 (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I am now convinced that this is an Inappropriate NAC. As I said earlier, there was a deletion rationale provided in the nomination, so the only reason to close this was because of disruption. While a non-admin can close a discussion as speedy keep, the expectations are that any close of an AFD discussion by an non-admin should be non controversial. I generally am sympathethic to WP:NOTBURO, but I don't feel this our community has clarified whether this type of (mass) nomination is clearly disruptive. --Enos733 (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Inappropriate NAC. Where a substantial component of the close is alleged editor behaviour, the close should be made by an admin, or with a link to the behaviour having been discussed at WP:ANI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  The ANI discussion is not closed, and is contested. User:Reywas92 presupposed it’s close, which is not ok. And failed to link to it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  I actually closed the AFD before I even saw the ANI. Dug into related edits and found it shortly afterward. I stand by my review of the facially inaccurate, retaliatory nomination of this page and others with the same rationale at the same time. — Reywas92^Talk 03:41, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  So on what basis did you decide the nomination had no value ? You definitely had no business touching this Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  That seems unnecessarily harsh. Reywas92 has been around for as long as you and I have, and carried out proper due diligence before speedy-closing that AfD. I agree that leaving it to an admin would have saved us from having to discuss the NAC aspects. But I think saying he had no business touching this just because he's missing the sysop bit is uncalled for. Reywas92 did what any reasonable admin would have done in this case, and didn't need admin tools to do it. I think we can save the trouting for more egregious offences. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Reywas92 did what any reasonable admin would have done in this case, and didn't need admin tools to do it. I fully agree with this. That was not an inappropriate NAC. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Where is the consensus that this nomination was disruptive ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Overturn. The closer does not appreciate the error of their action. Speedy close, an admin action, for pointyness is not for non-admins to unilaterally decide and act upon. If you want these privileges, go to WP:RfA or WP:AELECT. Even then, shutting down a formal discussion requires more than appearances. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  If the closer does not appreciate the error of their action it is because their action was not erroneous. Speedy keep is not an action reserved to administrators, nor should it be - it is much better that the right action is taken at the right time than we leave disruption open until a person with the right hat is available. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  its clearly controversial as why else would we be here and there is no consensus that the non should not be nominating comparison articles. Substituting your own speedy keep for a consensus does not feel like a good NAC Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• overturn and relist I have thought hard about this but I think the consequences of letting this stand are quite serious. Firstly, there is no consensus that the nom is not permitted to list comparison articles at AFD and the effect of letting this stand is that this close will be a precedent to prevent further ones. Regardless of potential disruption, this isn't a call that can be made by a single non admin user and is in effect a topic ban from certain kinds of AFD discussions. I don't like that and would be concerned if an admin was doing it, let alone an NAC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • I didn't close this because I believed the nominator was not permitted to list certain types of articles at AFD, I did so because the nomination statement was entirely false, having been copied from the AFD of an article of theirs to multiple other similarly inaccurate nominations. If the nominator had given a reasonable explanation in their own words why he didn't think the article was appropriate, I would not have closed it or perhaps even taken another look when the three came up on my watchlist (one of which had a vote to speedy close as "Clear abuse of the AfD process"), but there is no reason to think the page would not be kept. Reywas92^Talk 14:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

    If that was the case you would also have closed already open AfDs by me with the same reason. But, that reason has been used successfully before me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands You may have failed to do your research or you are just trying to deceive other editors. Dncmartins (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

    Have you even compared the two articles side by side? This article has comparisons for each rocket by manufacturer, country origin, height, payload mass, reusability, and launch date, which is easily verifiable information and makes sense for a comparison article. Your article, by comparison, has comparisons for call recording, install apps without an account, and spyware free, among others, which is very trivial information and sounds more OR than this article. Moreover, if you check the deletion discussion above, you can see the other problems the article has, such as being non neutral with the comparisons. EvanTech10 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

    The list of features compared is still an arbitrary list, as it is not backed by reliable sources. As I understand Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands was removed because that kind of arbitrary comparison is not allowed in Wikipedia, otherwise it would just have been moved to Draft and fixed. Dncmartins (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

    And there you have it. In October 2025, you created Comparison of smartphone brands. Four months later, it was deleted at AfD. You appealed the deletion at DRV, but it was endorsed. Ever since then, your participation on Wikipedia has been focused on one mission alone: avenging the death of your beloved article by getting rid of every other comparison article. You, Dncmartins, are no longer here to build an encyclopedia. At this point, for you, it is all about getting even. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

    I am undecided if Wikipedia can keep Comparison articles or not. But, Wikipedia needs to be coherent. If Comparison articles are not allowed, then let's remove all of them to be coherent. Please, guys, be coherent! Dncmartins (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

    Not every article is the same. Not every list article is the same. It follows that not every comparison article is the same. Katzrockso (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

    You, Dncmartins, are no longer here to build an encyclopedia. At this point, for you, it is all about getting even.

    +1

    @Dncmartins You have received enough explanations on why your article was deleted but others were kept. If you have even a basic understanding of Wikipedia policies, it should be crystal clear that an article's merit is not determined by the first word in its title. I'm sorry, but by this point I belive it has either become a case of WP:CIR or WP:ICANTHEARYOU. If you are truly acting in good faith, you need to immediately drop the stick regarding the deletion of Comparison of smartphone brands, and start making deletion proposals based on individual merit. CommonsKiwi (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree that this was an inappropriate NAC, because the discussion here is evidence that it was controversial. However, we, the community, should endorse the speedy keep rather than vacating the close or relisting or anything else. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
  • That's tautological – it's controversial because there's a controversy, how would I know that? I saved people the hassle of voting in a dumb, disruptive nomination that was an obvious speedy keep and would do so again, just as I stand by my speedy keeps of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of space station cargo vehicles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of crewed space vehicles that this user didn't challenge for some reason. In conjunction with those, this DRV is similarly disruptive and the nominator should know better than to nominate pages with inaccurate reasons copy-pasted from an AFD of their page just because a particular word is in the title. — Reywas92^Talk 14:43, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

    It’s not tautological, instead it is wisdom in hindsight. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. Stop deleting long-term established articles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
  • @Sbmeirow: This is not an AFD and "keep"/"delete" etc. are not appropriate !votes. Please would you consider editing to "endorse"/"overturn" or one of the other suggestions from the guide at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review? Stifle (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak endorse. It would have been best left for an admin to close as speedy keep, but it was probably the right outcome. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I think dncmartins is just trying to take revenge for the deletion of Comparison of Smartphone brands. User:AZenit3

Draft:TJ Norris (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

Star Mississippi restored this draft after I blanked it via CSD G7 as its sole content author. Pythoncoder's AfC rejection tag was an administrative action, not a content contribution, and should not disqualify a sole author's G7 request. Furthermore, this draft has been formally rejected as unsuitable for Wikipedia yet remains publicly visible — a rejected draft with no path to publication serves no editorial purpose. Administrator Explicit honored my simultaneous U1 request on the same day, making the inconsistency clear. As the subject and sole content author, I am requesting deletion. IntegersInSpace (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close as wrong venue. As speedy deletion was declined, the next step to seek deletion would be to start a discussion at WP:MFD. Frank Anchor 12:54, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Drafts are not indexed by search engines. I declined on account of edits by a number of editors including Bearcat and Netherzone but if another admin wants to delete as a valid G7, feel free. Star Mississippi 12:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any edits to content by either of those users: just (mostly de-)categorization by Bearcat and declinations and {{AfC comment}}s by Netherzone, which are equivalent to talk page comments. The only reason I can come up with to not speedy delete this is to deliberately make it more difficult to resubmit, which admittedly has some merit. —Cryptic 03:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural close per Frank Anchor. DRV does not handle declined requests for speedy deletion. Feel free to take this to MfD, but I suggest reading WP:OWN first. Rules applicable to a single-author userspace page are different from those applicable to a multi-author draft. Your authorship grants you attribution, not the right to remove content at will. Owen× ☎ 00:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Nothing to do here WP:MFD is thataway... The hurdle to overcome a declined speedy absent G10-11-12 material is not worth being here. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 30 April 2026 (UTC)
• Actually WP:XRV is the more appropriate venue. The issue being argued here is "was Star Mississippi's decline correct", not "should the page be deleted". And if we were there I would agree with Cryptic and say to overturn the decline (and hence delete the page). But that's not here, so close this DRV without action. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Just noting that if an XRV is filed, I will not be able to be responsive as I am going to be offline from this evening through the weekend due to travel. I am fine with any actions taken by editors and as I said above, any admin is welcome to delete it without needing to go through XRV but of course have no issue if someone thinks it's needed.

  Noting the filing editor is now citing BLP when the content is information they wrote about themselves. Based on their edits to the draft throughout the AfC process, it seems their issue is with the rejection & decline notices, not the content itself. Star Mississippi 22:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah. Let's take this to MFD where we can get it deleted and salted. —Cryptic 01:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Go to WP:MfD. No deletion occurred, or deletion discussion close challenged, so this is out of scope of DRV. No admin action occurred, so out of scope of XRV. The is a pedestrian deletion request. XfD is for discussing deletion requests. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Actions in support of Azerbaijan in Iran (2020) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

The ‘no consensus’ closure has no explanation and does not seem to reflect the discussion, as majority were in favor of deleting, 2 wanting to keep (including the creator), and 1 for merge. Even considering WP:NOTAVOTE, the ones in favor for deleting were more firm and thorough in their arguments/comments. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. There was no need for a closing statement, since it was already provided by Goldsztajn's detailed relisting statement, after which no further !votes were added. Merge would have also been within admin discretion, since most of the "Support" !votes suggest some of the content belongs somewhere. As Goldsztajn clearly explained, most of the arguments for "Support" are WP:SURMOUNTABLE, for which the remedy isn't deletion: poor choice of title, POV, messy prose, sources not in English. For some reason, the appellant chose to ignore the elaborate relisting statement, and engages in nose-counting, which in this case wouldn't result in a Delete outcome either. Renominate in two months, or better yet, fix the POV if any, and move to a better title. Owen× ☎ 10:01, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Also the last relist asked for a source review and the only comment was that because the sources weren't all in English that would be quite difficult to do. I honestly defy anyone to find a delete consensus is that lot and NC is obvious if it's the 4th time its been looked at and we couldn't find a consensus in any of the 3 previous times. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm. The relisting comment said issues such as misnaming or POV forks can be content issues that can be remedied. This is incorrect. If the article is a POVFORK, it can't be rectified except by deletion or merger. I don't see how a source review answers the question of whether it is a POVFORK or not. I think that was a misdirection. The nom. specifically called out keep votes saying the article has lots of sources, but still the only keep that did not come from the article creator did exactly that. It is not the number of sources (which I would expect clearly show a notable subject), but whether we already have an article on the subject, of which this is a POVFORK. The SYNTH concerns would need source analysis to demonstrate that there is SYNTH, but that is unnecessary. If it is a POVFORK, the article should be deleted, as that is a clear P&G based deletion reason. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  The nominator also questioned the reliability of the sources, and I responded that there is enough coverage from reasonably good sources. The POVFORK issue wasn't properly explained, so there was little to debate. What is true about this article is that it was written from a pro-Azerbaijani POV, but this doesn't make it a POVFORK. Kelob2678 (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  Listing issues that are not conclusively addressed does not make a consensus or do you think I should have substituted my own opinion ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  If I thought that, you'd see a !vote from me. But if the article is a POVFORK, recognition of that alone would be enough to delete, without needing to review all the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  That still requires a clear consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Sirfurboy: it sounds like your disagreement is with the participants of the AfD, not with the closer. Or are you saying Spartaz should have discarded every !vote that didn't support the nom? The only cases where an article is deleted without consensus are listed in WP:CSD. Everything else requires consensus, which was absent in this case. Owen× ☎ 22:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

  I thought I was clear. I am saying there was a misdirection in the relist comment that incorrectly suggested that POVFORKs can be fixed by editing (presumably to make them less POVy?) They can't. If the article is a POVFORK then the only solution is to delete it. That was an error, and I raised it because of the comment that the NC was found because there was no additional source review. If it is a POVFORK, it did not need source review, it needed the POVFORK to be clearly demonstrated, and source review would be irrelevant. Suppose sources exist that support this framing - should that happen, then that needs to go into the unforked article. It is not a reason to retain a POVFORK and have two articles on a thing.

  Is there a framing effect here that influenced the close? I don't know. Was there a consensus this was a POVFORK? That was addressed head on in the nom., but not really fully explored thereafter, although it was stated by another. This could have been a delete/merge consensus as a POVFORK, but it would have been a weak one. An endorsed no consensus is probably where it will land here, and I'm comfortable with that. I'd advise KhndzorUtogh either to wait a couple of months and renominate, or else start a merge discussion (although as it is POVy, it is not clear what can be merged). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  A POVFORK can be remedied by editing - simply remove the POV and make the article comply with NPOV (stubifying the article, for example, would resolve the issue). The delete side would have to argue that this isn't possible, which is a tall task. Katzrockso (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  At which point it becomes the same thing as the article from which it is forked. We have two of them. It remains a BADFORK because it is now a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. So no, if it is a a POVFORK, it can't be rectified. It can only be merged or deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't agree that stripped of the POV, it would be a REDUNDANTFORK. Katzrockso (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps something you would like to take up at WP:CFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" can itself be based on a POV judgement, it may be best not to refer to the fork as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is not at odds with the contents of WP:CFORK, but based on an analysis of the article. Katzrockso (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse and consider WP:RENOM guidance. Classic no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse the close of No Consensus. A close of No Consensus is never satisfying, but sometimes there really is no consensus, and this was such a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. On scanning, I find myself agreeing with the Delete/TNT !voters, but that is not what DRV discusses. The fact is, that discussion could hardly have been closed as anything else than NC. Consider the alternative: the closer (or another closer) instead concluding Delete. Even with a carefully argued Delete close (presumably along the lines of the thread following Owen's endorse, above), especially after the previous relists, I'm pretty sure we would be here discussing whether such a hypothetical closer would have supervoted. As Jclemens says, a carefully worded renomination per WP:RENOM guidance is the best way forward. Martinp (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

• That couldn't resolve to delete by any reasonable reading. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse per Martinp and my comments above. I think the relist direction erred a little in suggesting a POVFORKs can be remedied. Although being a POVFORK would be a clear deletion reason, and although the nom. stated this as a reason, the nomination also suggested it was a POVFORK of three articles, not one, and it is not clear to me that the argument was made that the subject had been forked, rather than being adjacent. The title itself doesn't fill me with confidence for the article, but to be a POVFORK, we need to show how the article is fully covered by another, of which this is a POVFORK. The discussion didn't quite get there, and we were at time limits. This is a case where we might have another go in the future, or a merge discussion could be entertained, but where the consensus had not fully crystallised, so the no consensus close was appropriate in the circumstances. If it is not a POVFORK, that also would give time for those arguing to keep the article to remove clearly POV elements and demonstrate the article is adjacent to, and not forked from the other articles mentioned. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse there was a lot of slippage in the discssuion between content and notability. My relist was a late attempt to guide participants into focussing on the latter; unfortunately I think the discussion had gone too long (and become too convoluted) for others to contribute easily. I cannot see how Spartaz could have closed differently. No prejudice to a renomination at a later date. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. I see this discussion somewhere between no consensus and keep, and likely much closer to the former. Much of the delete/merge argument is based on WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues, such as the article being written in a non-NPOV, the title being non-NPOV, and the article being a POVFORK of several other articles. There is one WP:SYNTH argument that is not adequately refuted by the keep side. Keep voters correctly demonstrate the notability and point to the dozens of reliable sources in the article. A longer closing statement is encouraged, but not required. In this case the lengthy relisting statement can suffice particularly since there was little discussion after the final relist. Frank Anchor 12:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. It couldn’t have been closed any other way, and it should have been closed when it was if not earlier. A bit more closing statement is not unreasonable. In this case, I suggest, “per the relists”. It’s very nice to see meaningful relist comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 14:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  The frequently offered advice of WP:RENOM applies. Wait two months and write a better nomination. Here, unusually for cases receiving this advice, the AfD nomination state was long, but it is wordy, not detailed. It made assertions that were disproven, eg the use of the word “clear”. Clearly, the assertions were not clear. And if something is clear, you don’t need to assert that it is. Include detail, avoid bluster. If it’s nothing but POVFORK, is should be deleted, but what if it not completely POVFORK? I recommend a talkpage discussion and proposal for action before going back to AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

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

The closer misreads consensus. The argument to keep was that it met WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. One of the delete editors literally based their argument as “Joe blow office worker”, while the other focused on just individual sources and not as a whole. The closer tried to say that it fits consensus because they “engaged” in policy, even though our guidelines say to look at strenth of argument. Given consensus is based on policy-based argument, I do not see how this supported delete rather than at the least no consensus. THeShavidow1 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse There was no substantive support for keeping the article other than your vote. The other 2 keep votes are basically useless as they just assert notability without any explanation. Strength of argument does not come from the length of your vote, it comes from the sources that show the subject meets the relevant notability guideline. Jumpytoo Talk 01:48, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse and @THeShavidow1: I'll caution you now against bludgeoning this discussion as you did the AfD. Please let other voices be heard. I will block you from this page if the behavior repeats. Star Mississippi 01:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse - The closer read consensus correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. Consensus was to delete. I looked at some of the sources offered in the AfD: they contain name drops of the subject, but the content is not about the subject. There is not significant coverage of the subject. If you can find compliant GNG sources, use follow advice at WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. The appellant was the only Keep in that AfD based on P&G. Spartaz, who went out of his way to explain his reasoning in the closing statement to avoid exactly this kind of time waste, correctly discounted the two meritless votes, to reach the only possible outcome. The appellant's dismissal of Oaktree b's !vote is strange. NBIO starts off by saying, For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. If the most remarkable, significant, interesting or unusual thing about Joe Blow is that he was an office worker, then his biography has no place in an encyclopedia, regardless of the number of sources mentioning him. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I also discussed the 3:1 ratio of policy based deletes on my talk page. Noting that one nom-policy based keep vote was created specifically to vote in the AFD and that after the close I reviewed it's two contributions and blocked it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:01, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. The problem with frivolous DRVs is that it takes the appellant five minutes to file, but wastes the time of half a dozen admins or other prolific participants who study the case and express an informed opinion that invariably amounts to, "Welp, everything was done correctly; nothing for us to do here." Owen× ☎ 13:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  As I have become more active again, I have closed a lot of AFDs recently after taking a long break to reassess where community expectations around deletion are. That's why I have had a lot of DRVs recently but I'm pleased that that my accuracy rate here has been better than previously. I does seem that we count noses more than previously and I have definitely noticed an influx of editors at AFD whose engagement with policy is shall we say a very personal thing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, I know this all too well. For a while, I was the most appealed-against admin at DRV, due to my tendency to pick the most heated, contentious AfDs to close. Thankfully, almost all were endorsed here. Don't sweat this. Owen× ☎ 15:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  If an experienced admin is frequently taken to DRV, it may (as noted) mean that they have the courage to close contentious AFDs. Sometimes someone says that a closer should not be taken to DRV. That isn't a reasonable argument. See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_reviews#Unrealistic_assumptions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  it might also mean they keep supervoting the wrong way too. :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:49, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've had no complaints, and I know we have historically differed philosophically. It's good to see long-term admins with a lot of perspective continue to serve the community. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse: @Spartaz closed this correctly. A !keep vote that just says "!keep because it's notable" holds very little weight. It is within the discretion of the closer to give those !votes less weight, which is exactly what @Spartaz did. Regarding the conduct, I usually opt not to bring up conduct issues when acting in a closing or relisting capacity, so as to adhere to WP:FOC and remain impartial. The AfD was three times longer than it needed to be due to excessive replies from the appellant, @Spartaz pointed this out in a very fair and neutral way. 11WB (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Thank you for the ping. The subject of the article certainly was a busy person, with some coverage, but it seems to me to be "office work"; you could have put any office worker in the job and the result would be the same, so !delete seemed the correct decision. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse The close was correct. I do think there are some AFDs where there can be good policy discussions, and I am perhaps more sympathetic to THeShavidow1's attempt to persuade editors that the volume of coverage was sufficient to meet GNG (even if I might disagree). At the end, a closer is supposed to evaluate consensus based on the strength of the arguments, and more editors engaging in the policy discussion felt the article should be deleted. I don't think any other close would be proper. --Enos733 (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

User talk:MarydaleEd (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

I believe this speedy deletion was out of process. The reason given in the deletion log is G8, but user talk pages are exempt from that criterion. In a discussion at the deleting administrator's talk page, they mention Courtesy vanishing, but that also doesn't support deleting user talk pages (and I see no evidence that the editor in question asked for a courtesy vanish). That leaves us with no policy-based reason for this action. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse: This DRV can be closed. 11WB (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  @11WB, why do you think so? The message you link to doesn't make that clear. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Chess enjoyer, the deletion log through the redlink says: 'Deleted together with the associated page with reason: U1: User request to delete page in own userspace'. WP:U1 is a legitimate deletion reason, which the above linked message from the requesting editor demonstrates. 11WB (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  User talk pages are exempt from U1, too. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, hang on. This is a user talk page. Never mind. 11WB (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  I misread it. I thought it was the user page. Didn't realise it was the user talk page. 11WB (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  You can remove your !vote and my replies as a mutual withdrawal if you want to. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's okay. I made an error and probably should've worn my glasses and actually read what the page title said properly. Other editors should be able to see my momentary lapse. You are absolutely correct. 11WB (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Restore page: Ahem. Ignoring the above, the appellant is correct. User talk pages are only deleted or blanked when the editor requests a formal WP:Courtesy vanishing, which isn't evident here. 11WB (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Restore The user's talk page should not have been deleted. Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Restore per WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK. The blanking and subsequent U1 request were clearly a response to the two recent blocks this user received for personal attacks/harassment. While the block has since expired, the theatrics around it have not. This isn't the first time she does this, either. A scan of the history of her User and User Talk pages paints a grim picture of someone who refuses to collaborate with others, rants about how other editors are all "buffoons", and flounces with a dramatic "retirement" from Wikipedia, the first in 2021, and the second two days ago, accompanied by announcing her own death. I believe the appellant was correct in reverting the Talk page blanking to restore the block notice and subsequent declined unblock. I see the distinction between the two blocks as immaterial. Vanamonde93 imposed a 48 hour block, which was removed before expiration by 331dot in the hope of improved behaviour, only to be reapplied by him a few hours later as a 1-week block when the disruptive behaviour continued.
  But this is DRV, not ANI. Johnuniq's reasoning for declining the block is still relevant, and should stay there for now, if nothing else, to drive home the point that contrary to MarydaleEd's repeated claim, this page does not belong to her, and she is not entitled to do with it as she pleases. MarydaleEd has the right to vanish, if she chooses to do so. But these on-again-off-again tactical "retirements" are not what CSD:U1 is for. Owen× ☎ 23:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  @OwenX, I thought I had only restored the declined unblock request, and not the block notice itself. Is my memory wrong? Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  You are correct; my mistake! Owen× ☎ 00:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Was going to reply regarding the first paragraph and mention AN/I for conduct issues, but Owen acknowledged that at the start of the second paragraph. I would recommend, if this is ongoing, AN/I is the most appropriate place to discuss conduct issues, especially those relating to not collaborating with others which is a type of WP:INCIVILITY. 11WB (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Restore, and a trout for the deleting admin. U1 does not apply to user talk pages. The criterion says so very clearly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Restore the user talk page if, as I understand, the user page was deleted on request and the user talk page was deleted as orphaned. If so, the deletion of the user talk page was a good-faith error. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Restore; “courtesy blanking” would be fine IMO, even if there were notices of the kind that editors aren’t allowed to remove themselves. But UTP histories shouldn’t be entirely hidden without extraordinary reasons.—Odysseus1479 01:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

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

The original nomination contains incorrect information. Owlchemy Labs has generated significant amounts of coverage beyond press releases and interviews from the founders. The Company is regarded as an industry leader in the XR space and is notable separately from it's Google acquisition. The Owlchemy Labs Wikipedia page is not up to date and I can see how it may appear to no longer be relevant, but that is due to a lack of attention not relevance. Here is a sampling of relevant articles that are not the founders and are specifically referencing Owlchemy as a relevant entity. All of these are post acquisition.

IGN - Job Simulator Developers On Why It's a 'Failure' If Owlchemy's VR Hit is Still On Top in 5 Years Game Developer - Owlchemy Labs CEO Andrew Eiche thinks devs should be bullish about AI Game Developer - Owlchemy Labs' Dimensional Double Shift shows what's next for VR development GamesIndustry.biz - Owlchemy's Andrew Eiche has been named CEO GameSpot - Among Us Crewmate Enters 3D World Of Cosmonious High In New Collab Android Central - Job Simulator went to Hell and I'm not even mad Fast Company - Apple Vision Pro’s hand tracking: a big mistake, or the future of gaming? CNBC - Meta’s Reality Labs cuts sparked fears of a ‘VR winter’ Shacknews - Owlchemy Labs shares that Dimensional Double Shift has passed over 1 million downloads Games Business Podcast - Has Meta Just Killed Virtual Reality?

I believe this meets the criteria for WP:CORPDEPTH beyond a reference in a table of Google acquisitions. Buddingmonkey (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Buddingmonkey, you should have notified the closer, preferably on their talk page. I will courtesy ping them now, @Star Mississippi. 11WB (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. The appellant's dispute seems to be with the participants, not with the close, which reflected unanimous consensus. As we always say, DRV is not AfD round 2. Anyone is welcome to start a WP:SPINOUT proposal at Talk:List of mergers and acquisitions by Alphabet. If experienced, non-COI editors deem the added sources to be sufficient, the article can be revived from the page's history. Owen× ☎ 22:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse: The close was correct. The participants did not actually engage with the nominator's WP:CORPDEPTH rationale and instead moved onto assessing which alternative to deletion was most appropriate, ultimately settling on redirection. 11WB (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• Self endorse, and if this discussion were in the queue now, I'd close it the same way. That said, agree with OwenX's suggestion of a potential spinout discussion if information present at the time led participants to come to a conclusion they might otherwise not have. Thanks for the notification/pings. Star Mississippi 01:52, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse The AfD was a bit thin but there is nothing wrong with the close. Feel free to follow the requirements of WP:PAID and create a new draft for review at WP:AFC, however if I was presented the given sources at a future AfD, I would likely oppose keeping the article. Jumpytoo Talk 01:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse if the appellant is appealing the August 2025 close. DRV is not AFD Round 2. The appellant may submit a new draft for review, and the old article is still in the history (although the value of starting with a deleted article is overestimated). The reviewer will probably advise them to discuss at the parent article talk page, as noted by other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse reasonable close as there was consensus to redirect. A second relist would have also been a valid choice, citing the low attendance, but was in no way required. The appellant is free to start a spinout discussion as noted above and/or copy a version from the article history into draftspace, improve with the references provided (many of which post-date the AFD), and submit through the WP:AFC process. Frank Anchor 12:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Gezira State canal killings (2024–2025) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

Page was deleted because the main writer of the page was blocked because of using sockpupets. The page shouldn't have been deleted as it's important part of the ongoing Sudanese civil war as it's one of the most known cases of ethnic cleansing conducted by SAF. The page was approved by other users and other users had made edits on the page so only reason for the deletion was sockpuppetry. I highly doubt that the deleted page will be remade anytime soon as Sudanese Civil war pages aren't usually made that frequently. Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Significa liberdade, what block was ShoBDin evading? I'm not seeing anything conclusive in the SPI, but maybe I'm missing something. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I initially declined some G5s based on the same reasoning. However, after speaking with asilvering, I cleared their new page creations (see the discussion here). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ, I'm going to retreat to WP:BEANS on this one, but I can tell you that a) CUs have access to further evidence and b) this editor is really quite extremely banned, and has been for years. -- asilvering (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll add, also, that these accounts were using LLMs, both (I assume) to be able to generate more pov-push faster, and to make it harder to make a behavioural link. @Brown caterpillar12, if the topic is notable, by all means write an article here yourself, but I don't think we'd want the original in any case. -- asilvering (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

That's good enough for me, obviously (i.e., endorse). Brown caterpillar12, the Internet Archive saved a copy of the article here (attr. ShoBDin), so feel free to use the sources or whatever else is useful, but per Asilvering I'd discourage you from just copying it verbatim. You're welcome to recreate the article at any time, but you'll be responsible for any edits you make. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse G5 is G5, and ASilvering is a checkuser. If there is any complaint that a functionary is acting improperly, there is both a much higher bar and a different process involved. I'll note that the appellant is welcome to rewrite anything deleted as a G5 provided they are permitted to do so, and recommend we close this: we are not second guessing checkusers on what is or is not a G5. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse: I'll start by saying as the appellant has directly criticised an administrative action, regardless of the user page discussion linked by @SL above, @Asilvering should have been informed. That ping will alert them of this DRV. The deletion was done under a valid speedy deletion criteria. If there is an issue with the SPI action, that requires posting at a different venue entirely. (I can't remember which off the top of my head, but WP:XRV comes to mind.) 11WB (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  I realise now it was actually @SL who deleted the article. My comment regarding alerting admins who are being criticised for actions they've taken stands. 11WB (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  The appeal is against the deletion, not against the determination of sockpuppetry. Therefore DRV is the right venue, and there was no policy requirement to inform Asilvering about it, whose involvement in this deletion amounts to a reply on someone's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 07:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Didn't see this until just now, @OwenX. Thank you for clarifying the distinction. Based on what I recall from this, G5 was applied correctly. The article and the SPI appear to be largely connected however, despite the latter not being up for discussion here. 11WB (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  My comment wasn't about the suitability of G5, but a response to two assertions you made, namely (1) that DRV is the wrong venue for this; and (2) that Asilvering should have been notified. I disagree with both assertions, as explained above. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't actually say 1. verbatim. I said if there is an issue with the SPI action, it should be taken to XRV or another admin review venue. DRV is correct for deletion of course. 11WB (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the G5 (assuming there were no substantial edits made by good-faith editors. Can an admin please confirm this?). While most deletion has some gray area, G5 is one of the few exceptions. Either the article was created by a blocked/banned person or it was not. G5 deletion explicitly allows recreation by any user in good standing. Frank Anchor 12:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  • There were not. There was a copyedit by User:Phibeatrice that changed about a dozen words with no change of meaning, and an addition of three words of content by User:Brown caterpillar12. Everything else was solely formatting. —Cryptic 13:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Regrettable endorse. I'm not a fan of punishing the project to WP:SPITE a sock, but I understand the impetus behind WP:DENY and G5. I will note, however, that the events described in the deleted article are notable, and the article was well sourced. The subject deserves, as a minimum, a section at 2024 eastern Gezira State massacres. I'll gladly provide a copy of the cited references (but not of the prose) to anyone willing to take this on. If these killings had happened in, say, Eastern Europe, we'd have a nav template to navigate between the multiple articles we'd have on the subject. But since this happened in a part of the world that suffers from a systematic bias by Western media, we've just (rightly!) deleted the only coverage we have of it, due to what I can only describe as an administrative technicality unrelated to content. Owen× ☎ 14:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse - I am not sure that I understand the appellant's case, but I think that one of the following is true:
  • The appellant is saying that the events described in the deleted article are so important that an exception should be made to G5. There isn't such an exception to G5.
  • The appellant is saying that G5 was wrongly applied. I think that we can rely on the judgment of the deleting checkuser.
  • The appellant is saying something else. If so, we should endorse because there isn't a case to overturn.
  • An editor in good faith and good standing may submit a draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think your first point was closest "The appellant is saying that the events described in the deleted article are so important that an exception should be made to G5. There isn't such an exception to G5." My main point was that while I understand that the article gets deleted for being made by a sockpuppet I think the deleted article is really notable and might take a long time before anyone else is willing to make that article. Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  G5 means you are free to restart. If you don't want to do that then I'm not sure what you expected to get from this review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Well honestly I complained about the deletion of the article and was told by @Significa liberdade to take the complaint here. I read the rules about these discussion like 10 times but still it seemed hard to understand and way too bureaucratic for me to care. I was not that sure about deletion rules I was just annoyed that a such article was being deleted and didn't really understand why. Although I don't seem to be the only one with the same issue Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  well sadly people do tend to misbehave and we have to have a sufficient deterrent for those editing while sitebanned. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Brown caterpillar12: I share your frustration, as I noted above, but these rules are here for a good reason. At this point, it's clear the article will not be restored. However, if you're up to doing the work, my offer to send you the cited references still stands. I recommend starting by adding a well-sourced section about the killings at the 2024 eastern Gezira State massacres page. Or you could start by creating Draft:Gezira State canal killings, if you prefer. Check with Borgenland, a very experienced editor, if they're willing to help you; they've done a lot of work here on the Sudan civil war. If you withdraw your nomination, we can close this DRV early, and move on to more productive work. Owen× ☎ 19:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm considering writing the article again and to be honest it's not that much of work. I've already written a small section on the killings as i mentioned it in the Sudan Shield Forces article I did before. I think this discussion was pretty important as it helped me grasp more the reasons behind the deletion. I can search the sources myself no problem, it's luckily such a recent event most of the sources can be found on newsites. Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah and the DRV can be closed i think this issue is resolved Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator I withdraw my nomination as I understood the deletion policy wrong and to be honest was a little annoyed for article of such importance being deleted. I've understood the reasons behind now so I'm withdrawing my DRV Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Deleted page: Eindhoven Meta-Science Center
• Deleting admin: User:Jimfbleak
• Deletion date: 7 April 2026
• Deletion reason: Speedy deletion (G11, G12)

Reason for review: The page was deleted under G11 (promotion) and G12 (copyright violation). However, the article content was was free of copyright. It was not plagirarized but written by the same person. Speedy deletion requires that issues be unambiguous; in this case, both criteria appear to require editorial judgment. The page may therefore have been more appropriately handled via PROD or AfD rather than speedy deletion.

Requesting review of whether speedy deletion criteria were correctly applied.

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

Deleted for lack of notability. Since 2022, a bunch of sources cropped up which, in my opinion, justify the article. If the article is poorly written, draftification may be done, after which I'll improve the article and remove unsourced information. Otherwise, undelete normally or explain the reason not to.

Reliable

• https://www.villagevoice.com/what-is-jerkmate-an-in-depth-jerkmate-review

Situational (probably usable, since they talk about the UK ban and not anything controversial)

• https://www.askmen.com/gear/tech/how-to-unblock-jerkmate-for-free.html
• https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/adult-content-ban-looms-uk-35454852

Other (mostly reviews)

• https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/758532/jerkmate-review-2
• https://www.laweekly.com/jerkmate-review
• https://johnsoncountypost.com/2025/05/19/olathe-porn-website-lawsuit-259763 Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Did you use AI to write the source analysis? Have you personally checked each source and personally considered it against RS and RSP? The Mirror is a tabloid and even a moments though would have thrown it out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  I literally searched up "Jerkmate" on Google News and picked sources that seem well written, while also checking them at WP:RSP. The Mirror is considered situational. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 08:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  The Mirror is not an article about this subject, it's literally mentioned with pornhub in another context. In what way does that source add to notability? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close. The appellant, who isn't contesting the 3.5-year-old AfD, doesn't need our permission to submit a new draft. However, if the sources cited above are the sole basis for recreation, I fear this would be a waste of everyone's time. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Refund to userspace with appellant moving to draft space and going through AfC, or taking their chances and improving and moving to mainspace, as they see fit. Appellant has started 26 main space articles of which 25 have been retained. While not investigated in detail, the new sources they list above might well be adequate for notability. The AfD is 3.5 years old. There's no reason not to give the appellant access to the old deleted article as a starting point, and trust them enough to triage whether worth spending time on. Martinp (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Reading the further comments below: Several people are saying notability continues to be highly suspect even with the new sources, and/or it might be better to start from scratch. (Cryptic seems to have reviewed the earlier deleted version, the others maybe just speaking generically). And some implying we can only Endorse (or not) the deletion here, and appellant should go to WP:REFUND and try their chances there to get the old article userfied. I think that's all technically correct, but we're being too bureaucratic. Yes we can sit here for days and end up endorsing a deletion discussion that was, by all accounts, absolutely correct at the time. Or appellant can withdraw here. Either way, then they can go to WP:REFUND, and someone else can look at it there, and (probably) refund it. It would just be a lot more efficient all around if we could cut the bureaucracy, someone with the admin bit would say, "I userfied it for you, don't think it looks too promising. You might want to start from scratch and I'm not sure even the new sources are enough, but up to you to give it a try if you want. Oh, and next time in a situation like this, you could just go to WP:REFUND rather than DRV." Martinp (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  The 79-word stub is rather underwhelming, but if emailing it to the appellant would allow us to speedy-close this DRV, I'd be happy to do so. If the goal is to move it from userspace to draft, I'd rather skip userfication and go straight to draft, as the latter offers better visibility to other editors, and a well defined timeline. But again, considering the paucity of content in the deleted page, this all strikes me as a waste of time. The appellant is an experienced editor; it would have taken them less time to recreate a better stub than it took them to write this appeal. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, I'll create a new draft scratch. If the original was a stub, preserving the previous contents is likely not needed. I withdraw my nomination Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 06:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse if this is an appeal of the September 2022 close as Delete (but it doesn't appear to be).

  This appears to be a request to restore the article to article space so that the appellant can work on it. If so, the appellant is making a mistaken request.

  No opinion as to whether a request for undeletion to user space or draft space should be allowed.

  The appellant or anyone may submit a draft for review. It is often better to start from scratch than to request refund of a deleted draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the 2022 close. Oppose the restoration of this article to the mainspace based on the sources provided - no evidence of notability has been provided. Katzrockso (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• If you're expecting to get back a reasonable-looking article that just needs some better sources so we don't delete it, you're going to be very disappointed. It was six short sentences long and would have been a (barely) defensible A7 speedy deletion candidate. Almost anything you could write would be better. —Cryptic 01:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse the AfD. The appellant is happy to try again at writing an article, however if I was presented these sources at an AfD I would vote !delete. Jumpytoo Talk 02:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse and DENY. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Overturn specifically to draft. I never saw the updated version and nobody voted based on it. If it's actually good enough for an article, it should pass AFC. If it's not, there might be added info that's worth merging into the base article. Tessaract2 (hello) 23:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough – this sounds sensible! Scientelensia (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I have made a draft (Draft:Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy) as per @Owenx, @Tessaract2 and @Frank Anchor. This is early and nobody needs to engage if they don't wish too, but just thought I'd make it known here. Scientelensia (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you probably shouldn't do that until a consensus emerges here. I personally Strongly oppose draftification of this WP:COATRACK. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, ok – should I delete the draft? me personally I dont think it does any harm in the draft space. Scientelensia (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

At this point, the best thing for you to do is to step back, not make any additional comments here, leave the draft as it is, and let this review run its course. Same applies to the Elizabeth Brontë discussion below, except that you should probably answer Spartaz's question to you there about whether you want the content merged or not. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Likewise strongly oppose draftication of this WP:POVFORK, there wasn't any point point to so in AfD, never mind any consensus established to do so. Bejakyo (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I support this draft to allow for improvement. Anyone who opposes its existence can start a discussion on MFD at the conclusion of this discussion. Frank Anchor 14:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the clear consensus close. Had the appellant spent the first few days of the AfD adding the sources they did, instead of bludgeoning the discussion and waiting for the last day to add those sources, the result may have been different. However, the article isn't "deleted". It is all there in the page's history, available for the appellant to submit a new draft to AfC. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was busy and didn't have the clairvoyance to know that to would be the last day of discussion (!) – but I see what you mean nonetheless. Scientelensia (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Clairvoyance"? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says: A deletion or merging discussion is normally allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). Instead of arguing with each and every participant who disagrees with you, I suggest spending a few days familiarising yourself with our procedures and practices. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry – I apologise. Personal life getting in the way (!) Scientelensia (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Having been around for 2022 and having 5000+ edits your personal life must be very fulfilling, but you can't really at this point continue to edit like a clueless noob Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Not everyone knows everything about Wikipedia, please stop insulting me and mocking me – not nice. Scientelensia (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  like your sarcastic comment about not being clairvoyant? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  That was misinformed, but don't invoke my personal life (that's my prerogative) Scientelensia (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment as original nominator: the decision to redirect is not supported by the consensus in the AfD discussion, but I won't dispute it. However the arguments for this not being a standalone were clearly the best supported by policy including WP:POVFORK, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. I also notice that User:Scientelensia has only notified editors who were in favour of redirect or merge of this deletion review, which I'm sure is within their purview but does not seem in good faith. Orange sticker (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, only notifying your supporters is clear canvassing. @Scientelensia you need to rectify this immediately Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've already notified all the other participants. Orange sticker (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, but you shouldn't have had to do that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete Like all decisions on Wikipedia, a decision to redirect at AfD must be supported by consensus, not a supervote by a closing admin. Several editors explicitly opposed a redirect of this title to the subject's BLP. The consensus was overwhelmingly to delete, based on policy. In contrast, some keep arguments were fundamentally flawed, such as suggesting this article should exist because an article like Elon Musk salute controversy exists. AusLondonder (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• I don't see a reason to overturn the AfD decision. Material on the now-deleted page can be accessed through the history and then added to the main article, or not: that can be discussed on the relevant Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment As a participant im the AfD, I don't really have a preference between redirect and overturn to delete. The article was pretty clearly a WP:COATRACK to cast a BLP in a bad light. A redirect might discourage future attempts to create similar coatracks. But, if it's overturned to delete, nothing of value will be lost. Simonm223 (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't want to bludgeon, hence will keep this short, but your consistent line of inquiry seems to suggest that the article is some sort of hit piece. It's not (and for reference I didn't create it). It just covers material which would be undue in the main article. Scientelensia (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  You commented on the AfD 11 times, opened this deletion review and then commented on it 11 more times after doing so and created the article as a draft while the deletion review was in progress. You seriously need to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. They have additionally been lightly notified to be mindful of bludgeoning by both myself and another user. It's getting irritating. To Scientel, I recommend taking a step back and allowing you arguments to speak for themselves, and simply allow others to input too Bejakyo (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse clear consensus to not keep the article. There is not consensus to delete rather than redirect, therefore the closer was correct to select the WP:ATD. Only two delete !voters specifically opposed a redirect, and both were with baseless claims that [r]edirecting this title is highly inappropriate and unnecessary and the topic itself is crude in its wording and not worthy of a redirect. Anyone who believes the redirect was incorrect can go to RFD after the close of this discussion. Per others above, anyone who wishes to improve this page can move a version from the article history into draftspace. Frank Anchor 10:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete as consensus in the AfD indicated - Likewise was involved in the AfD. re-iterating as others have said that the article was a WP:POVFORK and providing WP:UNDUE focus. Due weight had already been afforded in the article Zack Polanski. Additionally this POVFORK also held the issue of gossip without names to attribute such claims to. "unnamed" or "anonymous" figures saying something is does not merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and the inclusion of any such material is a huge WP:BLP violation.
  
  Agree with the fact that AusLondoner points out that that the closing admin appears to have unintentionally acted with a WP:SUPERVOTE in a way contrary to the consensus that was built in the discussion. I had considered raising the issue of a supervote myself but was not aware of where would have been appropriate. I would also add that, for example, whether Musk's hitler salute has an article or not is entirely irrelevant on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFF, and any such arguements appealing to otherstuff are really quite weak and without basis in policy. This redirect should be deleted properly this time, as there was a clear consensus to properly delete, not to redirectBejakyo (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  There is a long standing expectation here that admins respect ATD in closes and if a redirect is available they are usually expected to allow that rather than straight deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Admins should respect the most important principle: consensus. A decision to redirect is not exempt from needing consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  if the outcome is going to be exactly the same, article redirected Vs deleted and directed, what benefit do we get from.makimg it harder to change course if sources appear. And being frank, I don't make the rule round here and this position develops from the regular consensus that appears at both DRVs and AFDs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  though I just checked and my first edit to DRV was in June 2006 so if want to blame anyone I'm the longest here.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  November 2005 for me. ;) Owen× ☎ 19:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  show off lol Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  The consensus at the AfD was to redirect. Katzrockso (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think you must have read a different AfD to me. Firstly, consensus is the most fundamental of all policies. Secondly, WP:ATD-R states "A page can be {can be, not must be} blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed, such as by reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again." This redirect is obviously inappropriate. AusLondonder (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  You'll note that I have not made any comment on whether consensus is required to enact an AtD, but I have explicitly noted that there is a consensus at the AfD to redirect.

  WP:DEL-REASON states subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page, meaning that all deletion reasons must be shown to be irreparable. WP:ATD-E states If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page (a redirect is a form of editing). A redirect addresses all relevant reasons for deletion in the discussion (the only two votes opposing a redirect made non-policy based arguments that were correctly discounted by the closer). Katzrockso (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree that there was a consensus to redirect at this AfD. I believe that you are grossly misrepresenting policy. ATD-E is clearly referring to editing a page to remove a section that is inappropriate - redirecting is separately addressed in the ATD policy. WP:DEL#REASON indeed does state that "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". But what's the relevance? What's your point? This is clearly referring again to editing a page to remove unsuitable content. It says offending section. Your argument is that "editing" the "offending section" is blanking the whole page and keeping this inappropriate and POV page title redirecting to a BLP. This is utterly illogical and ignores the consensus that this content is not suitable and should be deleted. As it stands, the page has not been deleted and remains publicly viewable in edit history, in direct violation of the AfD consensus. Yet again ATD is being misused as backdoor inclusionism. AusLondonder (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  As the closer correctly notes, non-neutral redirects are perfectly permissible and are commonly kept at RfD, which is why there is a template {{R from non-neutral title}}.

  Your argument remains circular - "in direct violation of the AfD consensus" is justified only by your bare assertion that the AfD consensus was to delete. Katzrockso (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  Given that their are precisely zero mainspace links to "Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy" and it is a highly implausible search term (we also have a search engine) and that one of our most critical policies, WP:BLP, states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages..." I think it's obvious this redirect is utterly pointless and clearly intended as an attack on the subject. It frankly debases us as an encyclopaedia. AusLondonder (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  You are more than welcome to nominate the redirect at RfD for deletion following this deletion review. Katzrockso (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with your statement. Closers have their personal tendencies. I believe that DRV leans toward endorsing, independent of original outcome, due to allowances for what we call "closer's discretion". I found two delete closes that weren't overturned to redirect or merge in the last several months: no consensus and endorsed. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse There was consensus to not keep the article in mainspace. While one editor two editors objected to the redirect, more editors expressed that a redirect was appropriate. If I were editing the main article, I would probably only replace and rewrite the previous careers section with the current introductory paragraph of the draft, because most of the draft is just reactions to the incident. --Enos733 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Enos733 There were two explicit objections to redirecting. There was also no positive consensus for a redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse: there was a clear consensus to remove the article on the basis that the incident was not notable and the article was a WP:POVFORK. That did not change when Scientelensia added more information that put WP:UNDUE emphasis on criticism of Polanski that clearly violated WP:BLPBALANCE, including a labelling of Polanski as a "misogynist" that is entirely unrelated to the article subject. I stand by my assessment in the original AfD discussion that at the moment this incident is not notable enough for anything beyond a paragraph in Polanski's article.

I have no preference between delete or redirect. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse and do not overturn to delete. The closer correctly discounted the delete votes that eschewed a redirect as not providing any policy based reason to not redirect.

Judging the discussion based on policy, the consensus is also to redirect. Katzrockso (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse and I want to specifically look at the BLP interface: The material is attributed to reliable sources, not contested. It's embarrassing and political at the same time, so it's controversial, but that doesn't make it contested. A non-neutral redirect is appropriate. A late influx of RS'ing to a discussion doesn't always sway it, and a NOPAGE outcome still feels appropriate given a 10 year perspective on the subject matter. This does not satisfy those who want a standalone article, nor those who want it deleted entirely, which means it's probably a good compromise. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• The redirect is pretty obviously entirely worthless and also a borderline POV violation. It is not a plausible search term and it provides nothing of value or utility to our readers. Unfortunately, I missed out on the AfD where I could have made those points and I don't think they cut any ice here. I would have preferred it if the result was Delete but it was within the closer's discretion to make a redirect. I think an RfD might be a good idea. I am appalled to see that a new draft has been created to bypass the AfD result. I'll put that up for speedy deletion. Apart from that, I'm mostly just here to say that I don't support overturning this to Keep or Draftify and also that I don't think that Vanamonde93 did anything wrong here. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  The redirect is not technically required, but is the easiest way to satisfy the attribution requirements of WP:CWW. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see why you are 'appalled. The draft was made, although early, because many people (@Owenx, @Tessaract2, @Frank Anchor) suggested (or consented) that I make a draft with the improvements I added. This was the basis of my contesting deletion anyway. I'm quite shocked it has been deleted. Scientelensia (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant to type @OwenX Scientelensia (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  The user @SouthernNights deleted the page 'per a deletion discussion', but only @DanielRigal said it should be deleted. This result seems fraudulent to me. Does anyone with more experience, such as @Spartaz, know how I might recover all my work and new info? It was a well-written article, even if the title wasn't approved of by everybody. Scientelensia (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That's simply not true. There are nine Delete !votes on the AfD and I'm not even one of them because I missed the AfD. The AfD reached the conclusion that this should not be an article. Unless that decision is overturned here then it won't be. You are welcome to argue for an overturn to Keep but trying to bypass the AfD, and the deletion review process, with a draft was not legitimate and it had to go. It was not deleted on my unilateral and godlike say-so although I do appreciate the omnipotence being ascribed to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not taking about the original page – I'm taking about the new, improved – and now deleted – draft. One only wishes for omnipotence in such a situation haha Scientelensia (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Given that the draft is of better quality, I care much more about restoring it than overturning the original deletion of the old page. In the case I'm talking about, it was you who suggested (and filed) the request to delete the draft. I hope at least you read it before deleting the work. Scientelensia (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it's a valid g4, but this is clearly going to close with an endorsement and the community will have decided that a separate article on this is unwarranted. Frankly, you need to move on and find something uncontroversial to work on. Political BLPs require high level policy and consensus building skills and you don't have that right now. All that's going to happen is that you will get mired in controversy and eventually someone will decide you are the issue and remove you from the board. Better you focus on the uncontroversial stuff you have been editing until recently. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I've undeleted the draft per the request. However, the G4 absolutely applies here. Per WP:GCSD, general speedy delete criteria applies to "every type of page with exclusions listed for specific criteria, and so apply to articles, drafts, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc." SouthernNights (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussionG4 specifically excludes articles in draft space created to allow improvement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the close of Redirect. I see three issues:
  • Should the close be overturned to Keep, as requested by the appellant? No. The closer correctly assessed a consensus against keeping the article.
  • Should the close be overturned to Delete, as proposed by some participants in this DRV? No. Some editors supported Delete, and some editors supported Redirect, and the closer reasonably identified an alternative to deletion.
  • Should Draft:Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy have been deleted as G4? No, and it should be overturned. A page in draft space is not substantially identical to a deleted page in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm shocked to see it has been deleted. Scientelensia (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  As I mentioned above, I've undeleted the page per the author request. However per WP:GCSD, general speedy delete criteria applies to "every type of page with exclusions listed for specific criteria, and so apply to articles, drafts, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc." So yes, G4 absolutely applied in this case. SouthernNights (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  @SouthernNights. WP:G4 states It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy. It depends on whether or not we think that the move to draft was a good faith attempt at explicit improvement or a way to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy. Given that an editor explicitly suggested draftification here, it tilts away from the circumvention interpretation. Katzrockso (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Intent absolutely matters in a case like this. FYI that I pointed out what WP:GCSD said b/c some editors in the discussion were implying that G4 could never apply to draft articles. That said, I also undeleted the article per the author's request b/c it does seem like the editor is trying to improve it. SouthernNights (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that the intent matters, which is why I emphasized that whether the G4 is valid turns on whether we think the draftification was done in good-faith. However, if there is an objection to a speedy deletion, then speedy deletion is not the proper method of deletion, since speedy deletion is reserved only for uncontroversial and uncontested deletions, since WP:CSDCONTEST states an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used. Given that the draftification was supported by at least one editor besides the creator of the page, I would think that the speedy deletion of the draft would have been opposed by one editor and would be controversial enough to warrant bringing the page to MfD. Katzrockso (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  No, intent does not matter in speedy deletions. If there's a question of intent where good editors could differ, a decision needs to go to a discussion process. So a G4 that turns on intent... should not be a G4 at all. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete or delete and redirect. There was overwhelming consensus against a standalone article, strong consensus against merging, and consensus against a redirect. Since Draft:Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy has been recreated, the delete outcome should be implemented by history merging the article history into the draft to consolidate them into one place. Also see #Proposal: Draftification with history merge below.
  1. Since there was consensus against using the content in either article, the article history should have been deleted.
     1. On top of the delete recommendations by Orange sticker, Oaktree b, Pretzel Quetzal, and Bejakyo noting that the paragraph in Zack Polanski did not need expansion, Orange sticker and Bejakyo reiterated that point when asked about merging. Tessaract2 opposed a merge specifically.
     2. Jonesey95 presented no reasoning. Bondegezou and Scientelensia wrote more, but none of them provided a specific answer to WP:Merge what? (essay).
     3. Controversy content added to Zack Polanski had been reverted or reduced by editors there, as mentioned by Orange sticker.
  2. Redirecting had sufficient opposition.
     1. AusLondonder and AML KING objected to a redirect. Simonm223 criticized the salacious naming scheme, which also applies to the redirect.
     2. Tessaract2 supported either redirect or delete.
     3. Jonesey95 did not include a rationale. lp0 on fire linked {{R from non-neutral title}} without citing a policy or guideline.
     4. WP:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects (guideline, shortcut WP:RNEUTRAL) is the relevant page. These excerpts support deletion:
        1. 2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect Bejakyo and Simonm223 described the article as a POV fork or potential one. Orange sticker, radioactOlive, AusLondonder, and AML KING called it the more general content fork.
        2. The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion Reading into KnowDeath's explanation of the title and Talk:Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy#The title, it was constructed, not a verifiable established term. "[E]stablished terms" links to WP:UNDUE (shortcut to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, policy), which was frequently cited throughout the AfD.

  Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Draftification with history merge

I propose draftification by moving the page history to Draft:Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy and leaving the redirect to Zack Polanski#Previous careers at Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversyZack Polanski breast enlargement controversy.

1. The redirect remains in place and may be nominated at WP:Redirects for discussion per the AfD close and various comments above.
2. Scientelensia, KnowDeath, and others may edit the draft without having to work around the blanking in the redirect version or the possible RfD. These interested editors should be considered before any hypothetical ones who might find the history under the redirect.
   1. Someone may nominate it at WP:Miscellany for deletion, but they can continue to edit while it is tagged.
   2. WP:Copying within Wikipedia and the caution against copying during deletion discussions will not be relevant. See WP:Articles for deletion#Editing the article during the discussion (process page) and its previous version at WP:Guide to deletion (how-to guide, currently merged).
   3. WP:History merging will not be needed once after restoring Scientelensia's latest version. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Delete supporters may be more accepting of the page history being removed from article space.

I created a subsection to be clear that this is not the usual DRV process and to see if Tessaract2's recommendation would receive more support when presented differently. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• The cross-page Special:Diff/1348859467/1349361532 shows the continuity. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• I am fine with draftification, which does not require DRV approval. A draft was already created and erroneously G4ed (as the previous article was never deleted, an absolute requirement of G4, I plan to seek clarification with the deleting admin and potentially take to DRV upon the closure of this discussion). I am not aware of enough SIGCOV to allow this topic to be improved to article standards, but that is a matter for AFC (or a potential future AFD), not DRV. Frank Anchor 14:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC) Text stricken due to the draft having been restored Frank Anchor 20:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Also the redirect must be maintained, and leave the history with the redirect not the draft (that way no attribution will be lost if a draft is abandoned and G13ed). Frank Anchor 14:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I am not aware of any non-draft edits that need attribution. I skimmed Special:PageHistory/Zack Polanski, paying closer attention to additions and Scientelensia's edits. Excluding references (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, guideline, shortcut WP:NOATT) and Scientelensia restoring their own previous edits, I found one edit that appears to include copying text from this version of Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversyZack Polanski breast enlargement controversy, and I provided the missing attribution. I posted to Scientelensia's talk page, in case I missed any. Regarding G13, I found a few WP:Miscellany for deletion nominations that redirected the draft to the article for attribution purposes and to avoid G13 deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment from what I recall in the AfD, the sourcing didn't seem to show the need for a fork from the main article, it could be covered in a few sentences in the person's main article. It appeared (to me) to be a failed attempt at a "character assassination" with no real merit. I'd be happy to review the draft if needed, but it didn't seem notable during AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's up to others to decide, but do you think the draft as it is now stands a good chance? I don't think its a character assassination article (now) – I try to give voice to Polanski and neutrality to the matter. Scientelensia (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the close as redirect, noting that it bordered on “delete”. Draftification is an option that I would not support and has no place being discussed at DRV when no deletion occurred. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• A belated comment as closer. I endorse what several admins have said above, which is that as AfD closers there is an implicit expectation that we respect WP:ATD. The basic question at AfD is whether to maintain a standalone article for a given topic. If editors wish to go beyond that to delete the title and the history, then arguments specifically against a merge/redirect must be made; arguments against notability alone do not preclude a redirect. In this AfD there was only one argument explicitly against redirecting, and it cited no policy basis. If the redirect is seen to be problematic for neutrality reasons then an RfD would be appropriate, but arguing to delete outright at DRV by citing arguments that weren't brought up at AfD is a misuse of process. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

I also note that the redirect article, Brontë family, barely (if at all) covers the contents of the deleted article. Scientelensia (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. The arguments I see on the Keep side are of the ITSIMPORTANT, ITSINTERESTING and an INHERITED/there is a significant number of page views from a now-banned account. Those opining against retention base their arguments on P&G. Timotheus Canens was right to discount the Keeps and reach an ATD consensus to redirect. Owen× ☎ 00:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse, basically per Owen X. I can't see any reasonable close of the discussion that kept a standalone page. The one editor who is now blocked (not banned) wasn't blocked for anything related to the AfD, but her argument wasn't sufficiently policy-based so it doesn't matter either way.

Because the result was redirect, an editor in good standing can always reverse the redirect and recreate the article with new sourcing or anything that might overcome the objection to notability at the AfD, but going through AfC might be better at this junction due to the fact that the AfD was less than a year ago. Katzrockso (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The block log clearly says, Banned by the Arbitration Committee. Why are you saying she wasn't banned? Owen× ☎ 06:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

No, you're right and I was misremembering something - I apologize. Comment struck.Katzrockso (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I respectfully asked for a smerge. I'm not sure why some material from her article can't be used in the redirected place. Bearian (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with you. Scientelensia (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm confused are you arguing for the merge you can do right now or to undo the redirect? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I am agreeing with Bearian's sentiment that the content from the article should have ben merged. I'm not sure though that the Bronte family article has a relevant space for such an improvement. Scientelensia (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  if it's merged you need to retain the redirect too allow attribution Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse per Owen X. Nothing stops editors from adding additional information into the main page (recognizing WP:DUE). --Enos733 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - The history of the Brontë family is deeply sad. Most of the Brontës died either in childhood or in young adulthood. That does not affect the biographical notability of individual members of the family. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse as the correct close, reflecting consensus. DRV is not AFD Round 2. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. Proper discussion and close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• restore Given the nature of the article and the sources listed, I believe a use of the image can be made in John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick that will meet WP:NFCC#8 (note, I'm assuming the image in the article is exactly what I'd expect it to be given the title). Hobit (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • To be clear, if the article stays, this should be restored. If it gets deleted, I don't think there will be a place where enough context about it to overcome NFCC#8 would be reasonable. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse (I was a participant in the FFD). The closure correctly reflects the consensus in the FFD. Note that the FFD was was about the usage of the image in the article about the University of New Brunswick, and this article did not even exist at that time. -- Whpq (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Restore. The rationale for the deletion of the file no longer applies - though obviously the closure reflects the consensus of the AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the article in question, though upon a quick review, the sourcing in the article didn't convince me of its notability. Follow the result of the AfD - if the article is deleted, keep the file deleted. If the article is kept, restore the file.

My comment was based on AGF on the part of the author of the article. Katzrockso (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse This article has clearly been created solely to force the undeletion of this image and the importance of the image and the subject is clearly overstated. I'm not convinced that this article needs an image other than as decoration. We rightly have strict conditionals for using nom-free media and this is something that we should applaud not look to find run arounds too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. The appellant is being disingenuous by using the passive voice in, a new article dedicated to the event was created for which the image is now essential. It was the appellant who created this new article, one hour before filing this appeal. I'm not sure why the appellant went to the trouble of writing an article on this wholly insignificant visit of a then-junior Senator to Fredericton, just to force our hand to restore a non-free image. The new article is unlikely to survive an AfD anyway, which will land us right back at where we were two days ago. The appellant already added a mention of the event at University of New Brunswick, which is about as much coverage as it deserves without violating WP:UNDUE. I don't know if the appellant is related to Joe Stone, the photographer who took the 1957 picture, but this pointless crusade has got to stop.
  @Hobit and Katzrockso: I urge you to review the newly created article with a critical mindset, and tell us whether you believe the subject meets our notability criteria, rather than merely justify the existence of the photo. Owen× ☎ 12:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review evaluates whether the file’s use complies with policy under current conditions, not the motives of editors. WP:NFCC#8 is explicitly context-dependent, and the existence of a sourced standalone article materially changes that context. If there are specific policy-based concerns with the current use, please identify them; otherwise, speculation about intent does not address the NFCC criteria. Tinterest (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

the NFCC is clear that it requires a meaningful context to display a non free image. This is far short of that context. It's decoration and adds nothing to the text Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Tinterest, If you think you can game the system by slyly WP:WIKILAWYERING around our policies, you'll soon find out you are mistaken. The page you hastily created to save the image is not a good faith attempt to build an encyclopedia. It is an underhanded trick to get around our policies, and will be judged as such. Which is a shame, because you clearly have the skill to add valid content to the project, if it weren't for your obsession with this one photo. Owen× ☎ 15:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Independent sources characterize the 1957 ceremony as significant in Kennedy’s pre-presidential career, including coverage by the JFK Library, contemporaneous commentary by Beaverbrook, and later scholarly treatment. That level of sustained, independent coverage is the relevant consideration for contextual significance under WP:NFCC#8. A non-free image "adds to text" when it shows the actual subject/event being discussed, provides primary visual context for a sourced occurrence, or allows readers to recognize or visualize the exact referenced moment. That is sufficient under NFCC and does not require new facts, unique emotion, or extraordinary visual characteristics. This image depicts the specific encyclopedic event described in the article and provides direct visual context for that occurrence, consistent with NFCC#8. The question before this deletion review is whether the file’s current use complies with WP:NFCC#8, which is determined by contextual significance in the article, not by editor intent, assumptions about motivation, or characterizations such as “gaming” or “wikilawyering”. Such labels do not address the policy criteria under discussion. Tinterest (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review evaluates whether the file’s use complies with policy under current conditions No it does not. Deletion review determines if a deletion properly followed process. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

No. Deletion review is a review of whether a deletion was correctly executed under applicable policy, and that necessarily includes whether the underlying policy basis for deletion—here WP:NFCC#8—was correctly applied to the file’s use in context. Process and substance are not separable in non-free content decisions, because the “process” is the application of NFCC criteria. Tinterest (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I have sent the article in which this image is to be used to AfD. Sandstein 16:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

You forgot to link your bogus AfD. Tinterest (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Ha! I was in the midst of writing the nomination myself. I'll add it as a !vote there. Owen× ☎ 16:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Remain deleted, and delete new article. I was the editor who originally added the mention of JFK's convocation visit to the University of New Brunswick article almost three years ago (along with other significant portions of that article). I added it as a passing mention as an interesting historical footnote appropriate for the university's article, but not as a standalone topic because quite frankly it is not notable as such. I support @Sandstein's AfD nomination as per @OwenX and for my own reasons: The visit lacks standalone notability (WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS). I considered it worth mentioning in the parent article but it easily fails holding significant coverage for a standalone article, especially considering almost all sources used in the article are from the student newspaper or deprecated sources copied from when I had previously used them in the main UNB article for my passing mention (such as the Brunswickan source(s) and the Telegraph-Journal archival site which was deprecated almost two years ago and its newspapers transferred to Newspapers.com), just with extra AI-hallucinated fluff added to expand the text. The sources document the event but do not establish that this specific visit is independently notable from UNB's general history. The article appears to be AI-generated, which is behavior that has been attributed to this user multiple times in the past, not only by myself. Duplicate sources, deprecated sources clearly indicating they have been taken from already-existing writing, etc. I raise this concern under general quality standards because we should not endorse creating synthetic content forks simply to host non-free images. It's also clear that this article was created solely to provide a host for the deleted file, which raises heavy concerns about WP:GAME as mentioned above by @OwenX. We shouldn't endorse creating articles for the sole purpose of forcing the undeletion of non-free content under WP:NFCC#8 rather than actually building the encyclopedia. Tinterest's behavior of attempting to reshape the UNB article into how they want it to be is not isolated and I've already made complaints to the user about my concerns in the past. This includes wanting to manipulate historical details and remove text related to its first graduates (as per a historical book published by the university for its anniversary over 75 years ago) based on an abandoned RfC in which they attempted to get UNB included in List of oldest universities in continuous operation, despite opposition to UNB's inclusion. This also includes attempting multiple times to replace the fair-use coat of arms in UNB's infobox with an AI-generated version, apparently due to not being able to reuse the non-free coat of arms in the {{University of New Brunswick}} navigation template (as they had initially attempted months ago). I can appreciate some edits the user has made, such as creating the navigation template in the first place (though initially insisting on including every non-notable topic loosely related to the university for some reason), but based on this type of repeated behavior this seems more to be an instance of single-purpose account focused more on making promotional edits rather than valuing encyclopedic integrity. As a New Brunswicker who is an alumnus of UNB I recognize that not everything related to UNB will hold standalone notability, this is one example of that; I love UNB and hold it dear to my heart but it is not more remarkable than most other Canadian universities and I feel that attempting to game the system with this type of behavior puts more of a bad look than it does good. This is not the first and likely won't be the last time I raise these concerns. Cheers. B3251_(talk) 21:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Prior contributions or personal views of UNB are not relevant here; what matters is whether the 1957 JFK convocation has received sufficient independent coverage as a distinct historical event to satisfy WP:NFCC#8, which is the case here. Tinterest (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Which is what I'm discussing. Bringing up past behavior is relevant to bring home the point that you are solely using Wikipedia for the reason that I provided earlier: as an "instance of [a] single-purpose account focused more on making promotional edits rather than valuing encyclopedic integrity". It's not only disruptive behavior but it gives a bad look to editors and viewers interested in looking into UNB quite frankly. B3251_(talk) 23:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:GNG WP:NFCC#8, sourcing depth, independence, & non-triviality matter here.Tinterest (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the FfD as correct at the time. The new article changes things. Wait, defer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick. If the new article is kept, undelete the image. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: The event is repeatedly documented across multiple independent contexts and meets the criteria of depth of coverage, independence, and non-trivial treatment under WP:GNG. Sources regard it as a distinct narrative episode in Kennedy’s pre-presidential life, with institutional archival preservation, scholarly contextual treatment, and retrospective framing in regional press, rather than as a coffee titbit. That level of sourcing amounts to contextual significance under WP:NFCC#8 too. Tinterest (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse It feels like we are talking to an LLM, and LLM's have no standing at DRV. Jumpytoo Talk 01:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Impressions of style are irrelevant to WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT; sourcing depth/independence are. Tinterest (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

lecturing actually experienced editors on how to interpret the evidence of their own eyes isn't the winning technique you think it is Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments on editor experience do not address the content question; notability depends on sourcing depth and independence under WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Tinterest (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm so grateful that you have drawn my attention to two policies I have been using for 20 years Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Policy matters as this is a question of WP:GNG WP:NFCC#8, not commentary on process/style. Tinterest (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Am I too involved to block this user for being disruptive and gaming the system? I have tagged his article as G15 as the very first source was 404 on publication meaning that he hadn’t reviewed the sources his LLM had produced, he has avoided addressing this on the three separate occasions I have asked about this at the AFD. At this point he is just disruptive and timewasting Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Written and checked manually; sources are verifiable via archive where needed. Link rot does not indicate automated generation or lack of human review. Tinterest (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse Having looked at the new "Article" it is clearly pretexual--whether that amounts to bad faith or not is not our baliwick. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

“Pretext” is not a policy criterion; the relevant question is whether the article’s sourcing provides sufficient independent, non-trivial coverage under WP:GNG and context under WP:NFCC#8. Tinterest (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not experienced with the guidelines on non-free images, but this seems to be a rabbit hole. It appears that we are being asked to restore an image in order to preserve an article from deletion, but it appears that the image depends on the article and the article depends on the image. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The article’s notability is established independently under WP:GNG through multiple reliable sources; the image is then evaluated for contextual significance under WP:NFCC#8 within that coverage. Tinterest (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse - I don't see anything wrong with the FFD closure, and this appeal is too complicated and seems "off". Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:GNG and WP:NFCC#8 apply; perceived complexity is not relevant. Tinterest (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - DRV is a content forum, but it looks as though the appellant has some agenda beyond being here to improve an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - This is also being discussed at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse, there was nothing wrong with the closure over at FFD. This entire request should be thrown out since it was written by AI. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - The appellant has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Can you provide sources that show that our inclusion guideline, WP:N, is met? Basically, we need sources that are independent of the subject, from reliable sources, and have more than in-passing coverage. Without those sources, it will be an uphill fight to get this article restored. Hobit (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Absolutely. These articles cover about 19 years, which shows the coverage isn't in passing.

  https://www.houstonpress.com/music/five-times-august-6543565/ (2007 - independent regional press describing Skistimas as "the hottest unsigned commodity" with significant MTV/media traction, and song played 5 million times on MySpace)

  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/second-cup-cafe-five-times-august-21-03-2008/ (2008 - national mainstream coverage profiling Skistimas' success as an unsigned artist and his TV licensing achievements)

  https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/five-times-august-1046687/ (2008 - substantive write-up stating Skistimas is the first unsigned act to be distributed at Walmart, and lists "major TV placements")

  https://www.teenvogue.com/story/five-times-august-tunes-in (2008 - lists TV placements and Skistimas' interview)

  https://www.dallasobserver.com/music/five-times-august-pops-up-on-the-real-world-which-is-far-less-of-a-big-deal-than-it-sounds-7078905/ (2009 - independent coverage of TV/music placement success)

  https://www.popmatters.com/five-times-august-brighter-side-2496171118.html (2008 - independent coverage of a Skistimas' release, states TV placements and 100,000+ downloads)

  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/second-cup-cafe-five-times-august-01-01-2010/ (2010 - follow-up coverage from CBS News demonstrating sustained national coverage beyond one-off mention)

  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2089483/youtube-demonetizes-song-about-sad-little-man-fauci/ (2021 - independent news coverage from Washington Examiner regarding the release of Skistimas' song, "Sad Little Man," reflecting broader media attention and public controversy surrounding his music)

  https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/five-times-august-silent-war-interview/

  https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/baste-records-skistimas-free-music/ (2022 & 2024 - showing continued Skistimas coverage and career evolution)

  https://v13.net/2022/12/five-times-august-brad-skistimas-interview-silent-war-activism-and-future-outlook/ (2021 - reports Skistimas' single "Sad Little Man" reached #1 on multiple Amazon and Apple Music charts, reflecting notable commercial success and public traction for his Covid-era protest music)

  https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/anti-covid-vaccine-march-dc-sunday-robert-f-kennedy-jr/65-a322944c-851a-4f81-a7a3-07457f360621 (DC local news showing Skistimas was a speaker at RFK Jr's anti-vaccine rally in 2022) Lyricalliberty (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• If these are the best sources, please do not proceed. If you have better sources, please work on a draft and go through AfC. Nothing in your request or these sources indicates an issue with the 2021 close, so endorse that one. I would argue the 2026 speedy should not have been a G4, so if technically & bureaucratically necessary restore and send to AfD. For anyone else confused, the 2021 history/AfD is Five Times August Star Mississippi 01:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• (If this DRV was made in good faith and is not LLM-generated) Overturn G4 and restore to draftspace. The G4-deleting admin admitted that some references were neither included in the article nor mentioned at the AfD in a previous DRV which was procedurally closed. Therefore, the G4ed article is not sufficiently identical, which is a basic requirement of G4. I recommend restoring to draftspace to allow any interested user the time to improve the article to Wikipedia standards and add appropriate references. It should not be restored to mainspace because the references provided here are not very good and an article based on them wouldn't stand a chance at AFD. Frank Anchor 16:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I believe there's a misreading here. In the quoted section above I was referring to sources first presented at DRV, not sources which were included in the G4'd version. BusterD (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate your feedback. I still believe the G4 to be incorrect based on a low likelihood of sufficient similarity after several years with more references available, and maintain it should be restored to draftspace. Frank Anchor 12:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I have no dog in this hunt. I am glad to draftify if that's the consensus. Originally I was responding to the user's LLM behavior, not any case on the merits. BusterD (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  @BusterD: I see no objection to draftifying the page. Since you were the one who deleted it, you are welcome to do so and speedy close this DRV, or ask one of us to do so on your behalf. Owen× ☎ 20:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

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

Alex Suarez (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

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

• Endorse unanimous AfD. Four participants is quorum, and eight days is more than the required time for an uncontroversial AfD. I'm not convinced any of the sources cited here by the appellant provides SIGCOV, and listing the various remixes doesn't change things either way. That said, the appellant, who created their account to file this appeal, doesn't need our permission to submit a new draft to AfC, using the article's history as a starting point if desired. Owen× ☎ 23:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse close. No other way to close this. As OwenX notes, the appellant is able to copy the article to a draft and submit through AfC. Katzrockso (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse a quick trawl through the a couple of sources shows that they lack the depth required for GNG and since the bolded text suggests this is LLM generated pleadings, I'm really not minded to extend any benefit of the doubt. Maybe we should speedy close this Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  The appellant's statement, according to LLM detectors, is AI generated. I would have procedurally closed this per your comment and WP:AITALK. Based on the instructions at the top of this page however, I think I'm prohibited from doing so due to not being an administrator. 11WB (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Any redirect can be un-redirected at any time unless it's been protected due to past abuse. You don't need to go through the AfC process, but you DO need to address the AfD reasons in good faith. Since you're listing sources that are explicitly AFTER the redirect was made, that appears to be at least plausible. Again, this is why ATD-R is so beneficial: You don't need anyone's permission or admin tools to go off and un-redirect the article and improve it in the process. Just understand the issues, address them as best you can, and even if it's not good enough for standalone notability at this time, your efforts will still be in the history and the point from which someone else, including you, can improve it further in the future. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree that “Any redirect can be un-redirected at any time”. Reverting Sandstein’s edit right now would be WP:Disruption. It would be disrespecting the AfD consensus. How long does AfD consensus last? Barring something strongly convincing, by default, I submit that it lasts for six months. If WP:CCC, WP:AfC is the process to use to demonstrate it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe, checking you're aware that the AfD and Sandstein's redirect was nearly 4 years ago? While I am far from convinced the sources are adequate, and share your concern immediately below, I'm thinking this AFD is old enough that @Jclemens is right. Martinp (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  Whoops. I thought it was recent. 4 years is old. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. Properly run and closed. Respect the AfD consensus for a minimum of six months, preventing bold recreation or reversal of the redirect, unless drafted and submitted to AfC with a qualified AfC reviewer agreeing that the AfD reason for redirection are overcome. Follow advice at WP:THREE. Sorry, I decline to review the several sources listed here. Use AfC, and limit to three. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy close. Strong likelihood appeal was written by an LLM (by a new user where this is their only contribution), violating WP:LLMCOMM. Regardless, appellant has been advised of ways forward that do not require DRV, along with some frank commentary about the additional sourcing they (or an LLM) has come up with. Either way, there is nothing to discuss here at DRV. To the appellant: we of course have no idea what's the source of your interest in this topic, but a new account like yours will attract scrutiny in a situation like this, and prior to pursuing this further, I'd advise reviewing WP:COI, WP:LLM, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:REFBOMB. You may well be right on notability of this subject, but given the amount of promotional editing that Wikipedia fights with daily, your path forward will be very thorny unless you carefully navigate these pitfalls in particular. Welcome to Wikipedia! Martinp (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  Technically this is an endorse of the previous (4 year old) close, with no objections against the appellant or anyone else following acceptable policies to improve on the status quo (redirect). Martinp (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment: I have assumed good faith up to this point, and will continue to do so, but your labelling on my summary of your argument as "snide" is unnecessary and is not true. You left a wall of text on my user page which mostly revolved around editor conduct relating to the nominator of the AfD, and claimed that the AfD closed before the article could be improved. AfDs are subject to closure after 7 days of being open. Some are relisted when it is appropriate to do so, but in this case, a consensus for redirecting the article had already formed.

I will add that both the nominator and the appellant bludgeoned the AfD. I chose not to mention this in the closing statement as that would violate WP:FOC. I believe my close was fair and represented the discussion that took place. 11WB (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for calling it "snide" and have suppressed that from my deletion review, but I will comment that my complaint was not that no time was given to improve the article before closure of AfD, but that no time was given by the nominator to allow gradual improvements to be made to the article before they nominated it for deletion. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

DRV will not be able to do anything about that. As I've already said, this is a matter for a conduct board. DRV is to assess the close. 11WB (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Overturn to no consensus. The keep vote's appeal to ATD-E, which is policy, went unrebutted and is a powerful argument against all of the redirect votes. No issue was presented that wouldn't have been resolved by stubification, which is what should be done.

WP:DEL-REASON even states that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page. Katzrockso (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I find this quite baffling in all honesty. Whilst it's well known we don't count !votes, closing as keep would mean multiple editors (including the nom) get vetoed. That would go against WP:CONSENSUS entirely. The chosen alternative was WP:ATD-R. 11WB (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• endorse This couldn't be closed any other way. Possibly a relist might have helped but with the blugeoning and walls of oddly bolded text from the temp user I can't see how any sensible user would want to get involved. The ATD argument fails to address how awful an article this was. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  walls of oddly bolded text from the temp user

  What are you talking about? ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Usually it means AI has been used to generate the comments but you do you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  If these wild allegations of alleged LLM usage are based on the sole "evidence" that I left long comments and used Template:Talk quote inline to quote verbatim text, then I am the Emperor of China. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  your imperial majesty. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:LLM: The imposition of sanctions requires evidence beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications.

  If you think your wild allegations will bear any fruit, then as Emperor, we encourage you to find some more damning evidence, pal. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  pal? That's an escalation Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Good heavens, not the p-word, anything but that! But casually accusing or implying others are writing their comments with LLMs? Not an escalation at all, right? ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  @~2026-21314-14, for the second time today. These sarcastic replies are not helpful to the DRV, and only serve to disrupt the process. Please stop. 11WB (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to oblige, but let the record show that I was not the first to make sarcastic comments in this back-and-forth. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  FWIW, I don't see any evidence of LLM usage in that discussion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly that. 11WB (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  The green highlighted text that is. I assume anyway. 11WB (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Which comes from Template:Talk quote inline, which in turn is used to, and I quote, to highlight a short excerpt of quoted material of other editors' comments or from an article or source. There it is again. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  These smart alec comments really aren't helpful @~2026-21314-14. 11WB (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm merely explaining myself. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse: There was no procedural error. There is no requirement to wait before nominating an article in the hopes that someone else will find the article and resolve the issues. Three participants agreed with the nominator that the article was unsalvageable even after the appellant tried to improve the page, while nobody else agreed with the appellant that the text could be fixed ("procedural keep" notwithstanding). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse There was a rough consensus that the article in such a state that attempting to WP:ATD-E would need a fundamental rewrite and thus redirection was a better choice of editor time. Jumpytoo Talk 19:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment as participant: since the decision was to redirect, rather than to delete, I don't see the need for this rigmarole. Anyone who wants to turn the redirect back into an article, with improved text, will be able to do so. First, if you don't yet have one, register an account, which will make lots of things more convenient. Second, write a new version of the article as a draft in your userspace. Third, paste the contents of that draft where the redirect is now. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. (I would advise working on a few other, smaller tasks first, to soak up the vibes and get a feel for how to write in a more encyclopedic and less bloggy way. Instead of gathering criticisms directly yourself, find sources like books that have already done so, and use them to guide your hand. And, well, write happy, not angry.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Anyone who wants to turn the redirect back into an article, with improved text, will be able to do so. Only if the new writing is good enough that no one thinks it should be deleted. If someone thinks it's as bad as the previous article, it'll just get reverted, linking to the recent AFD close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  I suppose I should have said "with sufficiently improved text". :-) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, this is the way forward: Write an article that doesn't suck, basing it off of the redirected text to the extent that it's helpful, and communicating with the other editors who thought the last version sucked to reach a consensus that the notional new version would be worth un-redirecting. This is why ATD-R is a thing: you don't need us or any admin whatsoever to do this. Oh, so Endorse the close as well. Jclemens (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I see a statement in the AFD that the nomination reads like the introduction to a WP:ANI thread. Yes, but it reads like the introduction to a WP:ANI thread where other, more experienced editors would say, "Content dispute - Take to AFD" Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Relist - Let other editors provide more of the discussion. I think that Redirect is probably the right result, but the discussion was overly dominated by two editors. If the nominator and the appellant continue bludgeoning the discussion in the relisting, they should be partially blocked from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak endorse. This was an inappropriate NAC, since the close did not appear to be non-controversial. I do see a very rough consensus to redirect once I go beyond all of the bludgeoning by multiple parties, so the end-result is probably correct. I am also okay with a relist to allow for further discussion. Frank Anchor 12:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Relist. A discussion with not many, but very verbose voices, bordering on bludgeoning. An NAC close bordering on being more of an !vote than a close. I'm not doubting anyone's good intentions and passion, and the ultimate conclusion may indeed be the Right Answer, but this would benefit from more voices, more concise communication, and an admin close. Martinp (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why do you think my closing statement was "more of a !vote than a close"? 11WB (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  I wrote "bordering on being more of a !vote" and I mean that: I am uncertain which it is. The 1st 3 sentences of your close would be an excellent !vote. So would the first half of the last sentence. Net-net, it sounds awfully close to you having an opinion what argument is right and what argument is wrong, rather than dispassionately judging consensus. Now, it is a grey zone, since we ask diviners of consensus to not count votes, but weigh consensus with attention to how closely opinions are grounded in policy. So I am not saying your close was wrong, or biased, or anything bad. But if that is the level of judgment required to effect a close, it is not a good candidate for an NAC close, since it is not going to be uncontroversial. As is indeed apparently the case here. Martinp (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  I was summarising the discussion, which is what a closer is supposed to do, especially in those such as this. I disagree with your view, as I didn't give my own opinion in the closing statement in any way. 11WB (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse, noting that I was a participant. I count 3 !votes to redirect, 1 to keep, and 1 procedural keep. I believe it was within the closer's discretion to discount the procedural keep, since those have force in circumstances where neither the nominator nor anyone else has raised a valid deletion rationale, or if the page has been kept at AfD recently already, or if the nomination is blatantly disruptive editing... generally, due to issues with the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page itself, per Wikipedia:Deletion process. In this case, the merits of the page were discussed. I do not think an editor with 13k edits of experience should be required, or even encouraged, to avoid closing discussions just because they lack the admin bit. And, looking at the walls of text in the AfD, one would not be surprised to see it brought to DRV even if an admin had closed it. So, I find no fault with the procedure followed here. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. Correct close. This DRV retrospectively demonstrates that the discussion was contentious and the nonadmin closer should note this, and try not to let it happen frequently. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

This isn't so much contentious as simply subject to an argumentative participant Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The only "argumentative" participant here is the one going around spreading unfounded rumors of LLM usage and then tried to play the victim after a word was used sarcastically (not before having made sarcastic comments of their own). ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Im guilty as charged but I wasn't a participant in the AFD. Maybe look for the beam in your eye rather than the speck in someone else's ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I do find it strange that you single me out as the singular "argumentative participant" in that AFD discussion. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-21314-14, they didn't actually name you as being argumentative. They could have meant the nominator, or even me. It would be a good idea for you to read WP:FOC, as arguing with an administrator is generally a very bad idea. 11WB (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to speedy keep. The nomination was almost entirely based on improper arguments including ad hominem attacks. It violates WP:SK#3. Perhaps one of the arguments may have been right, but certainly not on purpose, it was more like a grab bag of arguments seeing what would stick. The main error of the closer was treating it with as much validity as any other AfD; missing the forest for the trees.

The article is in a very poor state, most certainly, but AfD is about insurmountable issues, not fixable ones. It is not a cleanup tool. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Endorse. Closer evaluated consensus correctly. More generally, this argument is weak. Of course there are navboxes on FAs / GAs but this is really not that useful a point as the whole question is which navboxes make sense. Some topics meeting the bar doesn't mean other topics also meet the bar. The concerns of duplicativeness seem very valid - navbox spam is a problem. SnowFire (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

  Of course there are navboxes on FAs / GAs but this is really not that useful a point as the whole question is which navboxes make sense. Some topics meeting the bar doesn't mean other topics also meet the bar. I made the comparison as I don't see any criteria under which these other articles would have needed the navbox but this wouldn't.

  Only one person argued otherwise, and they said the other articles had related articles (for example for Genghis Khan the articles Wives of Genghis Khan or Burial place of Genghis Khan) and that this one didn't: which is false, as I showed them multiple ones that were relevant (like Abraham's family tree, Abraham and Lot's conflict, and Abraham and the Idol Shop).

  Other than that (I believe wrong) argument, I think no reasonable difference was shown between the one deleted and the FA ones.

  Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to NC 1) 3 of last 4 !votes are to keep, including 2 of 3 after relisting. Trend is to keep. 2) Reasoning is not sufficiently lopsided to deride all the keeps as OSE. "Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDATABASE." is a textbook WP:VAGUEWAVE and we have one PERNOM: the Delete side is not a shining beacon of anything here. Overall, I don't see a consensus, nor that deletion is within admin closer discretion--and this was a NAC. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to No Consensus. Both Keep and Delete are weak, so there is no consensus based on strength of arguments, and there is no consensus based on counting votes. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse, as participant. All of the keep votes were "well, other sidebars exist". PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

So, since you're here... I didn't particularly see your argument as being that much better, just arguing that Abraham is a too-broad topic for such. Entirely possibly correct, but not particularly compelling from a policy standpoint, is it? Or am I missing something? Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Our policy for sidebar templates is based largely on the appropriateness of the topic. If the topic and the entries are not "tightly related" per WP:SIDEBAR we should not have it. Further, what's the policy based argument for keeping it? None has been supplied and it does not seem to fit the majority of the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse (as closer). The only !votes to keep amounted to the literally definition of WP:OTHER with comments like The merits of this sidebar seem indistinguishable from those of Template:Moses. User is unhappy things didn't go their way and I will note first tried to take this to WP:ANI with this post in a bizarre attempt to have me sanctioned for my closure. Additionally Wikieditor662's claims about featured articles or good articles have nothing at all to do with this template. We are not discussing articles, but a tempalte. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:46, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the example you made was a violation of WP:OTHER, but I think it was the only one that did so. Any other examples would be appreciated.

Also, @Zackmann08 taking this to WP:AN was not an attempt to have you sanctioned; it was a mistake, as I thought you request the undeletion there, as I made a previous RfC overturn request there.

And the articles shown were examples that contained these templates. Since FA articles are role models, such templates would not have been contained there if they needed to have been deleted.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh please, they first tried to discuss it with you at your talk page, where you replied I stand by my decision but you are more than welcome to request a review, and then, when asked to elaborate on your reasoning, you came back with I think my closure summary explains my reasoning very clearly. If you disagree, that is totally fine and you are more than welcome to request a deletion review. They literally did exactly what you told them to do, and the fact that they initially did it at the wrong venue hardly makes it a bizarre attempt to have [you] sanctioned. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• overturn to NC. I believe the right way forward is to open a discussion about sidebars. In any case the arguments for deletion were basically "this template is overused" (which I think is true). The closer argues that arguments which point out that other, similar, templates exist are a WP:OTHER violation and should be ignored. But this is a about a template, not something where guidelines like WP:N exist. I'd argue this is closer to WP:OTHERCATSEXIST, a question of consistency of formatting and organization. So such arguments *are* quite relevant. In any case, I don't see consensus to delete and I don't think we quite get to keep. So... Hobit (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Template:Ursula K. Le Guin Prize (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

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

two voted in favor of deletion - I see three calling for deletion: Woodensuperman, Gonnym and Pppery. Which of them are you suggesting we discard? Owen× ☎ 16:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I apologize - I had failed to count the original nominator and you are correct that the final tally was 3-2. That being said, even a 3-2 (or 2-3, had the discussion gone the other way) vote seems not to be enough to state that consensus was reached. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY seems relevant. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. The appellant is right in citing WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Neither of the two Keeps makes a convincing argument. Whether winners are notable or not, a navigation template is there to serve a navigational purpose, and this one didn't. I don't see how it currently satisfies WP:EXISTING, but am in favour of recreating it if and when additional articles are linked. Owen× ☎ 17:16, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• I would have relisted if I was the one closing but I believe this outcome to be within the realm of discretion. As Owen said it's 3-2 so a majority for deletion with a lot of prescedence for similar deletions. I am however concerned about Zackmann not responding to the concern here at all when raised at User_talk:Zackmann08#Request_clarification_-_Template:Ursula_K._Le_Guin_Prize and ditto for my own section User talk:Zackmann08#Template:Abraham. I expect any closer to be ready to answer reasonable questions about their closes like this. Trialpears (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. WP:ADMINACCT also applies to any editor acting in this capacity, including non-admin XfD closers. Owen× ☎ 18:06, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Trialpears, OwenX, and Michelangelo1992: Apologies to all. I have been VERY busy off wiki with work and kept forgetting to respond when I was here... Owen you are 100% correct that ADMINACCT applies here and I did not mean by my inaction to imply otherwise. I will be better about promptly responding to these queries in the future. Again, please accept my apologies.

  For the matter at hand, I do stand by my decision to close for the reasons already stated, but obviously bow to consensus if it is to overturn my decision. I frankly don't have a horse in this race so don't have a particularly strong opinion on the mater. Simply put, I felt it was clear that the !votes to delete were better argued and stated than those to keep. But that was just my opinion as a frequent participant at TFD. Again, I have zero objection to consensus yielding a different result. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse as the correct outcome. There are only 4 winners listed at Ursula K. Le Guin Prize, not enough need and not defining enough for each of the honored books to be defined by it. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  There are only 4 winners because the prize is only 4 years old. However the prize itself is a notable prize and the winners of it are all notable works. I understand that 4 isn't a huge number of navigation elements but that is going to grow at a rate of 1 per year for the lifetime of the prize. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse as a valid close either by counting votes or by weighing strength of arguments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. The reliance on WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is misplaced in this context. That principle cuts against a purely numerical framing, not against a closer recognising where the weight of policy-based reasoning sits. On the available evidence, the template does not presently satisfy WP:EXISTING. The suggestion that this should default to “no consensus” sets the bar unrealistically high and risks paralysing other routine closures. StephenPortmore (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  — StephenPortmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. User:Bsherr !voted too weak, and no one else agreed with you. WP:NENAN is not just an essay. It need not be official policy to enjoy consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Occupation of Palestine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

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

• Restore and relist. There is a rough consensus there, but without the nom, it's even rougher and there's no harm in a restoration and relist. No issue with the close, the nominator was not locked until after the discussion had closed. Star Mississippi 01:46, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't fully understand the actions needed for @SmokeyJoe's proposal (would it be G6?)but agree with that outcome as well. I'm good with any process that results in this outcome not standing unless it's ultimately endorsed by established editors as correct. Star Mississippi 12:37, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  G6 abuse? Absolutely not.

  I would reclose “Procedurely closed; the nominator was a SOCK”. And strike all words from the SOCK.

  The discussion can’t be relisted becuase there is no nomination. However, any editor in good standing may renominate. They may even repeat the SOCK’s wording. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't delete AfDs unless they were unsalvageably malformed, but I know some do. That's why I asked.

  Striking mine as your outcome makes it cleaner IMO @SmokeyJoe. TY

  So vacate and reclose as procedural keep. Any established (and assuming EC given subject matter) editor can revisit the subject should they wish. Star Mississippi 13:40, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

• Relist - DRV Purpose 3 defines the participation of sockpuppets as a procedural error, through no fault of the closer. There was no longer a rough consensus for the redirect. A relist seems better than trying to tease out a result. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Relist - Agree with @Robert McClenon. Attempting to salvage or reinterpret the outcome risks attributing weight to a tainted process. A relist provides the cleanest remedy, allowing the question to be considered afresh by editors in good standing without importing defects from the prior AfD.

  StephenPortmore (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  — StephenPortmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to NC and optionally start a new AFD. There was not clear consensus to redirect even with the now blocked user's nomination statement, such that the non-admin close was likely not appropriate. Also okay with a relist as my second choice, but starting fresh seems more ideal than reopening a now-tainted discussion from almost three months ago. Frank Anchor 13:31, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn as tainted. Do not rush to relist or start a new AfD. The SOCK nominator’s rational must not be entertained. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  Every !vote made on a face value reading of the SOCK’s nomination is tainted by the SOCK. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I think that what SmokeyJoe means is to vacate the AFD itself as never properly opened, not to overturn or vacate the close. I think that would restore the set-index article and close the AFD as not having been properly opened (because the nominator was not a user in good standing). Is that what SmokeyJoe means? If so, I may change my recommendation to that, with the relist as a second choice, but I want to be sure that we agree first. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes. Not properly opened, in hindsight. The SOCK did not have standing. Treat it as invalid. Vacate. Annul.

  Don’t relist because that leaves the SOCK’s nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Vacate per SmokeyJoe. We can't reward sockpuppets by continuing/relisting the AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Relist, EC-protect the AfD per ARBPIA, and let an admin close this contentious debate. After discarding the sock nom, I see no consensus there. I don't subscribe to punishing the project to spite a sock. There were five established editors who participated in the discussion in good faith, three of whom argued for a redirect. Whether relisting "rewards" the sock or not isn't my concern. I also don't believe having one participant exposed as a sock taints the entire discussion, but am not opposed to overturning to N/C and starting a new AfD, per Frank Anchor. Owen× ☎ 11:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  The nominator is not just “one participant”.

  The discussion is tainted. I don’t see any value in judging the discussion, even as “no consensus”. I don’t agree it can be correctly closed “no consensus”. We need to ask the three redirect !voters, User:Place Clichy, User:Iljhgtn (who likes to be pinged) and User:ScottyNolan, whether they were unduly swayed by the SOCK. And User:Kelob2678 and User:Amakuru because, ping all or none.

  If closed as tainted, allow immediate renomination by any editor in good standing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  I have no problem with pinging all past participants, although I do expect !voters at an XfD to keep it on their watchlist at least briefly after it is closed, so as to notice a DRV or a WP:REOPEN relisting for it. What I do have a problem with is discarding valid !votes of five good-faith participants just because a sixth one turned out to be a sock. The three Redirect !votes come from experienced editors, and none of them is a mere "per nom". Each of them provided a valid rationale that had little to do with the now-discredited nom. You are essentially calling for a Speedy Keep close per WP:CSK#4, despite the fact that subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's blocked or banned status was discovered. We have a specific guideline to deal with this situation. I see no need make an exception here. Owen× ☎ 13:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think we are in near agreement.

  I don’t agree with you expectation that others will watchlist and monitor it; WP:watchlistitis is a thing that many good editors avoid. Given that none of the participants have posted here, I think pinging was a good idea.

  I do not support the words “speedy keep”, and I agree that there appear to be three strong “redirect” !votes. Nevertheless, I think the SOCK’s nomination should be struck, and the discussion renominated, not relisted. Expunging the SOCK nomination from apparent successful influence is more important than the prompt resolution of keep/redirect for “Occupation of Palestine”. The three “redirect” !votes are strong, but so are the two “keep” !votes, and with the nomination struck, I don’t think that any of “redirect”, “no consensus” or “keep” would be correct closes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate the ping, thanks. Indeed a watchlist mention is easy to miss, especially when you have 10K+ entries on your watchlist or do not log into WP every day. Place Clichy (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Vacate We don't generally want to see sock puppetry rewarded. If another editor who is not a sock puppet wants to start a new AfD they can do so. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse although not entirely opposed to a new discussion. The arguments for keeping this DAB/SIA as it stood before this discussion are in fact pretty weak. If we look at the AfD discussion discarding the sock's comment, there are keep opinions (2) and redirect opinions (3), the latter being IMHO much stronger. Especially, the mentions of WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY are valid reasons to exclude nearly all entries from what was in fact a SIA. The keepers failed to convince that any entry could be properly described as an occupation of Palestine, or an expected disambiguation result of this term. Also, the sock's original nomination is not rewarded by the decision, which was to redirect and not to delete. Relist or start new AFD if overturned. Place Clichy (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Relist as Owen points out the subsequent delete-based votes in the AfD invalidates a speedy keep / procedural close per guidelines; also SOCKCLOSE doesn't suggest it, but instead that remove/revert isn't the way here. CNC (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

The consensus was clear to me. I agree with the closing.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

The afd was 110% still going on and people were starting to vote delete. The keep arguments are flawed and you don't acknowledge WP:PERPETRATOR and other policy's when you say to keep the article.

Either way though there was NOT CONENSUS for keeping the article. I am tired of your WP:BLUDGEONING. Blackberrybrickbreaker (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Keep !voters did, in fact, adequately outline WP:PERP compliance. I don't see any flaws in interpreting consensus. As an entirely uninvolved party I think this decision should be upheld. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. Most of the Delete !votes seem to be based on rationale that has little to do with P&G, and were correctly discounted by the closer. If this is, indeed a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, then a redirect would be how we normally deal with it. Calling for deletion (or even SALTing) rather than the obvious redir or merge suggests that the motives behind some of those votes were perhaps emotional rather than encyclopedic. On the flip side, some of the Keeps also strike me as odd. WP:2MONTHS is an essay about renomination, not a valid retention criterion. But considering the early renomination, I find it fitting to include the views expressed in the first AfD in determining consensus in the second one, landing us even more firmly in Keep territory.
  I'm not sure what 110% still going on means. The AfD was closed 7 days, 16 hours and 20 minutes after it was opened. That is indeed 110% of the seven days required by policy. The appellant, whose account was created for the purpose this appeal after their previous attempt yesterday was procedurally closed, would be well advised to tone down their rhetoric, both here and at other venues. A civilized, well-thought-out merge proposal, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than on pure notability, may be the most productive way forward here, but frankly, I have trouble seeing this fly-by-night account going through the process. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'll make a merge proposal in 3 months. This account is scheduled for deletion by wiki anyway so it won't be on this account Blackberrybrickbreaker (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

  until July, I'll be back. but for now, I'm going to stay off this site.Blackberrybrickbreaker (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

• Closer here. To elaborate a little on a few lines of thinking: the argument that a page about a shooter is to be suppressed because it may inspire others carries no weight. Policy and longstanding precedent support NOTCENSORED. "It's not notable" also carries little weight without further elaboration, when there is an article of 3000+ words and 100+ sources: those argument would need to show why the listed sources do not require a standalone page. Finally, a reminder that ONEEVENT arguments must engage with the quantum of coverage, not simply the rationale for notability. ONEEVENT does not mandate deletion of subjects notable for a single event; it mandates considering whether the material is sufficiently covered by an article about the event, allowing for the possibility that it might not be. The arguments based on redundancy I gave full weight to, but they did not have enough support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Allow Submission of Draft for Review - The title has not been salted, and DRV is not the place for review of a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - I have moved the draft to draft space because it was causes problems. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the AfD close as “redirect”, and endorse the draftification already done, which is consistent with the AfD. Interesting that it was a fourteen-years stable article, I guess obscure, and owned by Kzalesne (talk · contribs), I guess the subject, editing in gross violation of WP:COI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• I think this is an attribution failure. Please history merge the article behind the redirect with the new draft written into this DRV page before it was cut and pasted to the new draft page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that the history merge is unnecessary, because the draft has been tagged for G15 due to hallucinated references.

I admit that I did a copy-paste in the middle of the night, New York time. The inclusion of a draft with level 1 headings made the rest of Deletion Review invisible. Maybe I should have waited for someone else. I did figure out what the breakage had been. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - The reason that this was a fourteen-years obscure stable article and was then taken to AFD about six months ago is that she became a candidate for the United States House of Representatives about six months ago and the nominator noticed that she was the subject of an article but did not meet general notability. Two other candidates had articles and already met political notability. Sometimes obscure articles about non-notable living persons are not noticed because they are obscure. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - The draft has been tagged for G15 speedy deletion because it has hallucinated references. If a history merge has not yet been done, it would be a waste of time. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've acted on the G15 CSD nomination of Draft:Kinney Zalesne. The content exhibited clear signs of unreviewed LLM creation. Sandstein 06:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Involved admin comment Just noting @Vice regent's assessment of my permission is correct. I was an initial closer of the first AfD and reopened per User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_26#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Centre_for_Human_Rights. I believe all participants and closers of the myriad discussions have been doing the best they can and are absolutely editing in good faith, but support this DRV for resolution which is still needed. I have neither the interest nor on wiki time to further look into the subject's notability. Star Mississippi 16:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. WP:SIGCOV is our primary notability guideline, but it is still a guideline, not an immutable policy. Moreover, the judgement of whether a source offers SIGCOV or not is in the hands of the AfD participants, not the closer. Spartaz was right to refuse your request, and close based on the clear consensus in the AfD. This consensus is even clearer if you combine the arguments with those brought up only a month earlier in the previous AfD. I can see how newly-discovered sources can change a Delete decision into a Keep, but I don't see how a new presentation of sources already analyzed by many participants as providing notability can be deemed insufficient within a month.
  The AfD was open for seven days and 12 hours. It being closed three hours after the last comment is immaterial. We don't keep discussions open indefinitely just because they remain active, if consensus is already clear. WP:DRVNOT#3 and #4 tell us that DRV may not be used to level a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment, nor to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion. You were asking the closer to cast a supervote, and he rightly refused. Owen× ☎ 17:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. Our community judgment on notability sometimes requires balancing different factors, with both pro- and contra- narratives appealing to policy. It can become a struggle for an AfD closer, and if needed also at DRV, to figure out whether a line of argument that was made and not rebutted was just missed in the noise, or considered by other commenters and found uncompelling. And, if the latter, if their own comments were sufficiently grounded in policy to trust their judgement. Sometimes an extension or relist is the best solution. In this case, however, while I recognize the appellant is frustrated no-one directly and adequately rebutted their specific claims, we have sensible participants in two separate discussions, who appear to have "heard", i.e. noted the argument being made, and nevertheless reached a different consensus, many of them engaging explicitly with policy in doing so. Consensus was reached, just not one everyone agrees with. Martinp (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Martinp I agree consensus was reached, but can local consensus that SIGCOV isn't necessary override global consensus? Now, OwenX points out that WP:SIGCOV is merely a guideline, not policy, so does that mean that while WP:LOCALCON can't override a policy, it can override a guideline? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  Not the right framing. LOCALCONSENSUS is about people in a given area of the encyclopedia (e.g. a project) deciding they are going to apply a set of criteria that are not consistent with global ones in that area. This discussion was about how different parts of the alphabet soup apply in this instance. That involves judgement, and there was reasonably broad consensus -- twice. It might help to think of it that we do have certain (immutable) policies (to use Owen's terminology). Other things, like guidelines, are descriptive more than prescriptive. If robust consensus is going against them in a specific instance, it means that they are poor guide in that instance, that important context that changes the picture is missing. The bottom line is that twice, reasonable people engaging reasonably with policy (taken generally), and aware of your argument, decided to not delete. It's hard to imagine what kind of "aha!" would allow closing that as a Delete, and since your point was known to those discussing, by what mechanism would extra discussion change the outcome. Martinp (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Relist I'm not sure if I count as involved here, as I advised VR on procedure as noted but haven't otherwise participated. Frankly, I think VR's position has the stronger policy basis in the most recent discussion and believe that it should have at least been relisted. Boud offered lots of citations, but essentially all of them are examples of coverage authored by affiliates of the subject. The emphasis on WP:NGO is misplaced in the absence of seemingly any independent significant coverage, and citing that ignores the overriding guidance listed higher up on the page at WP:SIRS, which also applies to NGOs (I think there's also a twisting of the "international" aspect, as the guideline clearly refers to organizations with extensive operations in multiple countries, rather than an organization dedicated to one country while operating out of exile for security reasons). Without imputing bad faith, the simple per Metallurgist/Boud !votes carry extremely little weight in their failure to even begin to address the substance of the objections to that perspective. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm really curious how you would get a different outcome based on the options expressed on the discussion page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:12, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  The point of relisting is to solicit further discussion. If I had been patrolling AfD and seen this discussion, I would have likely relisted with a comment reaffirming the procedural basis of the AfD, and calling for keep-inclined participants to directly address the arguments contending a lack of SIGCOV and further justify their position. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  i don't see how I get to that unless I'm not going to give any weight to the 7 clearly articulated arguments that this was too soon after the previous discussion and that that consensus should be respected. To me that feels like a massive supervote bearing in mind that discouraging multiple recent nominations is long standing practise and expectation and where the original nomination was defective, lacked a coherent argument that the previous discussion was untenable and where, frankly, there was more than a touch of using another discussion to deprecate the recent afd consensus. The correct approach is to DRV the previous discussion not to keep going again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• strong meh I do find it amusing that this time round I'm being castigated for not casting a supervote rather than being brought to task for casting one. It seems a poor admin can't get a break sometimes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse - It is not clear whether the appellant is saying that the closer made an error, or that the community made an error. If the former, DRV is not AFD Round 2. The appellant is an experienced editor and probably knew that. If the latter, then it is as Spartaz says, that the appellant is saying that the closer should have supervoted. If it were intended that closers should routinely supervote, then why do we get community input on an WP:AFD? That is a rhetorical question. Maybe the appellant should drop the stick. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. Clear consensus to keep. Both times. Admins giving “permission” to do a hasty renomination are shown to have done unwisely. Follow the advice at WP:RENOM. Take the time to work out why you were not persuasive. Your interpretation of Wikipedia rules is worthless if you cannot persaude. Do not allow a renomination before six months after the close of this DRV discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I second SmokeyJoe's proposal for a six month moratorium following this DRV. Owen× ☎ 12:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I third the WP:6MONTHS moratorium. StephenPortmore (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

— StephenPortmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

This user has been banned from project space as a disruption only /suspected sock account Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse I see no error with the close and I don't think any outcome would change with a relist. The source analysis on the talk page was included in the nomination, so editors had awareness of that discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
• Involved comment/question: While it's obvious a majority of the !votes were for keep, most didn't address the proposed issues at hand & as Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY those !votes should carry little weight, as stated above by Rosegull. To be clear, I don't blame Spartaz for wanting to avoid what may appear to be a supervote here as while we're not a democracy, it can be hard to feel justified going against a clear majority. Furthermore, if they did close as delete, this would've almost definitely have been brought to deletion review anyway.
  I don't think relisting this article again will change anything as, if it were theoretically relisted for deletion, participants are likely to just restate their previous positions & I can't imagine that'd lead to a different outcome. I'm also not sure how the issue could be presented more persuasively though as, if we are to consider participants to've properly examined the presented evidence & they saw no issue with the org's director being treated as independent significant coverage of the org itself, I don't see how to convince them otherwise. What I'm curious about then however is what the proper procedure is when there's seemingly a consensus to keep an article despite glaring notability issues? How would you go about improving an article when you can't find independent coverage of it? - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  This is an interesting question and I don't think there is a satisfactory answer. In this specific instance, there are a couple ways that may have helped strengthened the case for deletion. The most immediate issue was the quick renomination. While there were some procedural issues that may have affected the outcome of the first discussion, three editors made the case that the coverage was significant after the relist, with one editor who previously argued to delete the article suggesting that one of sources "may creep into significant coverage." The renomination statement did not directly address why the Iran International article did not meet our expectations, so I think editors commenting felt like the nomination was just a re-run of an article that was kept (recognizing that other editors suggested a fresh AfD).

  The second issue is that our system of determining notability is fuzzy. There are no black and white policies or guidelines that address when a subject should have a stand-alone article. As editors, we all have our own expectations of what our policies and guidelines mean. At the end of the day, if the community does think an article should have a stand-alone article, it stays in mainspace, regardless of the type of sourcing (unless it violates WP:BLP). If that happens, as editors, we can trim and rewrite material that is trivial, is not cited, or violates WP:DUE. - Enos733 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  Across the almost 20 years I have contributed I have noticed that one of the constants at AFD is that there is a firm idealistic inclination to give non harmful material a chance. This is a driver for why we discourage quick renominations unless there is a compelling reason for it. I have seen many articles kept strongly and then when the content fails to improve or sources fail to be provided, a later, better argued nomination, will often succeed with minimal challenge. Patience and treating the process with respect is always the best way forward in these matters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Enos733, I want to provide further context to your comments.

  17 Feb: Idontwantaaccount says "Iran International may just creep into significant coverage while BMJ doesn't"

  28 Feb: I show why neither of the 2 Iran International articles meet SIGCOV, pinging Idontwantaaccount

  1 Mar: Idontwantaaccount appears to agree with me: "I nominated it for deletion for these exact reasons. WP:NCORP states it needs significant independent coverage in independent sources. These have never been provided but people voted keep anyway"

  All of this was prior to the 2nd AfD. After my source analysis, not a single user appears to have argued that SIGCOV exists for this topic.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:55, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  you see all the editors who don't agree with you? You see my comment about the community likes given content chance and you are still arguing that with a clever argument all that institutional and local consensus can be overturned? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:50, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse Clear consensus to keep in multiple AFDs separated by only a month. Even though the source analysis was posted in the talk page, it is referenced in the AFD and anyone can click the link. The source analysis appears to be rejected by the community. Frank Anchor 11:39, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment – Most of those Keep votes are pretty egregious. I'm not sure it's an actual trend, but I'm noticing more and more cases here at DRV recently involving cases where voters claim that a subject meets WP:GNG without indicating any specific sources, that a source contains WP:SIGCOV when it doesn't, or that a list of non-independent or trivial sources meet WP:GNG. Ultimately, I'm not really sure we have any recourse in our deletion processes for cases like these; this basically looks like an "WP:IAR keep" to me. The appellant may have more success waiting a few years before trying again, when the subject of the article is less politically salient. For now, I endorse the admin decision. Suriname0 (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  Despite closing this as keep I do agree that low policy or clearly erroneous policy interpretations are becoming a problem and it's something that does impact the consensus. The other issue is that this doesn't just apply to keep votes. Low quality delete votes don't give closing admins a policy based argument to analyse and this makes far more closed than before plain nose counts as there are far fewer policy rich arguments to influence the close. I don't see a solution right now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree with your meh above! Suriname0 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

• I don't see the article meeting WP:N. That said, I can't say it was closed incorrectly. I'd like to see this back at AfD in a couple of months. And if no one can provide sources helpful to WP:N, it should be deleted at that time. Endorse, but with leave to relist in 2 months. Hobit (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Hobit – "I'd like to see this back at AfD in a couple of months", isn't that basically an argument for relist? What exactly will change in 2 months? Keep in mind that those who voted keep in the 1st AfD were repeatedly asked to provide sources,, for several weeks before the 2nd AfD. Despite implicitly acknowledging a lack of sources, they !voted keep at the 2nd AfD anyway.

  Now, above several people have argued that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, meaning in some cases the community might choose to disregard it. That's a difficult pill for me to swallow, but one that I can grudgingly accept.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:31, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it is an argument for a relist. I'd have argued for deletion in the AfD. But the question before us is if the AfD was closed correctly. I believe it was a close within admin discretion, so I have to endorse the close. The encyclopedia won't collapse because we have what I think is a less-than-notable subject with an article for a while. But the rapid relisting was already a reason for people to !vote to keep in the most recent AfD. Let's have a close that sets a timeframe to take a fresh look. Basically everyone step away and chill for a bit before we discuss again. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Joey Primiani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

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

• While most of the background's at the MFD, there's a little more at the blacklist request, namely the full list of previous titles and deletions. —Cryptic 02:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose The draft article was blacklisted due to abuse of the drafts process, neither the fact that the appellant is the subject of the article or the sources provided give me confidence this is not an attempt at more of the same. Jumpytoo Talk 04:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Leaning allow. In principle, this should be a simple “allow drafting in draftspace and let AFC processes apply”. However, the subject, JP, doesn’t understand Wikipedia, and should not be encouraged to further waste his and our time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
  The large number of creations and deletions are not characteristic of a slam NO, but of a borderline case.

Noting that it has been deleted at AfD, twice, with criticism of a lack of reliable sources supporting superficially strong claims to Wikipedia-Notability, I urge insistence on following WP:THREE. The problem is potential for continued waste of volunteer time, and THREE is the answer to that.

I hesitate due to

1. WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY

2. The appeal here has listed no new reliable sources. They should have supplied exactly three.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• endorse while I thank the nominator for disclosing their conflict of interest on their user page, the MFD that deleted this was unanimous. The most precious and also the nost limited resource here is volunteer time and while many of us chose to spend our time in the bureaucratic backwaters like deletion discussions there has been a long standing and concerning drain on capacity for many years. At some point we have to recognise that there has to be limit of how much attention we can offer repeated and low merited appeals and work arounds that attempt to force biographical articles on us that do not meet our criteria. At some point we have to say that enough is enough and I think we are at that point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:44, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. Spartaz explained it best. Primiani has a literal 20-year history of trying to get himself on Wikipedia. If these attempts had all been done with a single account, it would have been blocked as WP:NOTHERE a while ago. There needs to be a very compelling reason why we should let him try again. Note User:JzG/And the band played on... Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Provisional endorse. Per the above, the problem is the appellant/subject has a history of not understanding why the notability bar is not reached, and their repeated attempts have become disruptive. We need to balance the drain on volunteer time against the slim possibility that notability has recently emerged, or even has been present but missed (cry wolf syndrome). Smokey's pointer to WP:THREE has merit, but I'd put the stage gate here, due to the previous disruption, rather than just punting the problem to AfC. Appellant, please give (not just allude to, but give links to) the best 3 sources. If and only if they clearly demonstate notability in line with our policies, then I'd allow. I'd also propose that if they don't, then any additional attempts to recreate are barred for 12 months (to protect volunteer time); so choose carefully. The description of the sources above does not inspire confidence, though, since they don't sound as if they have in-depth coverage of the individual; and since their dates should generally imply they would have already been considered in previous deletion discussions or recreation attempts. (Note I participated in the last MFD.) Martinp (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse the previous closure and ignore this request. Biographical notability is based on significant coverage by independent sources. We, the Wikipedia community, do not need to waste our time considering a request by a person to include their biography in the encyclopedia, when the biography has already been deleted at least nine times (as per Cryptic in the MFD that is being appealed), largely involving gaming of titles. Common advice to submitters of autobiographies is that if you are notable, a third party who is an editor in good standing will write about what third parties have written about you. We don't need to keep this request open for seven days. Consider listing at Deletion Review Perennial Requests. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse community consensus is clear and no evidence has been presented as a reason for consensus to change since the MfD. It's time to move on. Star Mississippi 17:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Responding to SmokeyJoe and Martinp's request for three specific sources. Here are the three strongest independent reliable sources demonstrating notability per WP:GNG:

1. TechCrunch (January 20, 2012): "First Look: Backplane, The Lady Gaga-Backed Community Platform With All-Star Investors" — Josh Constine's in-depth profile covering Backplane's platform, its investor backing from Lady Gaga and Eric Schmidt, and Primiani's role as co-founder.
2. TechCrunch (June 5, 2011): "Lady Gaga, Eric Schmidt And Others Invest Over $1M In Backplane" — Independent reporting of Primiani's co-founding of Backplane with named investment from Lady Gaga and Eric Schmidt, then-Executive Chairman of Google.
3. Fast Company (2011): "Cortex for Google Chrome Solves One of Social Media's Big Problems" — Austin Carr's feature calling Primiani's Cortex tool "ingenious" and naming it one of the best ideas in interface design; substantive independent coverage of the subject's creative work.

All three are independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject, meeting WP:SIGCOV. Jpblackofficial (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for providing these. In my opinion, none of these 3 is sufficient for notability. #1 mentions Primiani in passing, just "Cofounder Joey Primiani is an ex-Googler and creator of Cortex". #2 does not mention Primiani at all, just Backplane. #3 also mentions Primiani only in passing, "Cortex, a free Chrome browser extension from Joey Primiani, uses...". None of these provides anywhere near the level of significant coverage needed to support a standalone article about the individual.

These sources are not recent, their insufficiency is glaring, and this article/draft has had many kicks at the can in the past, with little apparent insight as to the problems. So I endorse the standing deletion, oppose recreation at this time, and would support community-imposed steps to minimize disruption, with some (time-throttled?) crack of daylight in case notability would genuinely change in the future. Martinp (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

1. . Passing mention. Not significant coverage. Not a secondary source with respect to the topic. Not close to being a GNG source. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

2. . No mention of Primiani. Not remotely plausible as a GNG source for Priani.

3. Passing mention, attributive dash the author for the free extension, Cortex. Not significant coverage of Primiani. Not secondary. Not close to being a GNG source.

User:Jpblackofficial, you are incompetent in talking to Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria. Stop wasting our time. Do not write articles about yourself or your interests, it is not how Wikipedia works. If you warrant a Wikipedia article, someone else will write it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Right. I endorse @SmokeyJoe's conclusion. Writing articles where one has a COI with the right degree of dispassionate judgment, about what to include and whether an article is merited at all, is always challenging. We have policies and processes to navigate this, e.g. requirements on COI editing, the AfC process, that work in most cases, allowing COI editors to bring in meaningful content while managing bias, perhaps improving their skills as editors as they go along, all while minimizing bias in the encyclopedia and disruption to the community. However, they are insufficient in this instance, since Mr Primiani's judgment about himself with regards to Wikipedia is off and apparently incapable of evolving. Therefore, I'd suggest blacklisting anything regarding Primiani, allowing future creation only by appeal to DRV by established non-COI editors with (GNG-compliant and recent) sources provided; and throttling consideration of such appeals (even by putatively non-COI editors) to no more than once every 12 months. The only potential downside is that if Mr Primiani were to become notable in the future, our article on him might be some months late in being created. That potential downside is worth it versus repeated wasting of volunteer time relitigating this issue. Martinp (talk) 11:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse, per @SmokeyJoe. There is nothing to indicate this individual meets notability grounds via any available route. StephenPortmore (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

— StephenPortmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse, SALT and list at DEEPER. Enough is enough. Katzrockso (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Leon V. Emirali (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Leon Emirali (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

I'll try to keep this brief. An article was deleted under G4 that was not eligible for speedy deletion under this category. The previously deleted article was closed as deleted in October 2023. The most substantial sources in the most recent article (BBC News, The Telegraph, The Guardian, Politics.co.uk) were all published in 2025. Content built on sources that did not exist when the previous article was written cannot, by definition, be "substantially identical" to it. I believe the previously deleted article was deleted due to lack of notability. The new sources either address that or warrant discussion via AfD. Speedy deletion in this case was improper.

Please note I was unaware the title of the previous page was salted. I used the 'V.' middle initial styling in the title because a substantial profile feature in Politics.co.uk used such styling and I thought it proper to do so for biographical integrity. I was unaware of the salt and would have discussed this with admins had I been aware prior. I apologize.

Regardless, looking at the EverybodyWiki archive of the previous article, the sourcing of the latest article is nearly entirely different - as is much of the content, bar minor overlaps in structure and factual reporting, which are inevitable with any biography.

Speedy deletion under G4 is improper given the majority of sources in this article were published two years after the previously deleted article was removed from Wikipedia. Ndunruh (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you've tried to discuss the issue with the deleting admin, SouthernNights, or even informed him of this appeal, as required by WP:DELREVD. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Just adding in the deleted page for ease of navigation. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Requesting temp undeletion to review references in the page, as the appellant claims that content is linked to references that post-date the AFD. Frank Anchor 20:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

   Done Owen× ☎ 20:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you! Frank Anchor 21:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: As the deleting admin, I examined both the new article and the previous versions and found them to be sufficiently identical even with the new citations. In addition, the previous article was salted by User:Ponyo after being recreated multiple times, with the addition of the middle initial to the new article's title appearing to be an attempt to circumvent this. That said, I'm always open to having deletion review examine a speedy delete and I will of course abide by whatever consensus comes out of this discussion. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn G4 and speedy delete under G5 based on the results of the SPI. If there is not consensus to implement G5, then and send to AFD if desired. The presence of several sentences of content which post-date the AFD shows that the G4ed version is not sufficiently identical to the version deleted at AFD. Further, it is explained at WP:G4 that A page being creation protected is not a factor in whether G4 applies; the content still has to be substantially identical. Frank Anchor 21:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Star Mississippi that this can be reclassified as G5 pending the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation if completed during the normal DRV period. Do not hold the closure of this DRV if the SPI is not resolved in this time, as the G4 and SPI are two separate issues. I maintain the G4 is incorrect. Frank Anchor 02:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Modified my !vote based on original author being blocked as a sock. Frank Anchor 10:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Hold pending resolution of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoinFluffy250. It does no good to undo a G4 if we're going to end up back at a G5. Star Mississippi 01:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC) ETA Endorse or re-delete as G5 if necessary for bureaucracy. The content should not remain. Star Mississippi 12:47, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4. It does no good to hold at DRV a G4 failure. The nom is convincing. Interest and energy should be put into discussion the substance at AfD. G5 questions are irrelevant and should be pursued with complete independence, however, these G5 questions are moot if any editor in good standard supports keeping the article.

The deleting admin, User:SouthernNights, was wrong to delete, and wrote wrong statements into the deletion log. There is no consensus finding that DRV is to be used prior to recreation. User:Arbitrarily0 gave tacit approval in his AfD close 2 1/2 years ago. After years (maybe 6 months), any editor may boldly recreate if they think the reasons for deletion are overcome. If in doubt, use WP:AfC, not DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

As an FYI, here's my complete comment in the deletion log: "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Deleted per previous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Emirali (2nd nomination). If there is disagreement with this previous AfD consensus, request a review of the AfD at Wikipedia:Deletion_review." I add similar informational statements to many of my deletions. That second part of that statement isn't saying that DRV is required to be used prior to recreation, but to simply give editors a link to more resources if they want to try changing the previous AfD. In my experience, many editors aren't familiar with the deletion process and that info is shared to try to help them learn one of the routes they can take to change a previous AfD. If anyone feels sharing such additional info to try and help editors is inappropriate, or that the specific info I added should be altered in the future, just let me know.SouthernNights (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. I mashed the sentences and thoughtI read an instruction to come to DRV for permission to re-create. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

It's all good. Best, SouthernNights (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• endorse because I looked at the sources in the G4 article and I don't think that they cut the mustard. The most precious and also the most limited resource here is volunteer time and while many of us chose to spend our time in the bureaucratic backwaters like deletion discussions there has been a long standing and concerning drain on capacity for many years. At some point we have to recognise that there has to be limit of how much attention we can offer repeated and low merited appeals and work arounds that attempt to force biographical articles on us that do not meet our criteria. At some point we have to say that enough is enough and I think we are at that point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD Per SmokeyJoe. While Spartaz may indeed be correct that the new sources are inadequate, that's a matter for AfD to determine. If there ARE non-trivial new sources, that needs a discussion venue, not a speedy venue, for evaluation. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse per Spartaz, and indeed, per WP:G5. At the very least, no decision is possible here without resolution of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoinFluffy250 per Star Mississippi. We should definitely not be wasting time at AfD over it, especially when one of the sources appears to have been specifically written for publicity and likely to allow the Wikipedia page to be written . No by-line on that unreferenced contributed article, the only one to mention his middle name, and that was written just a week or two before the Wikipedia article was pasted up. The socking on this article is long-standing and obvious. I've said more at SPI. But if your critical thinking alarms are not sounding over this, then those alarms need looking at. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  I wrote "No by-line on that unreferenced contributed article" at 9:48. At 10:05 ("dateModified":"2026-04-02T10:05:07+00:00") the page was updated with a by-line: Alice Fitzpatrick. My critical thinking alarms are now howling. Hello "Alice". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  And oh look, "Alice" just modified it again to remove the by-line again. "dateModified":"2026-04-02T10:31:38+00:00". They also modified it (probably yesterday, going by the dates) to support their assertion that one of the sources had the salt avoiding initialisation. It didn't. . We are being messed with here. This is a clear WP:G5. Requesting Frank_Anchor, SmokeyJoe and Jclemens review the evidence and reconsider. Please note I have saved three snapshots of the politics.co.uk article HTML which show the clear tampering of the source in support of this DRV. I'll also make a posting at RSN. (ETA: now done at ) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  Reviewed. List at AfD. The page should be deleted at AfD. It means a week looking at soft sources. That is the proper process. What’s going on here is a pseudo AfD under the guise of endorse an invalid G4.

  The G5 angle remains independent and is not a reason to pause. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  It’s possible that while at AfD new sources will be discovered. Deletion requires that GNG sources don’t exist. To establish that, a search for such sources is required. The AfD links support that. The AfD is then a proper record that supports future G4s. If this DRV endorses the bad G4, it enables a new account to restart the article, exempt from G4 because the AfD is so old. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  User:Sirfurboy: Fascinating. Thanks for saving evidence of the source being changed in real-time to support this subject's notability claim. This is the first time I've encountered such actions on Wikipedia. SouthernNights (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  I reviewed, and there is nothing more I need to add unless and until there is checkuser confirmation of sock-puppetry. The G4 was incorrect. If confirmed as a sockpuppet, this is a textbook G5, as Ndunruh is the primary author and nobody else made non-trivial edits. If not confirmed, it can be sent to AFD. Frank Anchor 13:19, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• User:Ndunruh, do you have any connection to Leon Victor Emirali? How did you come to take an interest in creating his biography on Wikipedia? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  Not in any meaningful way, no. I did meet him for around 90 seconds after he gave a talk at Future Solider Technology in London around this time last year, in fact. He was on stage alongside a representative from Palantir. I spoke to him after his talk when he was doing a photoshoot with media outside the venue. I was interested in the AI military systems his company is building. A couple of months later I read about him again in the Daily Telegraph and that he was building digital twins of military adversaries for use by NATO allies. I've since seen him on TV. But I didn't think the 90 second meet was worthy of a COI tag? I apologize if it should have been. Ndunruh (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  So you met him in April 2025, and that is all? So how did you take this image: commons:File:Leon V. Emirali on a media shoot - March 2024.jpg a year earlier? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's a photo from the event I am referring to. It was 2024, you're right. I knew it was springtime. It was a follow-up fringe event from the main conference a couple of weeks later I recall. Ndunruh (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• Hold. Normally, I'd agree with Smokey that this was beyond valid G4 territory, that new sources should be evaluated at AfD, and that a (potential) G5 deletion is an independent matter. However, it's also good to protect from abuse at the first ramparts rather than spread the issue to further venues and more volunteer time. Here, the allegations of sockpuppet/COI blacklist-evading creation, then combined with near-live modification of outside sources (that may not therefore be reliable) to thread the needle to use them to demonstrate notability, are concerning and prima facie credible. It makes sense to hold here and wait until those are resolved. If those allegations prove unsubstantiated, overturn and send to AfD; if they turn out to be substantiated, contain the issue to here. Martinp (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  It is possible that User:Ndunruh is not compromised and his posts can be read at face value.

  Proof to the contrary might take how long? There are merits to the AGF approach. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  AGF is not a suicide pact and the suggestion of source manipulation is concerning enough that we should be clear eyed and not idealistic about this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:11, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  I’m inclined to trust User:Ndunruh, and am very confident that if I’m wrong, no one will die because of it.

  In the meantime, the question is whether Leon Victor Emirali is Wikipedia-notable. As an ex-staffer turned political analyst, there are claims of notability, promotion, and concerns that stem from concerns of promotion. User:Ndunruh denies having a COI, so there is no immediate justification to Draftify.

  There remains a G4 speedy deletion under review, and obfuscation around resolving it. It is an obvious violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  You are ignoring the long history of socking on this article, which is happening for a reason. Emirali said; 'Especially in the tech world, they talk to investors who google them after the meeting, and if there's nothing there it's a red flag.' Now the former staffer thing is interesting. Because the article actually says Emirali was appointed Chief of Staff to Steve Barclay. But the source does not say that. It only says he was a media aide in Barclay's office. Not a mistake the careful historian editor Ndunruh would have made. But it does say that in whatever that is from politics.co.uk. We have already established significant concerns about that article though, which appears to be written so the Wikipedia page can be written. I've started a discussion at RSN where thoughts are welcome and I have written to the editor of that site (no answer yet, but it is the Easter Weekend. We may need a few more days). We have a man whose trade is reputation management who has clearly been trying to manage his reputation in the past, and who has made a statement about the importance of being visible on places like Wikipedia. And we have a page that contains untruths (he was not Barclay's chief of staff, which is not actually a role. Barclay's SPAD was Aled Maclean-Jones, who would have been, for all intents and purposes, his chief of staff). Everything to do with this article has been socked, and there are very good reasons for thinking Ndunruh's account has been compromised, per the SPI. There is no need to rush. Holding here is the right thing to do Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  I largely ignore the long history of socking. I acknowledge that the history of socking is a sign that the biography is a UPE target, in addition to your points. I also acknowledge source issues. There are lots of reasons to be suspicious. If it comes to evaluating sources, I intend to be very skeptical. I remain hopeful that Ndunruh will verify he is not a compromised account. He should not publically, I suggest that he email an Arb. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Contacting the Committee.

  I suggest “overturn the G4, Draftify, and blank the draft pending resolution of the question of the compromised account”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Sirfurboy's assertion that Emirali "was not Barclay's chief of staff" is not supported by sources, including The Guardian , which refers to him directly as a "former chief of staff", and POLITICO and The Times referring to him as a SPAD ("de facto chief of staff"). A quick Google search shows multiple sources not used in this article that may be useful to review. ~2026-20867-91 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  I wondered when the IPs would turn up. No, you are wrong. Emirali was not "Chief of staff". That the Guardian were persuaded to follow the wording of the politics.co.uk article a month after the politics.co.uk article was published, just shows what the reporter's google search showed up when she was looking for "who is Leon Emirali". The article itself doesn't look independent either. Leon Emirali has created digital versions of all UK MPs, including a Wes Streeting avatar. Gosh, one wonders how they noticed that. Emirali is a self publicist but was never in the imaginary chief of staff role. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  Concerns about the reliability of The Guardian or any other source should be raised at RSN. ~2026-20867-91 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  Are you User:Ndunruh? Stop editing projectspace while logged out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. That's why I said Hold, not Endorse. If smoke dissipates, or just becomes generalized haze after all info available is out in the open, I'd agree with your Relist at AfD suggestion, @SmokeyJoe. Where I disagree with you is mainly the Speedy relist part. There's enough concerning noise to take the time to deal with the noise first, then decide, rather than dragging other Wikiprocesses and their volunteers into it. And if it takes a while to figure out the noise, I'd keep it on hold here pending that. Martinp (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  Coming back to review prior to normal 7 day closure time. I continue to think Holding here while the socking and source-manipulation concerns are sorted out is best, but I am sensitive to Smokey's points that the G4 is technically invalid. I'm also in agreement with Spartaz (and others') points on not wasting volunteer time, which is why I favour letting it sit here while resolved rather than punting it to other wikiprocesses, but I think Smokey's solution of "overturn G4, draftify and blank draft pending resolution" is an acceptable compromise. Martinp (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

*Wait for the sockpuppet investigation.

• • If the originator is an editor in good faith and good standing, the decision as to whether the sources add anything should be made at Articles for Deletion.

• • If the originator is another sockpuppet, on a topic (a BLP) with a history of sockpuppetry, then the article should be deleted as G5.
  • The addition of the middle initial is gaming of the title, intended to divert attention from the previous AFD.
  • Doing anything before the SPI is completed would be premature. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn G4 as trivially not in scope - articles with non-trivial content based on sources that post-date the prior deletion cannot be substantially identical under any circumstances. Iff it is actually meets the G5 criteria then it should be redeleted under that criterion, otherwise it should be restored without prejudice to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Overturn G4 per Thryduulf. If the SPI concludes that the creator was a sockpuppet, then another deletion per G5 is permissible, but there is no reason to allow an incorrect G4 to stand. Katzrockso (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

On the basis of the SPI result, we can procedurally overturn the G4 to a G5. Katzrockso (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• I've just blocked Ndunruh as a compromised account and suspected sockpuppet. Folks commenting on the basis of the open SPI are now welcome to update their comments. Toadspike [Talk] 08:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Frank Anchor@Star Mississippi@Sirfurboy@Martinp@Robert McClenon. I think that's everyone? Toadspike [Talk] 08:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  In view of that disposition, I endorse the deletion. Technically, we could overturn the G4 and replace with a G5, and I have no objection to that, but I see little value in doing so. (Adding: not my area, but if I'm reading it right, the conclusion of the SPI was largely behavioural, and on the basis of this article; so there is a bit of circularity here, but the whole thing hangs together enough that I'm fine going ahead.) Martinp (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn G4, list at AfD, per others. In light of the SPI conclusion, I am unsure this qualifies for either WP:G4 or WP:G5. The SPI conclusion reads that the account is compromised. It doesn't indicate when or whether User:Ndunrah is linked to the previous socks and their account was blocked today, not during the time the page was created. Further reading: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoinFluffy250 StephenPortmore (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  — StephenPortmore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Welcome to Wikipedia. How did you find this discussion? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Hi there. Thank you very much. My tutor suggested I engage with Wikipedia AfDs and Deletion Reviews to improve my ability to formulate policy-based arguments as part of my law degree. I've engaged with a few of these now. Sorry if I wasn't meant to find it! Should I stop? Before beginning editing I have done a lot of research on various Wikipedia policies and essays. Stevie. StephenPortmore (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Change Close to G5. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)