Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 February

Ripio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closure as "Process obsession at our worst" of an article the same admin had closed as keep three days earlier. Discussion had three keep votes and three days to run, and nominator had been recommended to bring the issue to DRV. Oblivy (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m uninvolved in the original keep discussion, which @Spartaz closed on 19/2 as keep. On 23/2 It was renominated by @PrudskaSofa on the grounds (paraphrasing) that there was too much socking at the prior AfD.

I asked for an explanation and encouraged DRV and, after 24 hours without a response (and to date no more edits) I voted to speedy keep, and again encouraged DRV or WP:6MONTHS. Two experienced editors voted, one speedy and procedural keep. Then it was closed by Spartaz| saying (among other things) it would be relisted as an admin action.

At this point, it seems the proper thing is for this to be overturned (undone) and allowed to run for the rest of the 7 days. If during that time @spartaz sheds light at that discussion what’s going on and why deletion is necessary then the votes (including, potentially, mine) will reflect that.

It would also be proper, I believe, to restore the original keep closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripio to keep as it was altered after the close. Oblivy (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You left a message on my talk page at 8:46 this morning as I was driving to work. I am not obliged to check Wikipedia during my workday and instead of waiting for me to reply at the end of the work day you raised a ridiculous DRV 5 hours later which will delay us securing a safe consensus on this article by another week. Had you had the courtesy to wait for my response I have told you that an AFD with so much socking was unsafe and that the only solution is to call it void. I would also have told you that the second AFD was not the vehicle to get a safe consensus as it was basically a bad tempered unpleasant pile one. Nothing I have done is unreasonable or outside policy and is well within the expected norms that I have observed in the 20 years In have contributed today. Your conduct and impatience is entirely aligned with the unpleasant hectoring tone of AFD 2 Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

From my perspective, PrudskaSoda renominated an article which you had closed as keep just days earlier, and neither provided the kind of explanation well-aimed at making AfD2 a success, nor responded to a query about why it was needed. Whatever defects may have affected the first AfD were not called out by you until you decided to angrily close AfD2. Editors aren't omniscient, and the first step when someone fails to see something you think is obvious is not name-calling, it's communication. I tried to be as even-handed as possible in framing the DRV. Since you apparently believe calling my conduct ridiculous and impatient is appropriate I have little expectation you will agree, but my decision to bring this here, and to do so in a time convenient to my editing schedule, was not unreasonable considering what led up to it. Oblivy (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

So your convenience is more important than allowing me the opportunity to expand on my thinking and plans? I'm a massive believer in admin accountability but people need to be more patient and not try to force the pace. There is no deadline. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, as you "forced the pace" at AfD2 by commenting on my vote immediately before closing the discussion so nobody could respond. Patience and capacity for self-reflection are both virtues that benefit the project. Oblivy (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to relist (uninvolved) I think that closing the original discussion because it was "destroyed by socking" was improper. The sock votes can just be hidden from view to allow normal users to participate. Thus people in the 2nd discussion were understandably confused. I don't know a valid solution to this trainwreck but my best guess is to relist the first nomination with the sock keep votes hidden or otherwise deleted, then close it on the merits. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I don’t quite follow. So the other discussion was closed purely for that reason, and nothing a bit more fitting or relevant? That feels rather abstract. There were quite detailed remarks over there. 𒁂 🇿 🇷 🇾 🇰 ࿐ 00:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• The first AFD was already closed. It would be pointless to reopen it as it already has participation bias from the state it was in when it was open. The solution, which has been exercised hundreds of times over the years into relist cleanly once the dust settles. Something I already stated I would do. Please do explain why it it "improper" to not allow socking to taint the consensus? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  As I said, socking can be removed/hidden but there were legitimate !votes there, so it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  And people who might have voted deleted wouldn't even bother looking at the article because the outcome appears cut and dried. A fresh unsullied discussion is the only way to reach a clean consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn the 19 Feb close to no consensus, vacate the 26 Feb close per INVOLVED and relist it. For the first AfD, once you discard the socks, there is no consensus to keep. For the second AfD, Spartaz was involved, having closed the previous AfD only a week earlier. On merits, the close is incorrect, as there is no valid administrative reason to speedy close it. The nomination is evidently procedural, and therefore exempt from speedy keep per WP:CSK#1(1), relying on MightyRanger's original deletion rationale. All three speedy/procedural keep votes should be discarded, and the AfD allowed to run its course. Alternately, a new procedural AfD can be opened, and be closed by someone other than the admin who closed the previous two. Owen× ☎ 14:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  That all makes sense. Not quite convinced that the exception from CSK#1(1) should apply where it's not identified as procedural, but it's fair to say that was the intent of the 2nd listing. Oblivy (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  As I understand it, acting in an administrative capacity in disputes doesn't make an editor WP:INVOLVED. If it were true, each admin would be able to issue only one sanction in each WP:CTOP, because after that, they would become INVOLVED. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Kelob2678: I think closing a second AfD after you've closed the first can be uninvolved. This one wasn't. The closing statement does not come across as a calm, level-headed, passion-free ruling. On the contrary; it reads like an angry retort to what the admin felt--rightly or not--to be an attempt to circumvent his previous close a week earlier. Not looking at a case with fresh, dispassionate eyes means you are involved.

  Personally, I avoid closing any AfD on a page I previously adjudicated, no matter how long ago it was. I do that to avoid even the remote perception of a prejudice, although with the number of AfDs I close, I can't even remember those older ones, let alone be biased by how I closed them. I understand that other admins don't adhere to the same self-imposed standard. But if you're angry about a nom ignoring your previous close, step back and let someone else handle it. Owen× ☎ 19:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  No matter what admins do, they will look biased to some editors. It is ultimately up to their conscience to act properly. But WP:INVOLVED is a policy and I think editors who violate it should be stripped of administrative powers. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Spartaz is a fine admin who has been serving the project dutifully for 19 years. I see absolutely no reason to question his administrative powers. We all lose our temper every once in a while, and sometimes it helps to have an outsider respectfully point it out to us. But involved or not, I see no policy basis for speedy closing AfD #2. The best thing to do with a pile-on is to discard those piling on, and let participants who stick to P&G have a chance to present their opinion. By speedy closing that discussion, those piling on basically got what they wanted. What we saw here was a knee-jerk reaction from all sides; understandable considering the circumstances, but unhelpful. Owen× ☎ 21:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  I am not involved in anyway. Please redact your vote to reflect the actual policy which that you are not involved when acting in an administrative capacity, which I am doing in both discussions. I am perfectly entitled to void an afd close if I believe it is no longer tenable - which is a perfectly reasonable conclusion when an AFD has been ruined by socking . That has been accepted practise for many years and has never made an admin involved. The second AFD was clearly an unsuitable vehicle to allow us to have a clean consensus so closing it was again a perfectly normal and reasonable admin action. I'd ask you to revisit your expressed opinion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Your closing statement for the second AfD makes it clear that your declaration that the second AFD was clearly an unsuitable vehicle is coloured by your close of the first AfD a week earlier. Whether correct or not, that determination should have been made by someone who didn't close an AfD about the same page a week earlier. Owen× ☎ 18:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Please don't substitute your beliefs for what I actually thought. Maybe assume good faith that my stated intention was to provide a clean consensus. I make no secret that I found the pile on during AFD 2 was distasteful and fueled my belief it was not the right vehicle for a clean consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sure you wanted a clean consensus, but you went at it the wrong way. Your intentions were good, but your premature close of the AfD was effectively a supervote that prevented anyone else from arguing on merits. You don't get to shut down a discussion just because it's not going your way. WP:CSK has no "pile on" clause that allows us to close a discussion prematurely. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  What do you mean my way? Are you routinely closing discussions where you have an opinion on the article or skin in the game? Why do you keep insinuating that I have a personal agenda? Are you projecting maybe? I already explained my reasoning? I don’t care if you disagree with my approach but its offensive for you to tell me what was in my mind. Bizarre. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse as a correct reading of AfD psychology. Once the pile-on starts, it is very hard to deal with it. What the last two editors saw in the first AfD was four consecutive Keep votes (three were from socks), and this definitely influenced, if not their votes, then at least their decision to participate in the AfD. This makes their votes entangled with sock votes. The same applies to the second AfD where there are 3 Keep votes which would force every potential participant to think twice whether to voice their opinion to Delete, because they likely have no idea about the background. The solution is rather simple, just start a new AfD as if the previous two hadn't happened. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse both of Spartaz's closures. Ghastly mess and the best way to deal with this is take a break, have a cup of tea, and renominate in a little while once everyone has calmed down. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Vacate closure of first AFD due to sock puppetry, while I will note that the closure was correct based on information known at the time. No action on second AFD, which was correctly procedurally closed. I would recommend starting fresh with a new AFD, and not immediately. Give it some time (at least a couple weeks after the closure of this DRV), to allow for a better discussion less likely to be influenced by sock puppetry. Frank Anchor 17:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  That is precisely what I have done. The first AFD is void and I stayed in my close of the second that I would relist later once the dust has settled. Which will now be another 7 days down the road because eh process. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

This is correct, though I will not go as far as endorsing this action because the close of "Process obsession at our worst" was a very nonsensical way to describe a procedural close. Frank Anchor 13:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I make no secret that I found the pile on against the nominator in afd2 distasteful and it certainly fueled my belief that it wasn't the right vehicle to find a safe consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• So, I wrote a whole thing about how unnecessary this all was and how it could've been avoided if the socks' comments had been struck or possibly just removed as part of the first afd's close. The part I missed in my first read is that that reclose happened at the same time as the second afd, not immediately after the first afd's first close. I guess where I end up now is that, though a week is kind of pushing it, this falls into the afd closer's window of reconsideration, y'know, the whole thing we have in the instructions here at DRV to talk to the closer first instead of just opening a review. ("Hey, all the people voting 'keep' have been proven to be in the same sockfarm!" is one of the canonical examples justifying that instruction, after all.) So I'm endorsing the second nomination's close as wholly correct, and overturn the first one to "defer to whatever Spartaz thinks best". Whether that's a new procedural nomination, or reopening the first afd with the offending votes struck or removed, or wait a while first, or even reward the sockfarm by letting them use our procedures against us to immunize their ad from deletion, I'm ok with any of those. Would be least thrilled with the last, obviously. —Cryptic 02:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  my intent from the outset was to relist for a clean consensus once the dust has settled. I appreciate your analysis of the situation and willingness to assume good faith about my intentions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - It isn't important what terminology is used to close the two AFDs (that is, how to change the wording of the close of the two AFDs) as long as the result is a new AFD, after this DRV has been open for seven days. When a new AFD is opened, it should be semi-protected to prevent the sockpuppetry that corrupted the first AFD.
  • Endorse the first AFD, not so much because it was the correct close, but because any other close would have wrong.
  • Void the second AFD. The closer's statement was an unfortunate mistake, but the closer was mostly correct.
  • Allow a third AFD when this DRV is closed, and semi-protect the AFD.
  • Comment - It is less important what we call what we do to the first two AFDs than that there be an honest third AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

    I appreciate your comments and generally agree. However, in light of all the discussion here about unsullied/untainted discussion, I think the wording on the prior closes does matter. When someone opens that 3rd discussion and then clicks through to the other two they need to see what happened earlier. The closes should (1) reflect that the first one was a keep, (2) show that the second one was procedural closed rather than the irregular close that exists at the moment. Oblivy (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

    now that is a fair point and I shall amend my close by unbolding and adding a procedural close Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Allow a third, semi'd afd and whatever that result is is what happens.the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 13:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Sheesh. If checkuser is not magic pixie dust, semiprotection isn't even mundane talcum powder. All three of the sockpuppet accounts were well over the semiprotection threshold. —Cryptic 17:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse the closes, both as procedural and not INVOLVED. Draftify as it is a terrible article WP:UPE product, declined at AfC before being accepted by a later proven SOCK. Forbid mainspacing by anyone not qualified as an AfC reviewer. In draftspace, allow time for discovery of reasons to resume improvement of the draft, which is not currently worthy of mainspace, including for the reason that it is reference bombed with a high proportion of unreliable sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

closing admin comment just for clarity, I closed AFD1 as keep and then noticed AFD (not sure if from watchlist or looking at my contribs)). Discovering the socking and the nasty tone of AFD2, I determined as the same admin action that AFD1 cannot stand as it was tainted and the AFD2 was hopeless as a vehicle for an untainted discussion. I therefore closed AFD2 as part of the reclose of AFD1. I still intend to relist for a clean consensus when the dust has settled. In the meantime, the comment about the close wording of AFD2 affecting the relist is fair so I have unbolded my original close and added a procedural close as the outcome. This outcome was entirely achievable without raising the DRV before engaging with me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse Spartaz' proposed way forward, i.e. an administrative relist after the dust settles. Do not endorse the close, as it was worded. It was doubtless done with the best of intentions, trying to put out the embers of a smouldering fire. However, the language used was (in hindsight, predictably) gasoline. Being closer of AFD1 does not in itself make an admin too WP:INVOLVED to close AFD2. However, if one first comments critically on the judgment of the participants (within the body of the AFD2 discussion), then immediately closes AFD2 with nonstandard and clearly exasperated language, and then goes and vacates the close of AFD1 to -- seemingly -- be better aligned with the close of AFD2, one has clearly become too emotionally involved (as Owen said above) to act administratively in that situation at that time. And while it is not ideal, it is not surprising that someone who participated in AFD2, and had their judgment criticized, fears the process is being manipulated, and comes to DRV just a few hours (rather than waiting a day) after raising with the closing admin. Bottom line is in a messy situation, everyone did their best, we'll get to the right outcome, but hopefully next time fewer feathers need be ruffled. Martinp (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Gigamon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS not met. Major stakeholders were pinged less than 24 hrs ago and weren't given time to respond. It is an old article so they may not be actively watching the page now. While the page has some puffery and should be trimmed down, this discussion should be relisted at the very least. Gigamon (a public company) has a role in the national security state apparatus, and they've been analyzed in peer-reviewed academic literature (USENIX). They provided a comparative technical analysis that goes beyond promotional material: https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ballard/papers/opensafe-inmwren.pdfTechmanTom78 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse The AFD was relisted once, so there was plenty of time for editors to contribute to the discussion. Three editors made substantive comments suggesting that the sourcing did not meet the requirements of NCORP (and after TechmanTom added several sources in the discussion). In terms of !votes, it as 5 editors advocating to delete the article and 2 in favor of keeping, so I do feel a consensus was reached. --Enos733 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  I have no concerns with using the refund process based on the sourcing provided in this discussion. - Enos733 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Question was there a policy reason this was not closed as a soft deletion with no opposition instead of being relisted the first time? Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  No policy reason, but the page has been around for over a decade, edited by dozens, and more importantly--has been accepted at AfC, which I consider to be at least as weighty as declining a PROD. I don't think the relister erred in this case. Owen× ☎ 19:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There must be some additional sourcing for this page that we can find and help them out shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. What is your connection to them @TechmanTom78 and were you canvassed to this discussion? Star Mississippi 18:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi I put a lot of work into the page, and I think they're notable from a tech perspective. I worked in the industry for a long time; I am retired and enjoy using my knowledge to help out here on Wikipedia. Now, with that being said there is definitely some work to be done on the article itself, I just don't agree with it being deleted at this point in time. TechmanTom78 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse Endorse but restore per newly found sources The sources were adequately analyzed and refuted, the "major stakeholders" who didn't respond only performed routine maintenance on the article (not that it would matter if they were actually significant contributors), and the new source in this DRV only mentions the company in a single footnote. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse as the proper reading of consensus at the AFD, and as the right conclusion about an article that was written from the corporate perspective rather than than of third parties but would be interested in a Temporary Undelete. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

   Done Owen× ☎ 19:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse per Enos. the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 19:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC At least two of the deletion !votes are materially false. The Mercury News reference is clearly an appropriate source, even if the same article is cited as two separate references. That puts this squarely into NC territory, especially given the debates over NCORP. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  Participants had a chance to address that source. Looking at it myself , it is textbook WP:CORPTRIV of a headquarters relocation. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  (I was involved in the discussion.) This is the Mercury News reference. It doesn't address the company in depth. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 21:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  Look, I know there are plenty of editors who like to make up rules to be more anti-corporation. That'd be a fine GNG-contributing source in any other context, so I reject that prejudice and substitute my own impartiality in assessing the close. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NCORP is intentionally less flexible than WP:GNG. If you want to loosen the source requirements so that the strict current practice at AfD is discarded, that would at the very least require a discussion at Wikipedia talk:NCORP. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  No, I don't need to do any such thing. I can continue using Wikipedia's core policies and reject the anti-business NCORP as a violation of NPOV. NPOV is policy, NCORP is a notability guideline: if there's a conflict (and assessing sources differently based on article topic most assuredly is) NPOV trumps NCORP. The fact that other people don't agree with my interpretation of NPOV doesn't restrict me from holding it and advocating for it. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  NPOV doesn't "trump" NCORP. NPOV applies (only) to encyclopedic content. It does not apply to Wikipedia policies or guidelines. NCORP cannot be "a violation of NPOV". So yes, if you want to change the requirements of WP:NCORP, you need to gather a consensus to do so at WT:NCORP, as Helpful Raccoon suggests. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse Restore to Draft 5 Deletes and 2 Keeps, the sources provided by the Keep side were adequately addressed. At the same time, it is somewhat unfortunate that a 20-year-old company with 1,000 employees and $300M revenue in 2016 was found to be non-notable. Surely, some sources must exist somewhere. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  There are a few articles in WP:BLOOMBERG about the company that I would say qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. There are also probably 6 or 7 WP:WSJ articles here of varying depth;

  There were also several articles from WP:REUTERS around the sale to Elliott Investment Management that clearly go beyond mere trivial coverage and involve investigative reporting.

  This article about the company's layoffs is another . And there are a couple articles here on Law 360 about a lawsuit over the original sale to Elliott Investment Management.

  There are some The Motley Fool articles ( ), but I don't know if there is a consensus on the reliability of that publication per WP:RSN (plus these seem to be clear WP:CORPTRIV).

  I was unable to find any consensus on the reliability of this publication in the past (it clearly seems unreliable now), but there is clear analysis in this article from Investing.com (archived because it was blacklisted at one point because of some spam). Another article with good analysis is this article in Canton Rep .

  It also has an entry in International directory of company histories, volume 199 . This source, published by Gale, is described as This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location.Each three- to five-page entry is meticulously detailed with facts gathered from popular magazines, academic periodicals, books, annual reports and the archives of the companies themselves. I think Gale is an eminently reliable source. The coverage spans pages 209-212.

  I'd suggest that the discussion was of typical poor-quality discussions on corporations because the nomination failed to a proper WP:BEFORE and none of the editors in the discussion bothered to look for sources. Katzrockso (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

  Hey @Katzrockso Thank you for sourcing and listing out all those articles. I'm happy to help contribute once it's in the draftspace. TechmanTom78 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse This was an accurate reading of the discussion and when weighed together the arguments presented by the deletion camp were stronger with the citing of guidelines pertaining to corporations. Let'srun (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Endorse but vacate close? Not sure the right way to describe it, but the article should be restored even if the close itself was a correct interpretation of the consensus as it existed in that discussion. The quality of the discussion is very poor and per WP:DRVPURPOSE#4, there is definitely "significant new information" that has come to light. Namely that the company in question is almost certainly notable and editors failed to do their due diligence and search for sources that were not difficult to locate at all. This DRV nomination fails to make a compelling case for overturning the result, however the facts do. Katzrockso (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Good work @Katzrockso. I agree with restoring the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. Although I am displeased by the terse nomination by User:Scope creep, and the terse close by User:OwenX, for a contested discussion, I do read it as within admin discretion. On reading the temp_undeleted article, I find it dominated by non-independent information that must have come from the company and reference bombed with 46 sources. Allow the deletion to be challenged by the standard method which is: Draftify, and follow the advice at WP:THREE. Cull the weak sources and highlight the independent coverage. If any. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

  I would be satisfied if the article is restored to draftspace so I can edit it. Katzrockso (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• As a way forward, draftify for interested parties to work on, and return to mainspace when they feel appropriate (subject to renomination) or go through AfC, as they wish. The article absolutely needs a rewrite. That said, we really have a problem with people jumping on the "no RS exists" bandwagon when all that has been demonstrated is "there are lots of non-RS". It becomes a self-perpetuating echo chamber that shouldn't be called consensus. I recognize it comes from the need to "protect the wiki" from an avalanche of spam but gets overused on stuff that really just needed fixing. Formally, we've had enough plausible new, i.e. thus far unevaluated, sources brought up here to warrant overturning/vacating the discussion and re-sending to AfD. However, clearly some of those new sources are also not RS; clearly the article needs a rewrite; and we have users who want to work on it. So pragmatically draftspace is the logical place to put it for that work to take place. Martinp (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Imtiaz Developments (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no consensus in the deletion review. Also tons of new sources have emerged in english and arabic after that and notabilty should neber have been in question in the first place. Its a multi billion dollar real estate company in the Middle East one of the biggest in whole of middle east and also endorsed, awarded by the Supreme leader of UAE for efforts in philanthropy and contribution to the nation's economy.

Please could you kindly review the decision made on the merits of the article and merits of yhe sources. I respect the views of the community.(Singhchen (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC))

• Comment (involved): I believe the appellant got confused by their own title-gaming, and is actually referring to last week's AfD, not last year's. Their declaration of, I respect the views of the community rings hollow, as their behaviour suggests the only view they respect is that of their employer attempts to circumvent consensus suggest otherwise. Owen× ☎ 11:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse the close at last week's AfD (with no s on Developments) and the earlier close at AfD with the s. I respect the nominator's feeling that we ought to be able to have an article on this company; in particular, the awarded Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Medal for Philanthropy is at least a plausible claim to notability. However, the repeated AfDs have all reached the same Delete conclusion based on sourcing issues, not notability. The problem is there just is not enough independent sourcing with significant coverage. The plethora of sources found are passing mentions, paid marketing, or if not paid marketing just uncritically repeat information directly from the company itself. The AfDs grappled with this and reached the same, reasonable conclusion: we just don't have enough material on which to base an article that would be sufficiently independent of the subject. To revisit this conclusion, we'd need new sources that aren't more of the same. (@OwenX's comment implies concerns on nominator COI, but I AGF in view of the nominator having explicitly said they do not have a COI on their user talk page in October 2025. Since the issue is absence of required sources, it is neither here nor there anyway.) Martinp (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

  Point taken; I removed the COI accusation. Owen× ☎ 14:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for yiur comments. the problem with Middle East, arabic, gulf and UAE articles is most of the sources look like that. Among the plethora sources most of them if not all are independent of the subject. there is coverage in arabic as well. if you look at the dates there a ton that came after the deltion review. also it from all afound from all the publicarions from arabian business, national, gulf news, zawya and others.

Regarding the name i tried to correct the clerical mistake but that change was reversed. It woukd be stupidity to create the article in the singular as there are no sources to support the case(Singhchen (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC))

• Comment I have INDEFFed Singhchen for the DE that they were warned for in the AfD. They are clearly here only to promote Imitaz and enough is enough. Star Mississippi 15:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse or Speedy Endorse - This appears to be a case of gaming of titles. Also endorse the salting of the title (although it is not at issue here). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Koragajja (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:BADNAC#1,2. The discussion was both contentious with 3 Draftify and 4 Keep votes, and the closer is not an experienced AfD participant. The policy-based consensus was to Draftify, as no sources were provided that would justify an exceptional situation to have an article about an upcoming film from a little-known director. Among the four Keep votes, the first was likely LLM-generated by an author, the second merely asserted passing GNG, the third appealed to other movies and linked to non-independent coverage, and the fourth literally had no justification. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. I agree with Kelob2678 that the discussion was contentious, and closing should have been left for an admin. I also agree that some of the Keeps were weak. However, after three weeks, there was no consensus against retention, which means Keep was the only possible outcome. We routinely draftify articles on movies that haven't been released, but no policy or guideline requires us to do so. That said, I'm fine with treating this as a no-consensus, and renominating in two months if sourcing doesn't improve. Owen× ☎ 11:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse per OwenX. At least one editor included sources in their comments to suggest the article met GNG (in addition to the sourcing in the article). I also do not think that a mere mention of WP:TOOSOON#Films provides sufficient explanation of how it applies to this film as the only clear line is whether the film has begun filming. --Enos733 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse-ish Sufficiently one-sided that a NAC is not wrong. Debate appears to be about NFF vs. GNG, with reasonable arguments. Also, this is about redirect vs. article on a future film: waste of time unless we believe that somehow it's never going to be released and never merit an article, which was not the sense of the AFD. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  The one thing I would liked to have seen here is actual links to the stated reviews. I agree that the first !vote smells LLM-ish. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. It is clear there was a consensus against deletion, so there is nothing for Articles for deletion to do. I might have closed it as no consensus myself, but that comes out with the same result. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

  AfD, for better or worse, is the intended forum for contested draftifications, so there could be something for AfD to do. Katzrockso (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Weak endorse. No consensus would have been a good close for this discussion, and possibly a better close than keep. The end result of the article being kept would be the same, with the only practical difference being the amount of recommended time before a re-nomination should be done, if any user wishes to do so. The arguments for keep were weak (with the exception of SaTnamZIN's) and the LLM-based argument should be discounted. However, the arguments for draftify were just as weak. My advice to the appellant is to see what happens in the two months after the closure of this DRV and to evaluate the need to renominate at that point (as per OwenX). Frank Anchor 15:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse both as the best reading of the consensus of the participants, and as a correct reading of the guideline as written at the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - There was a change made to the guideline on 19 January 2026 that should have been controversial but was not noticed which opens the door to promotional notes about films that have been photographed and not released. The edit summary is incorrect, and the change is substantial. However, it is not the scope of DRV to review questionable guideline changes, and it is not the scope of DRV to review whether we disagree with the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
• Weak endorse, essentially per Frank Anchor and OwenX. Arguably, no-consensus might have been a better close. And not best practice to non-admin-close a poorly attended, some-deficient-!votes 4:3 discussion when going against numerical majority; best to leave to an admin. That all said, there was no way this discussion as it stood would have supported a Draftify close and it had already been relisted twice. So all possible formal outcomes lead to the same practical outcome: article stays for now and can be revisited in a few months based on how the situation develops. Martinp (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus: This is a WP:BADNAC as a contentious close, which should've been closed by an admin. Further, there are policy based arguments on both sides which when weighted altogether leave us with no consensus as for what should be done with this article. While a no consensus closure keeps the article intact for the time being, it more accurately reflects the votes of the discussion and makes it clear that these types of discussions shouldn't be closed by non-admins. Let'srun (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. Bad AFD nomination, WP:TOOSOON should not have been used when the more specific WP:NFF applies. User:Nomadwikiholic immediately refuted the nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Manish Kejriwal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of the G4 deletion of Manish Kejriwal by SouthernNights. I contend that the WP:G4 criterion was misapplied as the recreated page was not “substantially identical” to the deleted version. WP:G4 is intended as a mechanical / binary check to identify identical or minimally altered content. On their talk page, the deleting admin acknowledged the improvements, stating: “You are correct that there are new citations and information... [but] it hadn't been improved sufficiently”. This suggests that the deletion was based on a subjective assessment of the new sourcing rather than the procedural identity check required by G4. Once new information and new citations is acknowledged, the substantially identical threshold is no longer met. This version was a substantial rework incorporating multiple new independent secondary sources and expanded coverage to address previous concerns. The article was reviewed and passed by a seasoned NPP reviewer. This indicates that the page was not a blatant recreation and possessed enough merit to exist in the mainspace. I therefore request the article be restored. HibaShaikh (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn G4 and send to AfD. I trust SouthernNights's assessment that the newly added sources fail to meet our notability guidelines. But that's an argument for deletion, not for speedy deletion. Their own admission highlights a misunderstanding of G4: while the article had been improved, it hadn't been improved sufficiently to override the previous AfD. An article doesn't need to be "sufficiently improved" to avoid G4. It just needs to be not substantially identical.
  I'm also puzzled by the admin's demand this be brought to DRV. There is no policy requirement to submit to DRV a rewritten article that was previously deleted at AfD. WP:DRVNOT #2 makes that very clear. Owen× ☎ 11:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

• This article has been plagued with repeated sockpuppet attempts to prop it up and lacks significant coverage proving notability. While the article has new citations since the last AfD, they are not significant and in my opinion this was basically the same article that was previously deleted. That's why I thought SD applied b/c this isn't a rewritten article, it's the same article trying again. But since Owen× disagrees I've undeleted the article and others can deal with the issue related to it. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Maamanan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Maamman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted as an obviously implausible typo, but both redirects are plausible typos. Maamman is Maaman, but with an extra m, a mistake that could easily happen when looking for that page. The second redirect is Maamannan, but lacking an n near the end. I personally have made the second typo numerous times. Worth noting that the deleting administrator, SouthernNights, asked me to start a deletion review here. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 17:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• Recreate Redirects are cheap, typo is not sufficiently implausible for speedy deletion. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
• As the admin who deleted, I'm very willing to recreate if consensus here it that these two typos are reasonable to make. SouthernNights (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  @SouthernNights: if you wish, you can restore/recreate the two redirects and speedy close this DRV as resolved, saving us another six days here. Or ping me if you want me to do this for you. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've restored both redirects. Many thanks to everyone for sharing their opinions. The edit histories for both redirects also indicate that the pages are being kept per this discussion so hopefully that will stop anyone else from bringing these up for speedy delete. SouthernNights (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'd have considered these both plausible misspellings (not typos), particularly since they're transliterated foreign-language proper names, and advised the tagger to take them to RFD. —Cryptic 18:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn R3. Reasonable misspellings, these can be discussed at RFD if desired. Frank Anchor 18:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn: These are only one character away from the target, so they're not implausible typos in my opinion. I would have !voted to keep these had I seen them at RFD, and I will if anyone brings them there. Chess enjoyer (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

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

This template was deleted due to a comment made by User:Primefac. It appears in the to-do list for WP:HARC so its time to go for a deletion review. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• speedy close no policy based reason for overturning this gas been put forward. The conclusion was clear. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy close. No valid reason given for review. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Nationalist Conservative (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

There was no support for keeping this article. Of the four participants, three (including the nom) supported deleting the article. Only one suggested a redirect. There was clearly a strong base for deletion, but at a minimum a redirect WP:ATD should have been done. I note that a non-admin closure where 75% support deletion is not ok, because they don't have the tool access to delete.4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with Svartner? I see you've notified them about the DRV, but I don't think they'd object to reverting their own close in this case. Owen× ☎ 16:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment – No problem, I think the argument is reasonable, I closed it as a no consensus due to a lack of quorum, assuming it would be nominated again in two months. Feel free to reopen/relist. Svartner (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Done @4meter4 @OwenX. Svartner (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you! I reclosed it as redirect, and will close the DRV now. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Escape (recording studio) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting review of the AfD closure for Escape (recording studio), which was closed as a redirect to Rocco Gardner. The article should be restored as a standalone page.

1. Recording studios are independent topics: Comparable facilities such as Abbey Road Studios, Capitol Studios, Rancho De La Luna and Pachyderm Studio are all treated as separate articles rather than redirects to their owners or founders. Escape is likewise a distinct, branded recording facility and creative retreat, not merely a biographical detail of Rocco Gardner.

1. Multiple significant secondary sources about the facility: The AfD closing statement and some !votes described the sources as “passing mentions” or “irrelevant”, but this is not accurate.

• The Hollywood Reporter (20 Feb 2021) explicitly profiles the facility as “musician Rocco Gardner’s creative retreat Escape, a favorite of artists including The Arctic Monkeys and Paolo Nutini.” This is focused coverage of the studio’s role in the desert creative scene.

• Billboard (7 Apr 2017), in “Sound Baths, Desert Art and Luxury Recording Studios”, devotes a substantial section to Gardner’s “desert-chic studio and retreat Rancho V … along with Skyline Studios, which offers comprehensive recording and rehearsal facilities,” describing the property, layout and use by artists such as Arctic Monkeys, Peaches and MK.

• Two Billboard Argentina features (“La historia de Escape en Sudamérica y la llegada de su fundador Roc a Billboard Argentina” and “El futuro de la industria de la mano del blockchain y los estudios Escape”) are full-length profiles of Escape and its operations, not routine mentions.

• Cool Hunting (2023) and The New Lo Fi (2017) profile the Rancho V / Skyline / Escape complex, explicitly linking the naming and describing the studios and clientele at length, including artists such as Bob Moses, Arctic Monkeys, Paolo Nutini, Peaches and others.

Taken together, these are multiple independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the recording facility itself, satisfying WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, and are supplemented by additional context pieces in outlets such as Forbes, Rolling Stone Australia, the New York Times and regional features that place the studio within the wider Pioneertown/Joshua Tree creative community.

In addition, between the sources above, other press, and publicly documented credits and interviews, there is evidence of well over fifty notable artists having recorded or worked at the facility. That level of high‑profile clientele is consistent with other recording studios that are treated as standalone articles rather than redirects to their owners.

1. Redirecting to the founder is not an appropriate outcome: The bulk of the sourcing covers the studio complex, its facilities and artist clients, not just the personal biography of Rocco Gardner. A reader searching for “Escape recording studio” is looking for the facility, not necessarily the person. Treating the studio as a mere subsection of the biography, or as a redirect target, is inconsistent with how other notable studios are handled.

Given the above, the AfD’s conclusion that the sources were only “passing mentions” and that the article failed GNG/NCORP is based on an incorrect assessment of the sourcing. I am requesting that the closure be overturned and that the article Escape (recording studio) be restored as a standalone article for improvement.

Musicmanresearch (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Shradhanjali.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was deleted under A7 and G11. However, the subject has significant independent coverage in reliable sources, including The Times of India, The Economic Times, Business Insider India, BBC Gujarati, Tech in Asia, EdexLive, and Dainik Jagran. These publications provide substantive discussion of the platform and demonstrate notability under WP:ORG. The previous version may not have sufficiently demonstrated this or may have appeared promotional, but the subject appears to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines based on substantial independent coverage. I request reconsideration of the deletion decision. Viv inin (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Just go ahead and create a new article. Both the A7 and G11 deletions occurred over 11 years ago and it's very possible that more coverage has been made available during this time. I have no objection to restoring the deleted version to draft (without having seen it), but if the G11 deletion was valid, that version would need a fundamental rewrite and I do not know how much help it would provide an interested user in creating a P&G-compliant article. Frank Anchor 13:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I support a procedural close based on the below concerns of OwenX. Frank Anchor 13:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close. I see no point in debating two 11-year-old deletions of a promotional 180-word stub (expanded from the appellant's original 49 words). I do find it fitting that the entire contribution history of this SPA consists of three edits to create a page about an obituary website, followed by 12 years of silence, and then resurrected to open this DRV. If the author/appellant "Viv" is cofounder Vivek Vyas, submitting a draft through AfC, with a proper COI disclosure, is the only way forward. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:PRC provinces big imagemap alt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I disagree with the reasoning behind this single-use template (used at China). This image includes intricate imagemap markup, mostly a long list of coordinates. The revision where the template was substituted added 8904 bytes, indicating a total size of 8938 bytes, excluding documentation. That's more than twice as large as Template:Infobox neon, another single-use template that has been repeatedly kept at TfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I see you've notified the closing admin, but did you try discussing this with him? Izno is very reasonable. I bet this could be sorted out without the need for DRV. Owen× ☎ 23:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I feel like this discussion needed the participation of more than two people, other than the closer. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, I know Izno has seen this appeal, but DRV regulars may be reluctant to spend time on this unless they see a genuine attempt from you to sort this out directly with him. Why haven't you discussed this with him? Owen× ☎ 18:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to let DRV come to an appropriate consensus where it concerns a TFD I've closed and actually actioned. Izno (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse "I would have !voted keep but didn't see the discussion in time" is not and has never been a reason to overturn a deletion at DRV. Discussions have definite end dates for a reason. The participation level in this discussion was not unusually low by TfD's standards. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• endorse because asking the other parent without discussing with the first one at all is bad form. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse I don't understand the actual implications of this appeal - the data hasn't been "lost" and the discussion determined to move it to a more appropriate place. Simply asserting other examples exist is not a ground by itself to justify an overturn, there are other concerns that might be at play with other cases. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

List of Lufthansa destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted as G4, based on this two-year-old discussion. The new page was not substantially identical and, since then, the consensus has become more accepting of such lists per WP:DESTNOT RfC. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Changing the color of the table headers and removing 5/8 of the references doesn't make it substantially different. —Cryptic 16:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  The text of the AfD notes that the list of destinations has been brought up to date which would make it not substantially identical. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Recopying the primary sources back into the page - especially when almost the only change that resulted was omitting destinations that had already been marked "terminated" or "airport closed" in the old version - isn't a substantial change either. —Cryptic 18:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  The wording is "substantially identical" and "sufficiently identical." If someone wants to undelete it for comparison I can reassert my statement, but yes, removing a non-trivial amount of outdated information from a page will generally render a page not sufficiently identical for G4 to apply. Jclemens (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  good talk ~2026-12255-25 (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn G4, resume AfD Text is not substantially identical per the content of the AfD. Of course, I cannot see it myself, but assuming this to be true because it wasn't debated in the AfD prior to closure. I'll note that speedy deletion criteria like this are a terrible idea to shortcut debate, no matter how much any of us might think the debate unproductive or rehashing arguments made elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Overturn G4, resume AfD. The closer was wrong to apply G4. Let the AfD play out. Consensus can change, and revisiting after two years is reasonable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Overturn G4, resume AfD, this interpretation of G4 would be contrary to WP:NOTBURO by effectively demanding that editors bring every recreation of a previously deleted article to DRV, simply because the content in each version of the article is shared. WP:Consensus can change and the relevant community consensus on these lists has manifestly changed over time, including an obvious consensus at the latest RfC that primary sources are acceptable for use on these lists, making any claim to lasting crystallized consensus on this issue even more dubious. There is little harm in having an extended discussion here, though I wouldn't be surprised if the final close isn't to keep the article. Katzrockso (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• With 2,000 revisions, undeleting for DRV is going to be problematic. That said, the edits in 2026 following reversion of the redirect by Jollyfox36 don't align with the assertions above as to content changes rendering this ineligible for G4. Star Mississippi 00:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Can you expand a little bit? The edits do not make this ineligible for G4? Jclemens (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Correct per my read this is the only edit following removal of the redirect that changed content. I restored the others for review. Regardless of whether consensus has changed (I have no opinion there), this does not seem to have changed substantively enough to avoid G4. If the argument is that consensus doesn't apply, that's different IMO Star Mississippi 14:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Was the content in the article prior to its deletion in February 2024 the same as the content that was restored by Jollyfox36 in this edit Special:Diff/1337756582? From what I can tell from this archived copy of the article shortly before its deletion, they are not substantially similar . For one, the column in the deleted article noted which routes were "terminated", along with those routes, does not exist in the version of the article recreated by Jollyfox36. Other changes include which airports are listed, e.g. the Angola airport associated with the deleted article is Quatro de Fevereiro Airport, while the restored version has Dr. António Agostinho Neto International Airport. There is also little commonalities in sourcing. This is obviously not the type of recreation that G4 is supposed to prevent, as this isn't some archived version of the article recreated later to circumvent the original deletion, but rather a good-faith creation of an article that the editor believes in encyclopedic (whether or not the community disagrees overall or in this case). Katzrockso (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn G4, resume AfD the two-year gap and the shift in consensus regarding destination lists make G4 an inappropriate tool here. The article should be allowed a full discussion at AfD to determine if it now meets the revised community standards. EmilyR34 (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn G4 and resume the AFD as it is unlikely to be substantially similar after two years and countless edits. And even if it is substantially similar, speedy deletions must be uncontroversial. The presence of a well-reasoned keep vote, a valid rebuttal to a speedy delete vote, and a redirect vote mean this is not an uncontroversial deletion. Consensus can change and it appears to have shifted over two years . Frank Anchor 12:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  I want to endorse this "not uncontroversial" reason to not sustain a G4 that is equally meritorious and separate from the "not sufficiently identical", and wish I would have thought of it first. I'm so used to the identicality argument, it slipped my mind that this was as good a reason. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn G4 and resume AFD. While I’m not 100% sure if there is substantial change for G4 to be satisfied, the keep vote and its accompanying explanation in the AFD should be taken as a WP:CSDCONTEST, and the discussion should have been left to run its full seven-day course. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 16:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Is there a consensus that WP:CSDCONTEST applies to G4? I have seen some indication that some editors believe that G4 is exempt from being contested. Katzrockso (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  My divination of the cloudy history is that the undocumented rule states:

  (1) For six months following the close of the AfD with consensus to delete, G4 in mainspace is strongly endorsed and uncontestable unless there is a dramatic new argument or compelling new sources (new, not newly found) that overcome the reason for deletion. You are supposed to contest a recent AfD delete through AfC.

  (2) Between 6 months and 2 years after the AfD deletion, there is a softer requirement for new sources. “New sources” that are re-published old sources, or far below significant coverage, may be dismissed by the admin deleting per G4, although it is becoming preferred that the new article be draftified. It depends on the standing of the editor pushing the article repost, new accounts get little tolerance.

  (3) AfDs older than two years are always entitled to a 2nd AfD. If there is a history of several AfDs, the reposted article might be draftified with a message to use AfC.

  (4) If the title was protected or semiprotected, G4 gets much or moderately more freedom of use on a the same topic reposted at a different title. This is contentious to a few Wikipedians.

  SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  The AfD was closed 23 ½ months ago, very finely not reaching the two-year mark. Reviewing this situation and the unwritten rules I wrote, I think User:Mariamnei might have been better justified to Draftify as an NPReviewer, but AfD is always ok, but their AfD nomination was too brief. Having started the AfD, and seen a “keep” !vote, the AfD should have been left to play itself out. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  If there is a consensus against that, I’m certainly not aware of it. Both WP:G4 and WP:CSDCONTEST do not mention that the latter does not apply to the former. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 00:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn G4 and resume discussion at AFD. It doesn't matter whether the deleted article is substantially the same as the previously deleted article. The views of the community may or may not be substantially the same or substantially different from those when the article was deleted, and the way to determine whether consensus has changed is a new AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
• I call foul how can we undelete as not a g4 as different and expect to continue discussion by tagging on the end of an AFD about the previous content. At least start a fresh discussion to discuss this content Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Gohar Harutyunyan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

IMO it was improperly deleted under "A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)" The refs cited clearly shows sh is not only "important", but notable as well: Gohar Harutyunyan Named European Shooting Champion, Armenia’s Gohar Harutyunyan wins silver at European Shooting Championships, etc. Even more in Armenian language references to assert country-wide notability . --Altenmann >talk 00:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Were those references cited in the article when it was deleted? Katzrockso (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The first was. So was this. —Cryptic 01:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
    • Though, you didn't need me to know that. The entire article except for the categories and stub tag fit into the creation log. —Cryptic 01:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
      • I dont care about Armenians. I merely created a minimal stub that asserts notability and forgot about it removing from my watchlist. That it was speedied thorough baffled me. I was not even notified. I do not remember now how I run into the "shooting range", but I created several such stubs to cover shooting in red.--Altenmann >talk 01:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Restore to draft While it's a bad A7, the article needs to be fleshed out a bit more, one line stubs don't really cut it anymore. There is also no NSPORT criteria that applies to this person so GNG will need to be met as well. Once additional sources & content is added it can be restored to mainspace. Jumpytoo Talk 02:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn. The bar for A7 is indication of importance, not proof of notability. Being a European Shooting Champion is a very clear assertion of significance. Whether the article is a one-line stub or a full biography doesn't matter for a speedy deletion; if the claim of importance is there, A7 cannot be used. It should be restored to mainspace. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn Clearly not A7 per EmilyR34 given the reference supplied by Cryptic. Can be draftified or AfD'ed per appropriate process if needed. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: As the admin who deleted the article per the SD tag, I've restored the page for this deletion review. As an FYI, I did a search prior to speedy deleting per CSD A7 and didn't see notable coverage of the subject, with the single article about her winning the European shooting championship appearing to be a slight rework of this press release from the state news agency Armenpress. As such that article didn't appear to meet reliability standards. But if consensus is the subject is notable I'm good with that.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  @SouthernNights: consensus here doesn't need to say anything about notability, because notability is irrelevant for CSD:A7. All an article needs to do to avoid A7 deletion is make a credible claim of significance, which this stub did. What you did is check if the article passes GNG, correctly determined that it doesn't, and then incorrectly speedy deleted it under A7. Notability, verifiability and reliability are all guidelines relevant at an AfD, not speedy deletion criteria.

  That said, I'm glad to see that you restored the page. At this point, since there are no endorsements of the deletion, you may close this DRV as resolved (or ask someone to close it), with or without draftifying the article. If left in mainspace, seeing as you've already done the legwork for this, it may be a good idea if you nominated the page at AfD, where sources and notability are assessed. Owen× ☎ 12:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, when I evaluate speedy deletes I try to carefully follow guidelines and often refuse to delete the articles b/c they don't meet SD standards. In this case, I believed that the only indication of notability coming from a press release met the standard of A7's "No indication of importance." But after reading what you've said, I see I was in error. I'll close this DRV in a moment, and have created the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohar Harutyunyan. SouthernNights (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn and send to AFD if necessary (or move to draft). The bar for A7 is intentionally set very low as any indication of significance means an article can not be deleted via this criterion. Cryptic's reference provides an indication of significance. Frank Anchor 13:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Pirate Software (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted because "depends too much on sources that are of questionable reliability, make little mention of the subject, and/or depend too much on his own statements", despite the fact that I stated (in the discussion) every reliable source on the page and, while some of these sources have been interviews or trivial mentions (as reported by User:UppercutPawnch), it still leaves sources such as Hobby Consolas, Automaton, The Verge, GamesIndustry.biz and Gamepressure.com - all reliable, focusing on the subject and not interviews. They also focus on various different topics, making the article pass WP:1E.

Also, I did not try to circumvent the deleted Heartbound page, as I started working on the Pirate Software draft before Heartbound was nominated (my first contribution was adding the infobox image).

If this article relies too much on the questionable sources, even with good sources clearly present (as I described above), draftify the page and let me (and others) improve it. Otherwise undelete normally or explain why not do either. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. The Keeps span the range from the irrelevant (just because they don't meet certain purity tests) and assumptions of bad faith (knee-jerk response from many on Wikipedia, which is to purge and hide articles and mentions of these figures; clearly a whitewashing attempt by fans and shills), to dismissive derision (answering the valid question, Which of the sources are reliable? with, Which of the sources aren't reliable?) and outright personal attacks--by the appellant themselves (now redacted). I couldn't find a single Keep that was anchored in P&G. The AfD was canvassed at Reddit, which may explain some of the inexperienced participation on the Keep side.
  The proposal to merge the 240-word Opposition to Stop Killing Games movement section to Stop Killing Games was valid, but within the closing admin's discretion. I am, however, in favour of upgrading the page protection from ECP to full SALT, seeing the tendentious effort to keep the page. Owen× ☎ 17:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  While I agree that a lot of comments are irrelevant, you still didn't address my concerns about sources that may establish GNG. The merge with SKG doesn't really work due to the size, so I understand the admin's decision on that part. Big no on the full salt part.

  Oh, and my "personal attack" was "You guys are on crack." Someone must've overreacted.

  Edit: also the "tendentious" effort was only really an issue in mid-2025. Now that everything surrounding Mr. Software has winded down, we can discuss his notability without any bias or people not understanding what Wikipedia is and how it works. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  This isn't a frat house and accusing other editors of being on crack is indeed discourteous and not compatible with collaborative working Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Okay, I admit this comment was a mistake on my part. Now for the actual discussion. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  As someone who supports the resulting deletion I am unsure how this is a purely tendentious effort given that, as far as I'm aware, this is the first time anyone has made an effort to recreate the page in months , and the editor here is expressing their willingness to adhere to guidelines in recreation by drafting it instead (though it should probably be something for WP:RFU instead of here). UppercutPawnch (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Without comment on the article, please be more careful when deleting redirs. Pirate softwarePirate software had been a perfectly valid redirect for twenty years before being retargeted to this person; it shouldn't have been just autodeleted by script. —Cryptic 18:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse - The Deletes appear to outnumber the Keeps, and the Deletes are well-reasoned and guideline-based, so the close was a correct close. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  The ratio of keep/delete votes mostly doesn't matter per WP:VOTE. While there have been valid concerns about the page, most of them could be fixed with restructuring the article by basing it on good sources, in my opinion. I have already stated that reliable, non-interview sources that focus on PS exist and may help the article to pass GNG. If anyone disagrees with this, I welcome any comments. As for now, I still feel like draftifying is the best choice. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 19:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Seeing as I have been mentioned here, Endorse per above. In spite of what in my opinion was hostility and failing to adhere to WP:AGF on the part of some editors to remove that page based on the assumption that it was an attempt to evade a different closure, the deletion was also justified and guideline-based. Dabmasterars, This seems like something that would be better suited for WP:RFU (getting the old content to be put into a draft) than WP:DRV. My recommendation is that you do that and submit it to WP:AFC instead of just moving the page on your own like you did the first time. UppercutPawnch (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Good call, a draftify request seems to fit better there, especially since drafts have low visibility and won't cause much trouble. I withdraw my nomination @OwenX, feel free to close this thread.

  Edit: Undeletion was not done, the discussion resumes unless the admin who closed the discussion (@RL0919) draftifies the article himself (per note by BD2412). Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 05:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't care one way or another whether this article is restored. But given the history around articles related to the subject, it should be based on a consensus from the community (in this present discussion, for example) and not at the whim of the person who closed a deletion discussion 6 months ago (aka me). --RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse There is no evidence the closure was improper, so it does not belong here, regardless of whether you believe Pirate Software is notable or not. This isn't a matter for DRV, wrong forum. It probably belongs in WP:REFUND instead where you can ask for a copy of the material to improve. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Comparison of smartphone brands (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Most opinions said Keep. I would also like to know if WP:AFD should be based on incoherent opinions or coherent Wikipedia policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dncmartins (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to No Consensus. As the appellant notes, most opinions were Keep. The closer's statement reads like a supervote and would have been in order as a vote. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse Editors advocating delete were grounded in policy (both that the subject was OR/SYNTH, and one editor suggested that the sourcing was largely PRIMARY). Keep voters suggested either the article did not violate OR, other articles of comparisons were kept, and the "sources seem fine." To me, the much stronger argument grounded in policy, presented in the discussion, was on the side of removing the page from mainspace. So, I do not believe that there was error in the close. --Enos733 (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  After reviewing the page at the time of nomination, I still stand by endorsing the deletion discussion. The entirety of the page is just a table comparing features of various smartphones. There is no prose, and no explanation of either why those features or why those manufactures. "iPhone" is one column. While there are sources, there is nothing that suggests why these features should be compared. Back to the discussion, the keep !voters needed to respond to the OR question. - Enos733 (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse While numerically there was 1 more keep than delete (though the last week keep sounds more like a delete than keep), the delete vote had stronger rationales so it was within closer discretion to close it as delete. The delete vote provided evidence as to why they believed the article violated OR, and the keep side failed to provide any sourcing to rebut this argument. Jumpytoo Talk 05:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. The closer correctly evaluated the discussion by applying a higher weight to unrebutted arguments that the article did not comply with WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse NOR is a policy and N is a guideline. Unrebutted arguments engaging a policy are always more compelling than guideline based arguments. This was an excellent close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. The Deletes carry significantly more P&G weight than the Keeps. The closing statement explains the logic behind the headcount-defying close. I see no evidence of a supervote. Owen× ☎ 10:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus "Synth" would seem to ring hollow since a comparison is just noting facts in the table, not necessarily interlinking those facts in a way that draws out new information. Otherwise any sort of table on Wikipedia would be immediately disallowed unless all the information was in a single source. I don't think that this interpretation heavily favoring the deletes was merited, and the original nom's rationale doesn't seem to have been accurate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I would like the article restored to see what it was that those who commented in the original AFD saw. Multiple people said it was not original research, so the reason for deletion nomination was not valid. Were there references linking to reliable sources where they compares different smartphone brands? Did some columns list referenced information that the reliable sources mentioned? If there were any columns that shouldn't have been there, they could be removed without deleting the entire article. Dream Focus 21:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I was going to ask for the same thing. It's impossible to evaluate the AfD without seeing the article. Hobit (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

     Done. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Weak overturn to no consensus. I don't think that there is much in the existing article that really needs to be saved, since it is poorly sourced and has very little content, so any version of the article we would want to see on Wikipedia wouldn't be particularly similar, but the discussion did not have an overwhelming consensus. The argument that the article was WP:OR has been highlighted by other editors here, but there is not really a consensus among the participants that the article violated it - nearly all invocations of OR were mere claims that the article did or did not involve OR (This is WP:SYNTH, agree with nom - WP:OR doing synthesis, I don't understand why this is being framed as WP:OR). With such a poor quality of discussion, I see no compelling reason to weigh any of the votes arguing it was or was not OR more than others. Zxcvbnm presents a compelling point above too.

As noted by the editor Dncmartins, many of the issues raised by some votes are not deletion reasons, but are resolved by editing (Thanks for your suggestions for improvement ... this is not a valid argument why the article should be deleted). Disagreements over the current contents of the article is not a valid reason to delete the article, barring it violates a policy like WP:BLP. No editors advanced the argument that no version of the article could be created that does not violate the WP:OR policy (even if we accept that it does), meaning that WP:SURMOUNTABLE applies here to many of the delete !votes. Katzrockso (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral https://www.businessinsider.com/smartphone-comparison-chart-2015-2 mentions important features that are compared, but that's for individual models of phones, not brands. Searching for "smartphone" "comparison" and anything on the current features list, has anyone found anything? Searching for a "comparison chart" I only find things for individual products, not brands. But the main reason to delete the article was for original research, which is not valid, the majority of those participating in the original AFD said it was not OR. The closer ignored consensus for that, and cast a supervote. Other reason given for deletion is valid though, the comparisons are arbitrary, no reason given why these things are mentioned and others are not. Dream Focus 06:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse That the majority (6-4) were keep is irrelevant per WP:NOTAVOTE. If there is strong rationale otherwise, they can be ignored. In this case, the article is replete with problems, and its not entirely clear what the scope of comparing smartphone brands would be, especially given some brands have a wide variety of features in their phones. ← Metallurgist (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting you want a policy that disallows comparison articles, or do you suggest that is already such a policy, could you reference it? Dncmartins (talk) 09:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• (closer) Comment It might have been easier if the applicant had tried to engage with me before coming here, but that's somewhat of a moot point now. The first five contributions (all keep !votes) are essentially other stuff exists or assertions with *no* analysis. A statement of "it's not OR" is not analysis, but simply an assertion - it may have some weight in a discussion, but that rapidly *diminishes* when contributions appear that provide analysis in rebuttal to those assertions. The first delete !vote *details* sigificant issues: self-published sourcing (insurmountable), incoherent/inconsistent criteria usage (both insurmountable and surmountable), factually incorrect information (surmountable). Subsequent comments and delete !votes reinforce and extend on those issues detailing the OR/Synth issues. Utlimately, what swayed my assessment most in the discussion was the lack of effective rebutal to the repeatedly raised issue of inconsistent criteria. Yes, some of the issues in the discussion were surmountable, but the insurmountable ones were core policy/guideline failures, once they were raised in a detailed manner the onus was on the keep participants to counter that (for example with actual source analysis) - but no rebuttal came of a weight equal or greater to the failures identified. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Most comparison articles are similar and would be deleted by the same rationale. Do you suggest that comparison articles should be removed from Wikipedia? Dncmartins (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Comparison articles are tricky. Those that are robustly grounded in RS, including both the structure (including scope of the comparison and comparison dimensions) and the individual assessments are appropriate wikipedia articles and should stay. Those that are hopelessly full of OR/SYNTH should go, if they cannot be improved. I would agree with you that there are doubtless many that fall into the latter category. I think your best way forward here if you remain committed to this article is to get it refunded to draft space, and work on grounding your scope of comparison and comparison dimensions in relaible sources. I think there is a chance a good, encyclopedic, non-OR/SYNTH comparison might be writeable here, but it will likely be very different than what this article was, and may end up with a sufficiently different scope and different name once you are done. As a sometime academic, this feels like one of those instances where you submit a paper and get back a journal rejection with pretty fundamental critical feedback, but it is possible to use that feedback to come back with a substantially different paper that may be publisheable and will be much better. Martinp (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree. Articles that can be improved should be moved to draft space instead of removed. How can I ask to move the article to draft space so I can improve it and fix any issues that it may have? Dncmartins (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  First you need to understand what the reason for deletion was Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse an excellent close. AFDs are discussions, not vote-counting. This is universally known, but @Goldsztajn's point implicit in the close and made explicit above bears repeating: simple assertions early in a discusion lose their weight if later discussion and analysis tends towards a consensus against that assertion, and the early asserters don't engage further in the discussion to refute. Order of !votes and subsequent participation matters.

  Example 1. A,B say "Keep, adequately sourced." C,D,E then reach a consensus that sourcing is OK but it's hopelessly OR. A and B are never heard from again. Closer appropriately discounts the initial comments by A and B as not engaging with the right policy issues.

  Example 2. As in Example 1, but A and B return to comment, "OR is not the issue here because ..., we still say keep because the sourcing is enough". In this case, possibly a NC close is appropriate since thoughtful people continue to reach different conclusions with engagement on the same issues.

  Example 3. As in Example 1, but A and B's !votes follow the C,D,E discussion. This case is more like Example 2 than Example 1, since it is reasonable to assume A and B read the discussion by C,D,E and were implying they don't find it persuasive versus their point.

Example 1 is what happened here (plus some more noise in the discussion there and here on other-stuff-exists). Initial discussion focused on sourcing, later discussion highlighted the issue was OR/SYNTH instead, and reached consensus, interpreted correctly by the closure. Martinp (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Could you also discuss Wikipedia policies involved here instead of just these editors opinions? Dncmartins (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Dncmartins you have made your voice heard here and at the AfD. Please let others' voices be heard. Star Mississippi 14:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

You are not the audience of our comments. I suggest that you read some of our content policies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

In the spirit of trying to be helpful: "policies" vs "opinions" is a false dichotomy. Editors express their opinions as to which policies apply (I'm eliding distinctions between policies, guidelines, essays, etc here). A discussion occurs and either a consensus emerges or it doesn't. In this case, consensus emerged that while reliable sourcing of individual entries in the comparison table was present, there were fundamental issues of original research and synthesis in the scope and framing of the comparison, and this went to the core of the existence of the article. Dncmartins (not pinging you since it appears you are disengaging, though you will see this if you are continuing the follow this discussion), you are looking for consistency across all comparison articles. This is unlikely to occur since such comparison articles vary in the level of OR/synth in their conception and structure. In this case, that level was particularly high. You have now nominated another comparison article for deletion by analogy with this one. That is actually a WP:POINT violation, since in the discussion here and there you make it clear you don't actually feel either article should be deleted. You have also found little (but not no) support for your nomination there since that article is quite different. While I emphathize that this feels inconsistent to you, the issue is we don't have a policy on "comparison articles" per se, we have a range of policies which get applied to all articles as best judged to be applicable (this is where what you call "opinions" come in). The outcomes for comparison articles will and should vary based on each individual article's specific situation. Martinp (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse while there was a numerical majority for "Keep," those !votes were largely assertions that did not substantively rebut the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR concerns raised by the "Delete" side. In a conflict between a headcount and a policy-grounded argument, the closer is expected to favor policy. EmilyR34 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  The issue here is that the delete !votes were largely mere assertions that the article contravened the OR policy. Katzrockso (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Sambucha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This draft was deleted by Deb because it was identified as "unambiguous advertising or promotion", but I don't believe it was that spammy the last time I visited it. I left a comment asking about it on Deb's talk page, but I haven't received a response yet.

I request that this draft be restored to draftspace. If anyone agrees with its deletion, they should open a discussion to figure out whether or not consensus supports deleting it for good. Given that Sambucha drafts have been declined numerous times, I probably shouldn't be surprised if consensus would favor deleting this draft after all. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• comment I don't see this as a G11 but I don't see what value we get bringing a rejected draft back Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  reluctant overturn what a waste of time but socks have no standing Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• I would not have deleted this as G11, but are you really arguing to waste two weeks of community time (here, MfD) on a rejected draft @MrPersonHumanGuy? If you want to improve it, I'd refund it for you, but I'm not in favor of process for the sake of process if you have no interest in the draft. Star Mississippi 13:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC) Edit: given the sock, I guess we have no choice but to overturn. I understand why the deletion is wrong, but I still think this is all a colossal waste of time. Star Mississippi 03:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Process reviews and ongoing learning for admins who have forgotten policy, is not a colossal waste of time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn. This does not qualify under G11. I agree with the various AfC reviewers that the subject fails our notability guidelines, and would likely fail AfD, but that doesn't make it eligible for speedy deletion. Draftspace was created specifically to allow work on subjects with marginal or deficient notability, without the sword of deletion hanging over their head. Send to AfD so we can G4 future attempts, or let it run out the G13 clock. This isn't process wonkery. It's about demonstrating to editors that admins are subject to the same policies everyone else is. Owen× ☎ 13:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this. Also, the temp account that placed the db-g11 tag was a blocked sockpuppet. —Cryptic 16:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  • We know all too well that in this area admins aren't subject to the same requirements as plebs. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to MFD procedurally, without having seen the draft, because sockpuppets do not have standing to tag pages for speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn based solely on the fact socks do not have standing in any deletion process. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Request temporary undeletion: I'd like to see for myself whether this is blatant advertising. That being said, there seems to be consensus that it wasn't, so don't let this stand in the way of a close. Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if the tagging editor being a sockpuppet is good enough reason to overturn. It would be a good reason to remove the tag, but once it's been deleted the situation is similar to the exception in SK4. I assume that Deb deleted the page because they agreed that it met the criteria of G11, which is similar to an editor !voting to delete a page in a nomination started by a sockpuppet. In that situation, the nominator's statement would be struck, but the discussion would proceed. I think, for the purpose of this deletion review, we should treat this as if Deb had deleted the page on their own, without the sock being involved.

  
  

  I do agree that this probably isn't the best use of our time, though. Chess enjoyer (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn: Whether a page is eligible for G11 is more ambiguous subjective than some other Speedy deletion criteria (ex. G13), but in my opinion this doesn't even come close. It simply isn't that promotional. Whether the subject is notable doesn't matter, as drafts aren't checked for notability. I'm against requiring a listing at MFD, as I find it highly unlikely that it would be deleted there, making it unnecessary bureaucracy (of course, any editor may nominate it after this deletion review if they want to). Whether there's a point to overturning a speedy deletion of a rejected draft is a valid question, but I think it's important to hold admnistrators accountable when they make an error. This was an improper speedy deletion, and no reason for ignoring the rules has been given. Chess enjoyer (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC) (Underlined added 07:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC))
• Speedy overturn as socks do not have standing to tag pages for speedy deletion. Also, based on analysis of admins who have reviewed the page, there is some gray area as to whether it qualifies for G11 such that speedy deletion was not the correct route. Optionally send to MFD. Frank Anchor 15:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

After review of the temp-undeleted article, I do not believe G11 was correct. It was not exclusively promotional, a requirement of G11. If it were an article, it would stand no chance at AFD, but we are discussing the speedy deletion of a draft, which was out-of-process. Frank Anchor 19:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'm with Chess enjoyer on the tagging issue. Ultimately, the deleting admin is accountable for the deletion, not the tagger. A deletion isn't invalidated just because it was suggested by a sock, or for that matter, by a bot. It can be invalidated if it was out of process, which was the case here. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  @OwenX, could you temporarily undelete the draft for the reason I gave above? Chess enjoyer (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

   Done Owen× ☎ 16:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn per OwenX and Chess enjoyer, i.e. I've looked at the undeleted article and reach the same conclusion. Martinp (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Overturn. The deleted page does not meet G11. It’s a fairly typical YouTuber draft trying to make a case for inclusion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• overturn speedy I don't think it's a G11. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn It's not G11 worthy. Jumpytoo Talk 02:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn. It's not a G11. The draft is just a weak stub, not spam. Tags from socks are irrelevant, and it should not have been speedied. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, been away. I'm fine with restoring. It can sit in draft for six months as far as I'm concerned. Deb (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Dare to Dream (Olympic theme song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm asking for a review because the closure didn't actually account for the sources I found. My comments were collapsed as "LLM-generated," and because of that, the evidence for the song's notablity wasn't properly considered. I did use an LLM to help clean up my writing to save time, but the sources themselves are real and they prove the song meets the rules.

This was the official Sydney 2000 anthem, not just a random album track. It has solid coverage in La Nación (2000), a long retrospective interview on ABC National Australian Radio (2020), and it's even in the "Towards Tokyo" documentary produced by Channel 7 (Australia). None of the "Delete" editors actually replied to these sources because they were hidden.

I really believe the song deserves its own page for archival reasons. It's an important part of history and a dedicated page makes sense because there is so much specific info about the writing and selection process that came out in the documentary and is interesting/historic. Also, even current Olympic athletes have recently highlighted how this song inspired them in their own success and medals (which I included in the original page). I'd appreciate the page being judged on these actual facts rather than the novice mistake I made with the formatting. StriderL (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse as the right close of the discussion. The appellant may be disagreeing with the result, but DRV is not AFD Round 2. A clear majority favored either Delete or Redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse close but allow revisit if a human (not LLM assisted) gives links to important sources that were not considered. Since LLMs routinely make up sources and plausible-sounding but vacuous arguments, comments which appeared LLM-written (it went beyond "formatting"...) were properly collapsed and not considered, as if they were never said. To the appellant: nobody is going to go and hunt them up (they're not even linked!) to see if those sources are real and whether the LLM-written argument that their coverage is nontrivial is correct or not. However, deletion can be revisited if new sources, that were not considered, are found. If you, based on your own, human, non-AI-assisted analysis, can supply e.g. WP:THREE sources, properly linked, with your own explanation why these sources warrant a standalone article, it's possible others will agree with you. Those can be the sources that the ignored LLM-generated text included (and which were therefore not considered in the discussion), or other ones, but the important thing is a human needs to have read them, evaluated them against wikipedia criteria, and explain why they qualify as substantive coverage in WP:RS. Martinp (talk) 07:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  Martinp, I appreciate the point about links. Part of the trouble is that 24-year-old archive links often lead to dead ends or syndicated feeds now. But the sources are definitely real — I’ve just manually verified the 14+ citations in the page history before it was redirected.

  Here is what I can actually verify:

  1. Selection Process: The song was chosen by SOCOG from 5,000 international submissions. In the 2020 Channel 7 documentary (Towards Tokyo: The Opening Ceremony Sydney 2000 Uncovered), songwriters Paul Begaud and Vanessa Corish describe seeing their demo on a table of 5,000 other songs.

  ABC Radio National (August 2020): An interview where the songwriters discuss the "hope and a dream" of the track and its lasting legacy, with Corish calling the performance one of the "greatest joys" of her life.

  2. Enduring Impact on Athletes: This isn't just a 2000 relic. Noemie Fox (2024 Gold Medalist) recently stated on Instagram she was "obsessed" with this performance and used the song for inspiration in Paris. Similarly, Jaclyn Narracott (2022 Silver Medalist) told Channel 7 she listens to it as part of her pre-race preparation.

  3. Rolling Stone Magazine: They officially ranked it #13 on their list of the "15 Best Olympic Musical Performances" of all time (July 2024).

  The song was a major part of the Sydney Games, performed for a global audience of billions. I’m trying to make sure a piece of Australian music history doesn't get deleted because I made the mistake of using an LLM to help me format the initial post. I'm happy to keep digging, but these facts meet WP:GNG. I am asking for a Relist so these verified sources can be properly considered. StriderL (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  To save time, here are direct links to verify the sources cited above:

  1. Channel 7 Documentary (2020) - press release: https://www.olympics.com.au/news/relive-the-magic-of-sydney-2000-as-one-year-countdown-to-the-olympic-games-tokyo-2020-begins/
  2. ABC Radio National (August 2020): https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/hobart-your-afternoon/sydney-olympic-anthem-writers/12412916
  3. Athlete testimonials: https://www.instagram.com/p/CaMCfwUDzU5/ (Jaclyn Narracott, 2022) and https://www.instagram.com/stories/highlights/18169519423358560/?hl=en (Noemie Fox, 2024)
  4. Rolling Stone Australia (July 2024): https://au.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/olympic-15-best-musical-performances-64930/

  StriderL (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  The first link doesn't mention the song and is a press release. I'm not watching a documentary without any context or explanation of what it contains

  The second is an interview so not independent

  Instagram? Really

  Rolling stones is a list with no meaningful content.

  Based on this I endorse. The nom does not appear to very mindful of the time and attention span of other users and needs to remember that we are volunteers and our time is precious. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  Spartaz, I have to respectfully disagree on the "context" point. This wasn't just a 2000 event—the song was actually significant enough to be discussed in the NSW Parliament in 2016 (sixteen years later) as part of a record on its cultural impact (https://api.parliament.nsw.gov.au/api/hansard/search/daily/pdf/HANSARD-1323879322-93943).

  When you combine a Parliamentary record from 2016, a 20-year ABC retrospective from 2020, and a Rolling Stone "All-Time" ranking from 2024, you have a 24-year timeline of independent coverage. That is exactly what "enduring notability" looks like under WP:GNG. I’m just asking for a relist so these facts can actually be considered. StriderL (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  My opinion is not conditional on what you think. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  StriderL, thank you for providing the links and explaining your thinking in your own words. I have clicked through and evaluated. However, I don't find these sources sufficient for a meaningful, standalone article. They don't provide the quantum of independent, reliable, substantive-enough sources that would focus enough on the song itself to warrant an article. Therefore, considering there as new sources provided, I don't see an argument to reopen this discussion since I can't see how they would change the consensus. Therefore I endorse the previous close. Martinp (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. Consensus was properly reflected. Stop wasting our time with LLM dross. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  Stifle, our posts crossed—I've just provided a 2016 NSW Hansard record above which I believe addresses the concerns about triviality and dross. I'll step back now and let the reviewers consider the timeline of the sources. StriderL (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Self endorse there was no other way I could have closed this. @StriderL you're welcome to disagree, but consensus and the sourcing are against you in this situation. Star Mississippi 13:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse although a brief look in some old books suggests that there might be more RS in offline sources sufficient to write a page to the normal standards. The applicant, if they really want to do this, needs to find better sources than came up in the discussion and rewrite the page without looking to an llm for help. I suggest to them that unless they have sources to hand that they haven't mentioned, they might want to focus on something else. JMWt (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse Even if the closer reviewed the LLM text, sources, and comments, consensus in the discussion was that a stand-alone article was not desired. --Enos733 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Winston Weinberg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Out-of-process deletion.

07:40, 5 February 2026 Anachronist (talk · contribs) deleted page Draft:Winston Weinberg (G6: Technical deletion (uncontroversial maintenance): Deleted rejected draft created by editor who created several sockpuppets and is still being edited. Deleted to remove exposure of possibly misleading information about a living person.)

This was not a valid WP:G6. Neither was it a valid WP:G7 as the admin subsequently tried to argue (discussion at User_talk:Anachronist#Misuse_of_G6. I have a project-focused reason for continued use of this page, but arguing that point is seriously not the point. Admins are supposed to follow Policy, and when errors are pointed out, they should promptly revers their error. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Relevant community-wasting discussion: User talk:Esqmark922 should make it clear that restoring the draft for the convenience of SmokeyJoe is not a net benefit for the Wikipedia project. That was basically the deletion discussion, and now we're wasting even more time on it. I deleted the draft because (a) deletion was requested, and (b) deletion defused a bad situation getting worse. I think it's the only time I've ever needed to invoke WP:IAR as an admin. My log entry was completely wrong, I admit.

  I have no objection to userfication to SmokeyJoe. Furthermore, as pointed out below, the deleted draft is on archive.org, which should satisfy SmokeyJoe's need for a convenient (and permanent) link to it. There is neither need nor benefit in restoring it on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comments and Questions:
  • What is SmokeyJoe's encyclopedia-related reason for wanting a rejected draft?
  • If SmokeyJoe wants to prepare a new draft on Winston Weinberg, why can't he use the article that was redirected to Harvey? Why isn't that a better starting place than a draft that has conflict of interest and possible sockpuppetry?
  • Would it be simpler to email the rejected draft to SmokeyJoe than to restore it to draft space?
  • The deletion of the rejected draft is clearly contentious, because we are here. Why can't the rejected draft be sent to MFD, as mentioned in the discussion?
  • Why is it important to restore the deleted rejected draft?
  • Why is it important to keep the rejected deleted draft deleted?
• Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

The project purpose is to develop a stronger version of WP:INTERVIEWS, as mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Interviews#An active test case of this essay, a new editor, and a challenged new article.

This draft is, I believe, an extraordinarily good example of a public figure who is not quite Wikipedia-Notable, where there are multiple reliably and reputably published in-depth interviews that were being used to assert Wikipedia-Notability. This is a very long running issue, the confused debates about whether interviews can be used to establish notability, in the absence of any other GNG-compliant evidence of notability.

Ironically, the subject is an AI company founder, and the lead account displayed a lot of AI flags, but not entirely. Understandably, this annoyed Wikipedians, the shallow typical forceful arguments. After being blocked, socks appeared, completely unsurprisingly, and further annoyed. Being annoyed is not justification to delete per G6.

There are plenty of records, including behind the mainspace redirect, but I want the draft review comments and draft talk page record. I was following intently, but disengaged to not overly influence to outcome. Speedy deletion was unanticipated. If sent to MfD due to tendentious resubmission or resubmission after rejection (the proper process), then I planned to use the week at MfD to extract what I might want to keep. This includes the draft comments by reviewers (including mine) and the talk page discussion.

I suspect the sock farmer wanted the evidence deleted because it painted quite a picture. There were no BLP problems, all the information was well sourced, to the source!

All that aside, it really is outrageous that old admins think they are above policy.

If the deletion is not to be simply reverted, I will request userfication with protection to my userspace, for a short time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• The mainspace version also has COI and (the initial) sockpuppet. The draft started as a cut-and-paste copy of the mainspace version whose redirection we endorsed at WP:Deletion review/Log/2026 January 1. —Cryptic 23:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, even if it turns out to be WP:IAR Deleting it stopped a time sink, and an unreasnably assertive new paid editor who picked up the blocked sockmaster's draft, intemperately created post AfD of the original. Having endorsed this, rather like Herb Cohen (negotiator), 'I care... but not that much'. This is not a hill to die on. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  Also userfy to Smokey Joe. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• IAR please move on. So much time and energy has been wasted on Weinberg. Congratulations, we've all fed the trolls, myself included. I think @Anachronist: unwittingly gave into the latest editor who essentially took his ball and went home because he couldn't control the draft. In the process though, he got what he wanted - the draft deleted. It was an incorrect deletion because it wasn't G6 or G7 eligible, but do we want to waste a week at MfD? I hope not especially considering the amount of time already wasted at AfD and the prior DRV. I don't think it stands a chance at being retained. @SmokeyJoe: can you not achieve your goals through an emailed version? Can someone userfy the draft comments with the first editor arguing the paint off the wall? For me at least it was not an AI issue but rather IDHT/I'm Right And You're All Wrong (and unqualified, per the last editor). Can AISIGNS help with another case? I'm not saying you're wrong to want this, but I'm tired of feeding this particular attention grabbing sock group. Star Mississippi 03:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  I’m sure that you’re mistaken if you think this AI experiment is defeated by deletion of their now obvious failure. Deletion of their edit history makes it harder to catch their next incarnation.

  I am particularly interested in the AI UPE farm (their AI training) having picked up misleading statements in WP:Interviews, and other things. I really want the diffs, because WAID rightfully demands them over unverifiable reports of my inferences.

  This means edit histories are needed, not an emailed version. A userfied page would work great, but let’s not forget that admin arrogance is really frustrating. If you really endorse this deletion, go document it at WP:SD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't endorse it @SmokeyJoe, I just think we're continuing to give them the attention they want and helping them train themselves. Interviews failed, so they went with BLP. I happen to disagree that it's harder to catch since they left their splatter across several locations and can't resist telling on themselves. But also no objection to userfication if it helps you. Bolding for the closer.

  I don't see any admin arrogance, just exhaustion-from the disruption, not you to be clear. Star Mississippi 13:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  Emailing the full history is also an option. —Cryptic 16:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• overturn speedy Doesn't meet any rule for speedy deletion. No reason given why an XfD isn't viable. Speedy deletion is easily abused Pages are eligible for speedy deletion only if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD). Because deletion is reversible only by administrators, other deletions occur only after discussion. IAR in CSD is generally discouraged, but in order for it to have a chance, there needs to be a reason that having a discussion was a really bad idea. No such justification was provided. Hobit (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Question - Is there anyone who either thinks that the rejected draft would have been kept at MFD or who would vote to keep the rejected draft at MFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - A mistake was made, and mistakes happen when dealing with contentious messy stuff, but the greater mistake appears to be the amount of energy being spent trying to correct a mistake that isn't worth correcting. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Question - What if anything will be gained by restoring the rejected draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  To answer your questions: I have no idea what is in the draft. So I've no idea if it's useful. There is a claim, which I can't verify, that the history itself is interesting. But frankly, my larger concern is that CSD is rarely the place for IAR and should rarely be endorsed by the community. It's difficult, if not impossible, for non-admins to review. It is a bad idea to start allowing speedy deletion for things that don't clearly meet the CSD criteria--I'm worried about the slippery-slope there. IAR can apply here, but it should be for a clear need. No one has articulated such a need that I can see. Hobit (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Userfy the rejected draft to SmokeyJoe. Anything that can be done with it in draft space can be done with it in user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn I don't think socks have standing to request G7 deletion. Additionally, other editors contributed to the page by commenting. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn Speedy Deletion - Hobit's argument that Speedy Deletion should very seldom be covered by IAR is persuasive, because speedy deletion is intended for non-contentious cases. I acknowledge that several editors say that the argument over this page has become a timesink. However, this is a case that will suck up volunteer time no matter which way it is resolved, so it is best to follow the most transparent procedure in order to maintain trust. Sometimes when experienced and inexperienced non-admin editors are told by the admin corps to "Trust Us", it erodes trust, and an erosion of trust is worse than a timesink. Correcting the mistake will consume time, but a handwave around a mistake will consume trust. Restore the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I opened the page and just saw this message, as someone linked in on my talk. From what I understand, @SmokeyJoe seems to be upset that the draft was deleted. He did not have any objections when I made the request. I saved the draft here, and had no idea it was so important to you. You can read it here, it is still available. https://web.archive.org/web/20260116135555/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Winston_Weinberg

I am having trouble understanding why you need a rejected draft that was poorly edited. I reviewed all of its versions, and this was the best one available. None of the sources used were suitable for the information in the article, and the content was misleading. I requested that a new draft be created with proper sourcing and formatting that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is a large company, and both the founder and the company receive significant publicity, it is important that the information be verified. Just yesterday, the company announced a new valuation of $11 billion and new funding round. https://www.forbes.com/sites/iainmartin/2026/02/09/legal-ai-startup-harvey-in-talks-to-raise-200-million-at-11-billion-valuation/

I believe that having unprofessional comments, improperly sourced material, and a poorly edited article with 500 views about the CEO of a company valued at $11 billion, currently actively growing and raising new capital is damaging to the individual and to the company. That is far more important than your @SmokeyJoe reasons for keeping a rejected draft. I believe my deletion suggestion was acceptable. I did not demand it. I presented it as a suggestion and a preferred solution. Esqmark922 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn. Clearly does not meet the criteria for G6 or G7. I support moving to user space as per above arguments, with returning to draftspace being my second choice. Frank Anchor 15:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn and userfy this was not G6/G7 eligible. While I sympathize with the admin's desire to defuse a disruptive situation, the case was contentious and required WP:MfD for proper transparency. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:death date and age text (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Looking at the deletion discussion in October 2025, it sounds like the desired functionality has been implemented. But then looking at the talk page discussion in January 2026 it sounds like it has not. In that second discussion there is apparently a dispute over whether abbreviated output should be implemented. I suggest it would be more productive to have that discussion. If the answer is "no", no new template is needed. If the answer is "yes", the desired functionality can be implemented in the existing template as originally planned. It looks like Module:Date already supports abbreviated output with "%{monthabbr}". -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

My specific comment in the deletion discussion was that MOS:DATE allows for the abbreviation of months; I was even told in reply that {{death date and age}} overrides Oct with October. It still works just fine! It just overrides the display value. Thank you for pointing this out. It should be a very easy fix. […] I will fix it so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed However, that fix for abbreviating clearly wasn't implemented, but the redirection happened anyway.

As for whether months should be abbreviated in infoboxes or not, the MOS explicitly has allowed it for some thirteen years, and I began a new discussion at WT:DATE#confirmation of abbreviation allowances, but until consensus changes the MOS, it is allowed and the abbreviation functionality wasn't added as both promised and alleged in the TFD, which was redirected anyway. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

DR isn't the place to re-raise TfD arguments but to talk about the actual close. I'm also unclear why DR allows opening a discussion without pinging any of the editors from the previous discussion. Pinging @Zackmann08 @Frietjes. Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

DR isn't the place to re-raise TfD arguments That's why I'm arguing that the discussion was wrong to have been closed in favor of redirection when that outcome was predecated upon {{death date and age}} having the same functionality as {{death date and age text}}, which was claimed to have been done, but wasn't.

I'm also unclear why DR allows opening a discussion without… I just followed the directions at WP:DELREVD. Do you require me to notify those editors you've named? Is there an official template for doing so, of would something like this suffice: I've begun [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 February 8#Template:death date and age text|a deletion review of]] {{template link|death date and age text}}, a page for whose [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 23#Template:Death date and age text|original TFD]] you participated.? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

For the record I oppose reopening this. If the desire is to keep the ability to use an abbreviated month, that can be implemented in the current incarnation. I fail to see why that is such a vital case though... I would like to know what the use case is here where having an abbreviated month is of such important need as to have a second, far more complicated and difficult to maintain template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is about an improper close. At the original discussion, Zackmann08 (talk · contribs) said that It just overrides the display value. Thank you for pointing this out. It should be a very easy fix. […] I will fix it so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed. They later said, This can now safely be merged as the mf/df format is now preserved and the two templates do the same thing. The target template wasn't fixed so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed, and the two templates didn't and don't do the same thing, yet it was on that erroneous claim that the discussion was closed and the template was redirected. As such, the closure was in error, hence DRV. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Restore to the holding pen (WP:TFD/H) to avoid breakage until the discussion on if the abbreviation feature should be preserved concludes (and if preserved, until it is implemented). No fault on the closer; I would of believed the missing features were implemented as well. Jumpytoo Talk 02:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• seems like the simple thing to do would be to implement preservation of month abbreviations, similar to how it currently preserves dmy vs mdy. Frietjes (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Sarah Lacina (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(involved) This was closed as redirect but there were 4 keeps and 3 delete/redirects. The closer said the redirect side had stronger arguments. The four keep votes cited significant coverage as their reasons for keeping. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to keep. Not an appropriate NAC (had been relisted, not uncontentious), wrong on the numbers (per appellant), and wrong on the merits (the redirect arguments are not more P&G compelling). Relist or NC might be reasonable but less preferred options... but it went a whole week after relist with 2 keeps. That's normally a keep close. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse – This was the difficult close the non-admin made, honestly, but it's the correct one IMO. Sure, WP:NOTAVOTE has been no longer a rule for years, but WP:NOTDEMOCRACY still is a rule. The "keep" votes cited GNG and tried to dismiss the BIO1E arguments, but I've been doubtful about the weight of these arguments other than numerical superiority. Not to mention that, well, arguments from both sides were basic, IMO, despite number of words and all and Jclemens's arguments in favor of overturning the outcome. The "redirect" arguments didn't need to explain the rationale for their votes, do they? —George Ho (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC); corrected, 00:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  Except that the 1st and 4th keeps directly addressed BIO1E. We don't require intervening keep !votes to reiterate each rationale above them, and has been pointed out elsewhere, the redirect !votes didn't give rationales either, hence my statement that the redirect side does not have P&G priority over keeps. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to keep Would of been a bad close even if it was done by admin. Both redirect votes are WP:JUSTAVOTE, while the keep sides cited sources that were not contested by anyone but the nominator, which makes the redirect close a clear WP:SUPERVOTE. Jumpytoo Talk 00:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, WP:JUSTAVOTE can be a reason to easily dismiss these votes, but the intro of the WP:AADD essay says: a discussion rationale which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", may still contain the germ of a valid point. Furthermore, it says: As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged. To put this another way, those "redirect" votes are neither "keep" nor "delete", and I found considering these votes as such hard to do. Furthermore, dismissing these votes just because they lacked rationale is... dunno, prejudicial perhaps?

  Moreover, WP:SUPERVOTE has the section "Advice to editors decrying a supervote close" and other section "What to do with supervotes", especially number three (about the closer failing to adhere to complaints). I don't even know whether the closer made a supervote, but doesn't look like it to me. George Ho (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  The germ of a valid point of the redirect voters was that there is a valid redirection target and thus an alternative to deletion. However, when there are multiple keep votes that cite sources, a vote that does not elaborate why the keep voters are incorrect will be weighed very weakly per NOTDEMOCRACY.

  The appellant had gone to the closer and the closer did not budge so I do not see any issue in regard to that. Jumpytoo Talk 00:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  The closer may not have elaborated much on why "keep" votes may not have had much weight, but I dunno whether it suffices to overturn the outcome. Re-reading this reply at original AFD (link), I think I should've rebut that one because that source briefly mentions her win in The Challenge: USA and promotes her then-upcoming appearance in another Challenge spinoff. Nonetheless, even other "keep" votes were just... Unsure whether they're just WP:LOTSOFSOURCES votes, but I guess I was the only one refuting and analyzing the sources. The two subsequent "keep" votes after the relist were just... The first one post-relist (by Bearian) is just "per above" vote, like one "keep" vote by the appellant. The second one was just making an argument as some basis of the guideline and another WP:LOTSOFSOURCES vote IMO and citing an essay, which I also refuted. George Ho (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  The other one was making an argument as some basis of the sources they had added to the article. Sheesh. —Cryptic 01:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's not to say that I'm not trying to fully dismiss these "keep" votes as such (just by citing the applicable essays), but treating sources (especially ones I refuted) and policy as if the "keep" votes weigh more than the other side seems... (If it's not "unfair", then how else do you call this?). Moreover, WP:ATD-R was implied. George Ho (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  WP:ATD-R exists. WP:ATK-R does not. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  To further clarify the context, I asked those who voted "redirect" about other targets, and they kinda accepted other alternatives to just... "redirect to Survivor (American TV series)". George Ho (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Even the least favorable reading of this afd, I think, would still be no consensus. Kelob2678's sources weren't adequately refuted (nobody but the nominator even tried) and Rublamb's weren't addressed at all. The close does the sort of analysis that just isn't proper there - there's very little discretion available in this regard, on the order of discarding delete votes claiming a page is entirely unsourced when it's not - and would have been better stated as a !vote. —Cryptic 01:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. Like Crypic stated, the closing statement would be better as a !vote. That said, I don't think the editors advocating for an AfD adequately or persuasively rebutted the sourcing provided during the discussion, as evidenced by the editors supporting keeping the article after the relist. Also, while a closer should evaluate all comments (both before and after a relist), if the direction following a relist is in only one direction, it is a decision for a closer to close a completely different way. --Enos733 (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Mike McVey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A message was left on my talk page saying The AFD nominator has requested to withdraw due to improvements made on the article, would you mind reviewing? so it might be time to review this. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pings: Cyfal, Bearian, Lorraine Crane as participants in the deletion discussion. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close as the appellant is not challenging the AFD closure. AFD was withdrawn by its nominator after significant improvements, but was not closed due to a standing delete !vote by the same IP who started this DRV. I believe the IP misunderstood the request on their talk page, asking to reconsider their delete !vote in light of the request to withdraw. If the IP is in fact challenging the closure, I would vote to endorse as there is clear consensus to keep. Frank Anchor 14:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural Close AfD came to the correct conclusion, as agreed by all participants but one IP. Not seeing any reason to change the close, nor any reason for BADNAC. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural close clear Keep consensus at AfD following the withdrawal and improvements. The appellant seems to have misconstrued a talk page message as an invitation to DRV. No procedural error here to address. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
• @BOZ: As far as I understand, BOZ wrote the message to ~2026-36939-5's talk page when the AfD was still ungoing, so it's now outdated and can be disregarded. Cyfal (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  The temp account was the only "delete" vote, and all others were keep, and the nominator had withdrawn, which is why I left the note for the temp account to review in case they were willing to allow the AFD to close as withdrawn. BOZ (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  You are much nicer to temp accounts than I'd be (and it's obvious this is just someone trying to evade scrutiny... no newbie uses Delrev). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Ang Pag-ibig Kong Ito (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't know if this is too late, but, the closed as No Consensus. I disagree on this 'cause one editor voted as Redirect to Leah Navarro, per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES and I already check WP:BEFORE. On WP:NSONG: Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups., It is indeed that there's a notable cover from the notable artists. However, the coverage from the song are lack. It should be applied the GNG here also. The closing isn't BADNAC, but there's a misunderstood that this is not really passed on NSONG. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment (as NAC): I haven't done any closes since mid-January, so this one is unsurprisingly older. I understand exactly what @Royiswariii means here, regarding there being multiple factors involved. I did say in the closing statement that I was open to relisting this for a final time should somebody feel another week was appropriate. As it's been quite a while now, I'm not willing to do that without the confirmation or consensus confirming that's allowed so many weeks later. I support whatever consensus eventually forms here. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse, but feel free to renominate if you believe participants ignored key evidence. I'm sure the closer would agree that this could benefit from a few more pairs of eyes examining it. Owen× ☎ 01:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse per Owen. I would suggest doing a re-nom over relisting as it offers an opportunity to improve the nomination statement. Jumpytoo Talk 05:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. Deletion review is for situations where the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not for situations where you just disagree with the outcome reached. As others mention, a renomination would be the best way forward. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  To be fair to @Roy, multiple participants in the AfD cited GNG, which I failed to mention in the closing statement. That is an error on my part. I focused only on the music specific notability guidelines, and not the general guidelines as well. As a non-admin, I should not have performed an NC close, which automatically violates point 1 of WP:BADNAC. I actually disagree with @Roy about it not being a BADNAC. The fact it was brought to DRV means the AfD was contentious and should have been left to an admin. 11WB (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  Just to add on to the above, based on this DRV and my recent poor record with AfD nominations, I've made the personal decision to not return to doing closures until I relearn the P&Gs. 11WB (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. It is generally a bad idea for a non-admin to close a discussion which was relisted (especially one that was relisted multiple times), as that is an indication that the discussion is at least somewhat contentious. However, this is not a WP:BADNAC as the close was correct. There is clearly not consensus to not keep a standalone article. A keep close would have also been reasonable, but NC is the best option. Frank Anchor 13:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  The two relists were both bad relists. Pointless procedural noise of no consequence. The existence of bad relists in a discussion should not limit a good closer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  To label them both as bad relists is a tad unwarranted. An AfD cannot be closed as NC after just one week, a keep close could have been actionable after the second week, but @Svartner chose to relist again. Whilst the consensus here is that my close was correct, it was also timed correctly. 11WB (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Bad relists include all comment-free relists. To do a relist, you should be competent and qualified to close the discussion, when you decide it is not ready for closing. The least a relist should include is a statement as to why it is not ready for closing. A good relist includes a focusing statement that helps past and future participants contribute more helpful to a later close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Wasn't aware this was still open. 'Bad relists include all comment-free relists.' - I have no issue with saying this is not correct. 11WB (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse a close of No Consensus because there was no consensus. On the one hand, the closer admits that they made a mistake in making a non-admin closure because the discussion was contentious. More generally, it is usually a mistake for a non-admin to close a deletion discussion as No Consensus, because the lack of a consensus usually indicates the presence of contention. On the other hand, we, the community at DRV agree that this was the right closure, so we can accept this as our closure. Reopening this would be silly when we agree with the result. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Overturn to redirect. The keep votes did not provide a substantive rationale to keep based in policy, the !vote by NegativeMP1 sufficiently explains how the keep votes ignore policy. The close repeated the erroneous interpretation of WP:NSONG promulgated by several !votes, but this was rebutted by NegativeMP1. Katzrockso (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I think I agree with this. The article is very short at about 40 words (approx). It also lacks a reception section where SIGCOV is usually demonstrated. A redirect would retain the revision history and could be restored in the future should more coverage become available. I do not oppose overturning to redirect. 11WB (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Your !vote here is overstepping your role as the closer being reviewed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I've unbolded it. Thank you for pointing this out! 11WB (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

🙂 SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Endorse, good close. The AfD nomination was inadequate, and such nominations often doom the discussion to a “no consensus” close. “Redirect” should have been addressed by the nominator, and the nomination fails WP:BEFORE. I do not support this DRV finding consensus to redirect, but do suggest that any editor may boldly redirect, and that disagreement should be discussed on an article talk page before going to AfD, as deletion is not a serious proposal. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Category:Scott Boras clients (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category deleted 19 years ago. Though I understand that it's not standard to have categories for a person's clients, I believe Scott Boras is an exceptional case. Boras is so powerful that his clients are generally seen as their own category in the world of baseball contracts, see this NYT article for example that treats them as such. (If "Boras Corporation clients" is more acceptable that's fine.) William on Tires (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Allow Recreation of category subject to new CFD, because consensus can change. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Seems silly to review a deletion discussion from 2007, but g4s tend to get enforced for categories for ridiculously longer than for anything else. —Cryptic 05:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that the appellant is asking to review the close, but to recreate the category without regard to the close. I think that the reason why category G4s are enforced forever is that the title of the category defines the category and so is the category, so that a recreated cat is substantially the same as the deleted cat. At least that is my understanding. Maybe there should be a rule as to how many years the deletion is still current. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think there are any other options when it comes to recreating categories deleted through a discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Allow recreation but without prejudice to a new CFD. Basically per Robert and Cryptic (who I think is supporting this request). Hobit (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Allow recreation per the above, as CSD-G4 armor since there's no other way to provide that to a category. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Allow recreation, subject to a new CFD. Let's let the community review this with fresh eyes. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Gancube (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Looking to get this reopened as there was non-admin closure per WP:BADNAC. scope_creep^Talk 17:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. This was a perfectly good NAC. Experienced editors armed with valid sources convincingly rebuffed your nomination. There was no other way to close this AfD. Uncivil demands and threats, like the one you made against Svartner, along with similar hostile or offensive language you've used in AfDs, will ultimately lead to you getting tbanned from project space. The community has a very low tolerance for bullying. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  scope_creep (10:36, 31 January 2026) was a refute of Oblivy’s !vote. Therefore Oblivy does not count as a rebuff. Cunard’s vote was very late, and he only counts here as one unrefuted experienced editor. There was obviously a way to not close the discussion so soon. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Can you explain the difference between a rebuff and a refute? You use the word rebuff here with respect to my contributions, and then refute below. Rebuff is a criticism, which clearly happened (and is, in my opinion, all that happened). Refute is proving error, which wasn't even attempted. Scope Creep did one of his source analyses claiming it was consistent with the policy, a claim he's made before, and I pointed out an error in his logic (purpose vs wording). We have language in NORG distinguishing paid media and earned media, and it is not consensus that the mere existence of information sourced from an article subject is fatal to SIRS.

  Not that it should matter much, but in your retelling is my contribution being discounted as not an "experienced editor"? Oblivy (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  Refute means conclusively countered. I read ScopeCreep’s reply to your proffered sources as conclusively countered. Rebuff is a weaker word. Rebuff is good in a discussion but refutation is conclusive.

  Re experienced editor. Owen wrote “Experienced editors armed with valid sources convincingly rebuffed your nomination”. I don’t mean that you’re not experienced, I mean that your sources are not valid GNG-compliant sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate your explanation. I respectfully disagree my sources were "refuted", and instead suggest Scope Creep engaged in results-oriented rejection (which I guess is a rebuff). IMHO idea that we have winner-takes-all battles of source validity among experienced editors is not a healthy way to approach AfD's. Oblivy (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment – I disagree with it being WP:BADNAC because there was no support for deleting (I confess I don't remember Oblivy, but Piotrus and Cunard are regulars). Btw I don't object to a relist (I've seen it requested and accepted in other AfDs). Svartner (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse reasonable NAC based on unanimous support to keep (excluding the nom) amongst longtime contributors who presented valid references. No need to relist as there would be zero chance of consensus swaying all the way to deletion of the article. Frank Anchor 19:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse clear consensus to keep based on valid references; no valid arguments for deletion. Skyshiftertalk 20:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Question - Which of the four reasons for bad non-admin closure is the appellant saying applies? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - DRV is a content forum, but Do not close any more Afd's where I'm a participant. is an inappropriate comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't cannot believe haven't given me time to even reply to a comment that was put up yesterday. is probably an inappropriate comment, but is garbled. Ungrammatical hostile comments can be ignored. 00:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Question - Why is the appellant saying that the close was a bad non-admin close? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse and scope_creep if you try and DRV a keep AfD where not one other person supported the deletion, you're likely to be disappointed with the outcome. You protesting a lot doesn't mean it was found compelling. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse "I don't like the close" is not a part of BADNAC and recommend you withdrawing this. I and many other admins would have closed this the same way, and am happy to if Scope creep really would like to see that. Scope, if you want folks to see your side of a nomination you're going to need to give more information. As it stands, you just stated your opinion. Star Mississippi 03:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• DRV doesn't overturn anything to delete, and it's not going to relist a unanimous-except-nominator afd that ended in a keep. Understandably frustrating that a poorly-sourced article about a company in a niche market didn't get deleted, but it turns out this is a notable one. (Also, for the absolutely nothing that it's worth, I have three of their cubes sitting on my desk as I type this.) —Cryptic 04:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• I am happy to vacate the closure and reclose it as keep-but-by-a-sysop if it helps. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. This was a perfectly appropriate NAC. There is no reason to vacate/reclose just for appearances. --Enos733 (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse the applicant is leaving us guessing as to what was the exact issue (just being a non-admin isn't enough). I don't see how this could have been closed as another else other than maybe NC. Given the high level of experience of the applicant, this all feels surprising and I'm curious what I might be missing. Hobit (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse: I see no issue with the close. @Svartner is a long-time NAC at AfD. The comments left on their talk page by the OP are disappointing, but WP:FOC forbids me from saying anything further. As a sidenote, I'm interested to read the RfC or discussion that confirms this claim. WP:THREE still links to a user page essay at this time. 11WB (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse and WP:SNOW close. This discussion is a complete waste of time. Sugar Tax (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse - After waiting 36 hours for an answer as to why this was a bad non-admin close, I am concluding that the appellant was just yelling "BADNAC" to win a dispute, and just saying the close was a bad non-admin close doesn't make it a bad close. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse - To be honest, I'm not seeing the issue that would have justified extending the discussion or closing it with any outcome other than "Keep". The discussion was already relisted once, and everyone except the nominator !voted to keep; none of the keep !votes lacked substantial reasoning, either. The non-admin closer, as far as I know, does not appear to have engaged in any actual wrongdoing, nor were they involved in the discussion prior to their closure. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Overturn (relist). It was not a good close, therefore not a good NAC close. The nominator was making a heavily argued case for deletion, and well, but then Cunard unloads a big “keep” with difficult-to-analyse sources. Without Cunard, I would accept a “delete” close, although it would come close to a Supervote. Cunard’s substantial !vote requires time to be read, let alone analysed. The AfD should not have been closed so soon after. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Cunard’s #1 “The sources found by Oblivy” ignores that Oblivy’s sources were refuted.

Cunard’s 2-4 new sources could be good, but are very difficult to evaluate for independence. Cunard asserted the GNG quote but gave no evidence or argument for independence. Fir a commercial product of dubious Wikipedia-notability, sources are often non-independent on deep analysis.

I’ve now read through https://eu.36kr.com/zh/p/3060304686507396. It initially looked good, but on second read, the information is either puffy, or based on explicit quotes from the company founder, Jiang Ganyuan. The information of substance is very close perspective. The “independence” of this source is very dubious. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

No, Oblivy's sources were disputed, not refuted and that's very important to take into account here. Katzrockso (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

It is not reasonable to call any of the sources that source from the founder “independent” of the founder’s product. I stand by “refuted”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Is the closer supposed to take the particular position on the interpretation of NCORP and endorse the particular position that no quotes from the founder of a company's may be included for the article to be independent regardless of how widely endorsed that position was in the AfD? Katzrockso (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

No. The closer is supposed to wait for a participant to take a position on the interpretation of NCORP. Or wait long enough for it to be supported by WP:Silence. How long is that? Seven days? Given the detail, and foreign language in Cunard’s proffered sources, I think 36 hours was too short.

the particular position that no quotes from the founder of a company's may be included for the article to be independent. You appear to grossly misconflate the requirements for meeting the GNG and for being included in the article? I’m not sure. Your sentence is too long and is confusing. But the answer is certainly “no”. None of these things are the role of the closer. Arguments and evidence should come from AfD participants and not from the closer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

When I stated "article", I should have said "source", since I was not referring to the Wikipedia article but the news article.

The implication of your comment here is that the closer should have regarded Oblivy's sources as "refuted" despite disagreement among AfD participants over whether they contribute to notability under NCORP. I don't see how that is possible without the closer taking a specific interpretation of NCORP and independence. Katzrockso (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Noting late, User:Scope creep’s comment on the closer’s talk page was not OK. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

• Relist as Piotrus withdrew his Keep vote, stating, I am changing my vote to abstain. Two Keep votes are not enough to close the AfD as Keep. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Two Keep votes are not enough to close the AfD as Keep Is this a new rule I'm not aware of? Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Just my observation of how AfDs are closed. Especially taking into account that one of the Keep votes was questioned by two other participants, and there was little time to examine the second one. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t think “Two Keep votes are not enough to close the AfD as Keep” would be a good rule. I suggest a better rule would be “After an apparent tide-turning !vote, 36 hours is too short to then close, accepting that last !vote on face value”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think two votes are enough only if the sources are obviously sufficient, which is almost never the case for WP:NCORP. But it can be applicable for WP:NBOOK, for example. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse on procedural grounds. Specifically, five days have passed without @Scope creep explaining their grounds for BADNAC and I don't think the community should have to fill in the blanks. After reading the views expressed here I do see how the closing could be seen as premature, but as we often tell the newbies and disrupters, communication is required. Oblivy (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment I never realised this was actually still open or I would replied earlier. I forgot about it. The reason I posted it as a BADNAC was I didn't have a chance to reply, which was clearly stated in the comment to Svartner. I was away for 2 days after Cunard posted. It shouldn't have been closed when new references just turned up and nobody being able to discuss them. There is need to discuss them, when somebody posts something new. That is a cardinal rule, unsaid. That is the whole point and that wasn't done here. So it was never a real close. It was also not a keep decision by any kind of definition. Oblivy’s references weren't NCORP compliant, all of them failed WP:ORGIND and Piotrus had basically left by abstaining and hadn't posted anything either. The NCORP policy was completely ignored here as though it didn't exist but that is normal and reason that Afd is broken. Thanks for turning up. This can be closed. scope_creep^Talk 12:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Regarding I didn't have a chance to reply and I was away for 2 days after Cunard posted., I commented at the AfD at 09:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC). The AfD was closed 30 hours and 27 minutes later at 15:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC). Between my comment and the AfD's closure, you made 110 edits and reviewed 51 articles. Cunard (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

So your point is exactly what? I was away most of the two days and went around the houses in the small time I had available, which wasn't a lot. I still didn't have a chance to rotate around to it and examine your sources. I was running the Afd and always come back to comment when new sources are added. Like everybody at the Afd, you completely ignored NCORP as well as being canvassed, which was a extremely poor decision on your part. scope_creep^Talk 13:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

A reminder of WP:FOC. @Scope creep, there are appropriate venues to discuss article sources after an AfD has been closed, the primary one being the article talk page. If an AfD is due to close, and is then closed, whether or not you have had time to reply is no longer relevant. 11WB (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. There was no other way that a closer could have closed this discussion. A relist would be acceptable, but is unnecessary as there is little chance of the outcome changing upon a second relist (at best to no consensus, which a relist to obtain a no consensus close is pointless bureaucracy). We should otherwise oppose a relist per Oblivy Katzrockso (talk) 03:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)