Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 July

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

Hi, I believe there was no consensus for deletion. Nomination does not address the current version of the article. It just cites a 10year old, 2016 AfD and assert that the article was a repost of that deleted material. Only one delete is there and that's also lacking, citing just policy shortcuts. There's an abundance of coverage from last 10 years available online. Salimiss09 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• For reference:
  • Previous DRV
  • 2016 AfD
  • 2018 MfD for the draft
• Owen× ☎ 17:33, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Collected deletion/salting history at quarry:query/104548, as of this past April. I don't remember what prompted me to run it then. —Cryptic 18:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Aha, it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BookMyShow (note case difference from OwenX's link). —Cryptic 18:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse A discussion in which nobody even argued against deletion by definition cannot have "no consensus for deletion". I'm surprised I didn't add this to the title blacklist in May when the capitalized AfD closed. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 18:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• If you only see one "delete" in that discussion, you're not competent to participate in afds, let alone analyze them. Also not inclined to put much weight on a new user's comments about a subject with this much paid editing history. That said, I (now) remember being somewhat surprised when that afd was closed when it was instead of being relisted. —Cryptic 18:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  Reading the contributions 3 experienced editors commented on the lack of sourcing. That you did not bold an opinion did not mean that your contribution was not influential and it supported the two bolded opinions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse - Regardless of the most recent AfD's single delete !vote this appears to be the target of a mercenary sockfarm, and has consistently lost deletion debates in part due to it and in part due to every incarnation being promotional. Cryptic also noted in the most recent AfD that the sourcing is not up to par (thanks to common-in-India brown-envelope journalism). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

strong meh bordering on complete indifference. Thanks for letting me know about the DRV. Shame the nominator was unable to follow the instructions and do it themselves. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. Can't be closed as anything other than delete.Katzrockso (talk)
• Endorse and we might need something the equivalent of a WP:OFFER for titles like this that have just been problematic forever. I can't see where I commented on this previously, but I definitely remember running across these discussions previously. When we have tribal memory about a title, it's not a good thing. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • WP:DEEPER is the closest thing we have at present. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
    • DEEPER has no explicit hope or pathway out. I guess that would be the best place to add any, though. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

      It does: WP:DRVPURPOSE#4&6—via submitting significant new facts (potentially illustrated with a draft, particularly if requested in the prior DRV close) to DRV for review, after which DRV might accept and unsalt or might delegate the decision to AfD—for recent examples see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 October 25#Battle for Dream Island and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 January 18#K. Annamalai (I.P.S). —Alalch E. 20:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse per above and list at WP:DEEPER. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse the May 2026 close. Title Blacklist due to gaming of titles with capitalization. List at WP:DEEPER. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Do not overturn. I will not endorse a delete closure without a quorum to delete. There was only the nom (which did not offer a reason to delete outside of citing discussions from 8-10 years ago), one delete !vote, and a non-!vote comment which suggested moving to draft; votes in previous discussions can not be considered for a quorum based on the discussions happening many years ago and likely changes in the content of this article during this time. However, based on the history of title gaming and other bad-faith editing surrounding this topic, title blacklist and list at WP:DEEPER. Frank Anchor 13:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. There was a consensus. "Quorum" is figurative language, and no quorum is specified in any policy. "NOQUORUM" is a shortcut, a symbolic representation for a particular being of process which is extending PROD into AfD to label some deletions as "soft", and the guideline does not really talk about quorum in the sense that quorum is mandated for consensus forming. Wikipedia:Consensus does not either. It doesn't even use the word "quorum" in its actual text. Applying soft deletion is only ever an option. An administrator is never required to close as "soft delete". Whenever an administrator may close as soft delete they are equally authorized to close as "delete". This is the most basic and the most minimal level of admin discretion. It takes a lot more discretionary authority to decide which outcome to close with among materially different hard outcomes, and admins can also do that. DRV should never turn a "delete” closure into "soft delete". Categorically never. Only overturn to substitute a different hard closure. The level of participation in this particular AfD was normal, and the issue was discussed thoroughly.—Alalch E. 19:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Just picking up the point about changing to a soft delete. That basically means the nominator can simply undo the close. That seems antithetical to the process as DRV should really endorse or overturn. Endorsing while allowing the close to be reversed as an editorial action makes no sense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, but that's not it. I mean, your reply doesn't connect with my intent. My comment remade using different words: DRV should not hesitate to endorse a close which was backed by a consensus when there was not a so-called quorum in the AfD. That is because whether there was a consensus is a different question from whether there was a so-called quorum for the purposes of determining soft-delete applicability. My comment is a critique of the previous comment's "Do not overturn", in the context of the type of complaint brought up in this nomination. And where one might say "I will not endorse a delete closure without a quorum to delete" I will say "I will readily endorse a delete closure without a quorum to delete—when there was a consensus to delete". —Alalch E. 13:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Vacate and relist - we cannot be endorsing a hard deletion with just one Delete vote - that goes far beyond administrator discretion. - and prior votes cannot be counted towards a current AfD. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  FYI the nominator is a vote and cryptics non bolded opinion supported an absence of suitable sources. So that's 3 opinions against the article meeting inclusion standards and no opinions arguing in favour. Admins can't just count bolded comments they have to read the discussion and identify which comments address policy in which way and work a consensus from there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Also, normally,we are offered potential GNG passing sources before a relist makes sense. Do you have those sources? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist — I don't think the close was right to read Cryptic's comment as a third delete. They wrote they were "undecided whether that's better done in mainspace or back in draft," which reads to me as an editor pointing to alternatives to deletion, not one saying the topic fails inclusion criteria. Treating an explicit "undecided" as backing a hard delete is, i think, a stretch on how consensus is supposed to work.

That leaves Aneirinn's single sentence as the only bolded delete, citing WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH without engaging a single source. The nomination itself was procedural. Cryptic was the only one who actually looked closely at the sourcing and made the most substantive comment in the thread. They called the CNN piece on the 2024 Coldplay ticket controversy the best of what they'd reviewed, but nobody engaged with what that source actually shows toward notability. Cryptic said as much here too, noting they were surprised it wasn't relisted.

When participation is this thin, my sense is relisting is the right call, not a hard close. I'd favor vacating and letting the current sourcing get weighed properly. If a full AfD still ends in delete, that's a fair outcome, but i don't think that evaluation happened here. EmilyR34 (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

My guess is it wasn't relisted because of this title's rather chequered history. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 18:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

My nomination is not "procedural" in the sense that I'm neutral on the outcome. I hold the substantive opinion that pretty much every single article that was created by WP:GAMENAMEing should be deleted (I would prefer there were a speedy criterion for this, but there's not so I have to make do with G4 and AfD) * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 16:34, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. The close was still framed as NCORP consensus, not G4, though, and that consensus isn't there in the thread. EmilyR34 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse: I'm surprised by those saying a relist is warranted. This AfD received little participation, but had no support for retention in the 7 days that it ran (in fact it ran over by an extra twelve hours going by the timestamps). WP:SILENCE qualifies here as nobody opposed the deletion outright. An issue was identified by the nominator and further notability issues were identified later on. This leaves deletion as the only correct close. 11WB 💬 21:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Silence implies consent when nobody engages with a proposal at all. That's not what happened here. Cryptic did engage, closely, and their conclusion wasn't silence, it was "undecided whether that's better done in mainspace or back in draft." That's a stated position, and it falls short of endorsing deletion rather than simply failing to object to it. Reading it as tacit support for delete is, i think, a specific interpretive choice, not something SILENCE settles on its own.

I'd also ask what "further notability issues were identified later on" refers to. As far as I can tell from the AfD, nobody added source analysis beyond Cryptic's initial skim, and nobody engaged with the CNN piece Cryptic flagged as the best of what they'd reviewed. If there's something later in the discussion i'm missing, i'd genuinely like to see it, since that's the gap my relist argument actually turns on. EmilyR34 (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Do I really need to explain this in further detail? (Also something is wrong with the reply button, as it didn't open under this message.) 11WB 💬 08:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Fixed the reply issue. For second paragraphs, use a double colon, not a bullet point colon, as this breaks the ability to reply. I've added links to answer your question on what I meant by that quote. I disagree with you on SILENCE. It says "Consensus can be presumed until disagreement becomes evident." Nobody formally disagreed with deletion, therefore it was the right close, meaning a relist would not have been appropriate. As I said in the edit summary, I've little interest in having a discussion about this. There's nothing to pick apart, this is an extremely uncontroversial close. Thanks. 11WB 💬 08:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, but I think those are the same two comments that my original comment already addressed, rather than anything new. I won't press further, just didn't want the point sitting unclarified. EmilyR34 (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

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

This was my draft originally, but I believe a random IP editor moved it into the namespace without notifying me. I'd like in undeleted and draftified. Crystalite13 (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• (The page was actually moved by Slinetum, not a random IP editor). Nevertheless I would decline this request as the community has twice decided KreekCraft isn't notable so draftification would be futile. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 05:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  More sources could spring up in the future, I see no major downside to a draft. Crystalite13 (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• I've updated the header here to point at the controlling afd, as one does for g4s, but there was some minimal discussion at the aborted afd at WP:Articles for deletion/KreekCraft (YouTuber) as well. —Cryptic 06:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Decline per Pppery. The article (at KreekCraft) was deleted many times, last in 2025. WP:AKON applies, and no draft needs to be worked on without irrefutable proof new sources emerged proving notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. This seems to be a situation similar to WP:BFDI or others in WP:DRPR - subject with massive niche popularity but a lack of notability in society at large. Letting a draft be worked on with zero chance it will ever be accepted veers into WP:NOTWEBHOST. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and decline draftification. More sources could spring up in the future is an even weaker argument than WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. I'll tell the appellant what I usually say in such cases: create a well-sourced stub, preferably via AfC, and we'll restore the deleted history behind it if requested. Draftspace is meant for active work on a page, not as temporary storage in hopeful anticipation of new sources. Owen× ☎ 09:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, decline draftification. This subject has a history of multiple deletions, recreations, SALT evasion; in both draft and mainspace. Multiple discussions and draft reviews have failed to find enough sourcing to merit an article, and while any individual creation, AfC submission, or move may be done in good faith, the net effect is tendentious. As a practical matter, there is now a (new) draft created by someone else at Draft:KreekCraft; the sourcing is not impressive. That draft is not in scope of discussion here, but we certainly don't need 2 duelling drafts. To appellant - if you want to work on this article, I'd suggest first finding 1-2 reliable sources and adding them to that draft. If and only if such sources exist, then trying to resurrect best-of multiple deleted drafts *might* make sense -- though even then, just rewriting from scratch using those good sources may be preferable. But absent such sources, any draft is going to get deleted, and with the tendentious history, we aren't going to keep a draft around just in case better sources appear in the future. Martinp (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse close of second AFD as Delete (although the appellant may not be appealing this), Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse salting of disambiguated title, which was an attempt at gaming the title. The other draft with the unnecessary disambiguation can be left alone, and will be declined if submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Consider ECP protection of KreekCraft as protection against move of draft, while draft can still be reviewed by qualified reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
  • It's already admin-salted, and given the evasion here I'd been planning on blacklisting besides. Barring an extreme turnaround of this discussion, of course. —Cryptic 17:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse deletions. Consensus against this topic is clear. A draft is at Draft:KreekCraft. Is anything different is the deleted page requested for draftification? Competing drafts are a bad idea. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • It was a good deal longer - you could've inferred that from the length field in the handy new "revisions" link in the header - and had 17 refs. If I had to choose one to keep in draftspace, the deleted version's the clear winner. But its existence isn't going to stop me from blacklisting, nor putting scarily-worded {{AFC comment}}s on whichever survives even if no admin's willing to ignore enough rules to make it a redlink. —Cryptic 23:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Support SALTing the mainspace title, as a clear message that the only path to an article is via reviewer approval through WP:AfC process, or a successful appeal to an admin. Having looked deeper, I think there is no chance of an acceptable Wikipedia article, and people like User:Jishara below need this clear message. Their proffered sources are not suitable, being not independent of the subject as one reason. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• The situation's rather worse than I'd thought, at least in draftspace - there's attempts going back to at least 26 August 2016 - though also a distressing number of affected usernames. So I'm going to join the chorus of endorse and decline draftification. Guess we're going to have to mfd the existing draft, too. "Wait for better refs to be created later!" isn't a reasonable ask when we've been doing that for ten years already. —Cryptic 23:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. A draft being moved to article space and AfD-deleted just means that an article was deleted. Its prior history as a draft is completely unimportant. In no way does this type of scenario suggest undeleting the deleted article to draft. It does not matter who had moved the draft to article space.—Alalch E. 20:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose salting - this is a subject which active new info is coming out on - in fact, in the last few months, multiple new sources with SigCov have popped up (list of sources with sigcov includes Tubefilter, Variety, tubefilter again, Tubefilter 3, Tubefilter 4: Electric Boogaloo, Dexerto, Dexerto again, Dexerto 3: Electric Boogaloo, Dexerto 4, and Dexerto 5, and that interview from Youtube Official Blog.) An article on him now should get through GNG, so because of this I oppose salting the subject. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Multiple publications from the same imprint only count as one source for notability purposes, so at best there's only three sources, at least one of which (WP:DEXERTO) is unreliable. Left guide (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

G.S.K. Velu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Everyone participating in the discussion is now blocked for UPE and/or sockpuppetry. The closer would've had no way of knowing about this (earliest blocks were at 21:33 on 3 April 2026, while the discussion was closed at 13:33 on 3 April 2026). The page's status should be re-evaluated in light of this new information. Staraction (talk · contribs) 02:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Vacate AfD and allow early renomination. Did this require a DRV? Katzrockso (talk) 02:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Katzrockso: thought it was probably best to at least try and list a DRV, since this case is written in WP:DRVPURPOSE as #3, and the close is within 6 months old. No objection to closing this DRV early as SNOW, of course. Staraction (talk · contribs) 02:39, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Early Renom without prejudice endorsed No action needed from us here, just note the UPE blocks of the first AfD participants as a good reason for the timing... which isn't particularly early in any event. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• This needs protecting after renominating I don't think it matters what we do with the old afd, it clearly cannot stand. Let me know when it's renominated and I'll ECR the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Unlikely to accomplish much. Two of the blocked accounts were extended confirmed (one with 16k edits!), and the third was well on the way. —Cryptic 17:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

    one can but try. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus Vacate. While the closing admin couldn't have known about the UPE/sock status, he did know the nomination didn't qualify for a "speedy keep" close under WP:CSK. That vote should have been discarded, not counted as a "keep". This would have left the closer with a nom to delete and two Keeps - not enough to do anything other than relist. Owen× ☎ 10:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Allow "early" re-nomination. This does not require DRV approval (a note in the nomination at the second AFD would be enough to avoid the speedy/procedural keep votes that come with some "early" renominations), but I do not fault the appellant for seeking clarification. All keep supporters were later blocked indefinitely. The closer was correct based on the information known at the time (either a "keep" close or a relist would have been reasonable). Frank Anchor 15:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see how two Keep !votes, legitimate as they were seen at the time, amount to a consensus. Owen× ☎ 17:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I sometimes accept two really good votes for a consensus or where the outcome is very clear but 2:1 isn't a great consensus. I would take a speedy keep as a flat keep as long as it cites a valid policy basis. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, if they provide a valid CSK-based argument. But if they vote "speedy keep" and then talk about the notability of the subject, it's clear that their familiarity with our P&G is tenuous at best. I have no reason to assume they understand SIGCOV any more than they do our deletion policies. Owen× ☎ 18:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Allow and Encourage speedy renomination. The blocks taint the prior discussion and mean that the consensus was likely illusory. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Let's formally vacate this, and note that in the little-used |result= parameter in {{delrevxfd}} on the old afd so there's no question of what's going on during the new nomination. No consensus would be incorrect; that's an outcome with a result (even if the result is to do nothing), and with what we know now there shouldn't have been an outcome at all. —Cryptic 17:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Fair enough. The Keep close was incorrect even knowing what was known at the time. But that is now moot. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have no objection to this, either. My initial proposal was an attempt to do the least un-doing necessary to get a clean result the second time around. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Vacate and allow renomination, given the circumstances. For the record, I don't agree with Owen's assessment that the close was incorrect at the time, but that is indeed moot. Martinp (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Vacate the AfD as tainted. Allow early renomination, but follow advice in WP:RENOM on providing a better nomination. “the sources are just passing mentions” is false. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Vacate, and do what Cryptic suggested. And do nothing else. Do not mention an "early" renomination or anything similar to allowing a renomination in the close of this deletion review, because it is superfluous and meaningless.—Alalch E. 20:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

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

Last AFD was closed as merge in May. At the time of closure the subject was only known for founding a satire political movement and all of the coverage for the subject was based on the that single event. Hence a standalone article was not justified. Now the entire scenario has completely changed due to the major things happening in Indian politics. Now the subject is not only known as a founder of satire party. The 2026 Delhi Jantar Mantar protests was initiated by him. Reliable sources such as Reuters describe him as the most recognisable figure in the Genz protests in India. Apart from this many sources exists in multiple languages which were published after the last AFD closure in May. , , , , , are some examples of reliable sources giving enough coverage for the subject to meet GNG. Also as per WP:1E, when an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. From the above coverage it is understandable that the role of the subject in the 2026 Genz protests is very significant. The subject is also described by the sources as someone who was able to lead a successful protest against the current Indian government in the last 12 years which even the opposition could not do. Because of all the above said reasons, I believe a standalone article is justifed at the moment and request for the restoration of it into mainspace rather than keeping as a redirect. Regards. Thilsebatti (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse and procedurally close as wrong venue. The appellant isn't contesting the May decision to merge. They're using DRV to gain support for spinning out the merged content, after failing to win an edit war that brought them to the brink of 3RR. I advised the appellant to continue the spinout discussion on the article's Talk page, but they chose instead to bring this editorial issue here. Owen× ☎ 15:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  I hope you are assuming good faith here. I was only trying to follow the criteria no 4 of DRV which states if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page. The only difference here is that the page was merged not deleted. Thilsebatti (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment to @OwenX:: Is there a more appropriate venue to discuss the new coverage? ... discospinster _talk 16:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    Simply un-redirect it and add all the new coverage as a BOLD move. If it's reverted, then discuss on the talk page why spinning it out isn't appropriate. This is the beauty of redirection: You can see what's there, and even if a poor attempt to spin something out again is unsuccessful (reverted & not supported by consensus) it still is there in history for the next person to look at and add to later, if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    As I mentioned, they've already tried that--three times, and were reverted each time, by editors they describe as "vandals". We are now at the "D" stage of the BRD cycle. Owen× ☎ 16:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    I haven't yet studied the articles, but the mention of Yelling Vandalism to "win" a dispute caught my eye. If there are repeated reverts of good-faith edits stating that they are reverting vandalism, that is a personal attack on the good-faith editor who is being reverted excessively. I will review the articles, but will also restate what you already knew, which is (1) do not Yell Vandalism when there is no vandalism, (2) sometimes Yelling Vandalism really does call for a short block. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    The revert does not appear to have been of "vandalism" but of "possible vandalism" by ClueBotNG, which is one of the rare cases where artificial intelligence is useful, and which is not a personal attack and is not made by a person. The other quick takeaway from the history is that there was too much disruption by temporary accounts until earlier on 26 July when the title was semiprotected (as a redirect) for three months due to disruption by temporary accounts. Thanks for the admin action of semiprotection. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    As we both know, the article's Talk page is the normal venue for editorial discussions, including SPINOUT proposals. A discussion has already started there, but the appellant chose to short-circuit it by bringing the issue to DRV. Owen× ☎ 16:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    @OwenX: I wouldn't characterize it this way. When looking at the article talk page discussion, the appellant asked how to settle the dispute and was told by multiple editors (with no stances to the contrary) to come here, so it seems unfair to pin the blame solely on the appellant who seems to be simply following advice given by others. Left guide (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC) Looks like one of those comments was made after this DRV was filed, but my point still remains in reference to the first of those comments. Left guide (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    @Left guide: fair point, but it was the appellant's choice to take their advice over mine. In any case, I'm glad to see the edit war has now given way to a civilized debate, and believe there's nothing else that needs to be done here at DRV. Owen× ☎ 20:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

    sadly you spoke too soon Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

From a procedural perspective if you are going to raise a DRV you should notify the closing admin and not leave it to others to do your work for you. I see nothing wrong with my close so I'm not entirely sure what we are here to discuss. I warned the appellant on Owen's talk page to be careful around NOTNEWS. Maybe we need a new NOT - DRV is not there to help you win an edit war. This matter should be left to the consensus of editors working on the merge target. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• No action. This is a potential conduct issue (potential stonewalling-type edit warring, contrary to WP:BLAR). I have restored the article according to my independent editorial judgment. If disruptions to the normal editorial process recur, things can be discussed on the article talk page, and if problems escalate, things can be discussed at WP:ANEW/WP:ANI. This is not DRV business.—Alalch E. 19:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  hang-on, this being discussed and so far there is no consensus to spin the article out and the view is that it's the same as what was redirected. Let consensus work it's way rather than rewarding someone for sidestepping an ongoing discussion. I put the redirect back until there is a consensus otherwise, which I'm doing as an administrative action Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't need consensus to boldly recreate an article. You cannot enforce a blank-and-redirect after a recreation. You would have to start an AfD. You have no special authority over content as an administrator. Restored. —Alalch E. 21:13, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  are you seriously revert warring during a DRV about that very location. That's very bold and I suggest you put it back immediately. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  You are overstepping and claiming admin authority over content matters, and are incorrectly enforcing a blank-and-redirect after a recreation with objectively different content and sources. This means that you have added the problem of your inappropriate conduct to this situation, instead of bringing clarity where it was already lacking. Other administrators should stop you if you continue. —Alalch E. 21:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is a contentious topic so revert yourself now or I shall escalate to a drama board. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate that it is a contentious topic, but recreation is a part of the normal editorial process, and by recreating in the way that I did (objectively, there is an appreciable difference in content and sources) I have followed established editorial practices. There are no restrictions on recreating articles belonging to contentious topics. —Alalch E. 21:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive359#Request concerning Alalch E. You have already been warned about revert warring instead of discussing. This is very bold and extremely disruptive. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  If there were a textbook, that would be a textbook example, and is an interesting example, of an incident from which no conclusions beyond that incident should be drawn. The editor being reported was warned. The editor making the report was reminded. The editor making the report was subsequently banned by ArbCom. No conclusions should be drawn beyond the incident. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is not the same CT, and M.Bitton was an exceptionally problematic editor who was subsequently arbcom-banned for the same kind of uncollaborative tendency that had induced him to stonewall and then report me. I am a moral winner there, and it’s very important that you as an administrator are able to apply some perspective and understand this. —Alalch E. 21:48, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  fine. AE it is then Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can we please wait with AE? I'd like to hear Alalch's response to my comment below. There's no need to rush this. Owen× ☎ 21:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, multiple editors have asked him to restrain himself and he has doubled down and is disrupting the DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Recreating articles is an area of ocassional misunderstanding among editors, and administrators should bring structure and clarity by pointing editors to AfD. AfD is where a dispute around an article being/not being live is handled in a structured format. What the errant re-redirecters before you—and then you—were doing is just avoiding the issue being properly discussed, which is at AfD. Instead of, at worst, another AfD, we have a DRV that was incorrectly recommended and which cannot do anything, and now your additionally time-wasting AE topic. —Alalch E. 22:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Alalch E. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Alalch E.: While the page isn't under 1RR/BRD restrictions, I see this edit war as an unnecessary escalation in what was, until now, a civilized debate. I have full confidence in your independent editorial judgment, but once your edit has been reverted, rightly or not, re-reverting it can no longer be claimed as merely BOLD, but comes across as belligerent. Even if sources support an article where there was a redirect, I see no urgency to do so while this DRV is open. The last revision that had a community consensus behind it was the 08:29, 29 May 2026 AfD close - the redirect. Once this DRV is closed, I--and I'm sure Spartaz too--will have no problem with you using your best editorial judgement on that page. Until then, let's abide by the 29 May consensus status quo. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  +1 ~2026-41690-01 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is a disbalance between creation-type edits which cause pages to be added/become live and deletion proper+deletion-type edits. A single editor can, is authorized, to add a page, and then the community may decide to remove it. In contrast, a single editor may not remove; they have one shot to try a WP:BLAR, but a BLAR can be contested, and it is not contested by talking—it is contested by reverting, and then the editor who wants to remove the page needs to start the process to get the community's backing for their initiative. This structural imbalance exists because Wikipedia's mission is being an encyclopedia (that is built of artcles), and wrongly removing an article actively and directly hinders this mission whereas adding an article that is not as good as it would need to be, does not fit as nicely with other articles as we would want it, etc., does not hinder the mission so directly. There are other reasons for the structural imbalance. This is why recreation is both technically possible and permitted and why BLAR is one-shot … and we could also say that it has to do with administrators not havng control over content (and in connection to that, with how restrictive speedy deletion is). So my last edit was done consistent with BLAR and was done with the correct spirit, and I do not consider it belligerent. —Alalch E. 22:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

  You were restoring an edit on a CT that has already been rejected and was being discussed. You can't justify that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse: Multiple SPA and paid accounts are trying to promote the Subject. Also it's henious to see how non admins paid users are recklessly reverting admins here. Clear case of meat puppetry and coordinated editing; requesting this article to be salted aka admin protected so that only admins can decide how to deal with this paid spam. I am pretty sure that this a serious case of WP:UPE, otherwise non admins paid editors and SPAs would never have been so obsessed to promote this WP:1E spam. ~2026-41825-02 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

You should mention which are these nultiple SPA and paid accounts who trying to promote the subject rather than just simply coming and cast aspersions. You are simply trying to deviate the topic. Nobody has raised concerns of UPE here other than one IP randomly appearing from somewhere and casting aspersions. If you think meatpuppetry is involved, open SPI. And for the information of admins it is clearly visible only one IP has been constantly trying to make sure that this article never gets published in the maispace. Multiple editors including myself have been only trying to restore this into mainspace out of good faith. You have been simply calling this spam. How can you say it spam without showing evidence. If socking is involved, open SPI rather than accusing others in the middle of a discussion.Thilsebatti (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Continued edit-warring, let alone in the middle of a DRV, is unacceptable (and this has been a chronic pattern involving several users) so I've fully-protected for a week. Any uninvolved admin can feel free to remove w/o asking if/when this DRV is resolved or they're otherwise convinced there's consensus for a certain action. Left guide (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Endorse the result of the AfD, as it correctly assessed the consensus in the AfD discussion. There is no need to overturn that result.

As for whether a new article should be created, that is a separate matter. I thought DRV typically stated that there is no need to come here to get permission to recreate an article; that editors may boldly recreate an article (subject to AfD again). I don't see why this often-given advice is not pertinent here. As a matter of policy, WP:SPLIT discussions are typically the ideal method to reverse a merge achieved by consensus, but bold recreation isn't forbidden or even discouraged by policy (and indeed WP:NOTBURO would suggest preferable in certain circumstances). Katzrockso (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

The bold recreation was reverted and that discussion is ongoing Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

And as I noted at WP:AE, the policy that guides us as to what to do in these circumstances is WP:BLAR which states that the resulting new article should be discussed at WP:AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Bold recreation that disrespects consensus (per the closure at the AfD) within six months of the closure is too soon. XfD consensus deserves a minimum six months of respect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree within normal circumstances. When something changes (e.g. new coverage, new election, etc), this can occasionally warrant recreation before the 6 month period of good advice. Katzrockso (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but to make it reasonable, versus asking us to review endless weak new mentions as often happens, ask the proponent to nominate no more than three new sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it was necessary to take this to DRV. I think bringing the new article to AfD would have been the better choice, where the previous AfD could have been notified. Katzrockso (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse as the correct closure of the AFD to Merge or Redirect. The appellant is making the common error of thinking that DRV decides when a person or topic that was previously found not to be notable enough for a stand-alone article has become notable. There are two good-faith errors playing out here. The first is the idea that DRV is the forum to take new facts and new notability into account, and that is why we are here. The second, now at Arbitration Enforcement, is the idea that replacing a redirect that was redirected by AFD, and then edit-warring the redirect, is the way to force a new AFD, We also see three different methods being tried to create an article when a previous AFD was closed as Redirect. I think that there is a fourth method that should be tried.
• 1. Discuss at the parent article talk page.
• 2. DRV (this DRV).
• 3. Revert the redirection to restore an article to try to force a new AFD.
• 4. Submit a draft for review via AFC.

Method 1 is in progress, but is only discussion. This DRV is method 2 and is a good-faith effort, but is a commonly held misconception about DRV. Method 3 is now at Arbitration Enforcement. This DRV should be closed as endorsing the original close, and the appellant should submit a draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. The AfD closed on 29 May 2026 was properly run and closed. Respect it for at least six months. After that, the proper place to seek to demonstrate consensus to reverse the decision and make a new WP:SPINOUT is at Talk:Cockroach Janta Party, the talk page of the redirect target. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  User:Thilsebatti wrote: if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page? OK. Per advice at WP:THREE, what are the new sources, three maximum. If you offer more than three I won’t read any of them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  There are discussions at Talk:Abhijeet Dipke. That is the wrong venue. Those discussions should be moved to Talk:Cockroach Janta Party.

  Talk:Abhijeet Dipke is a very low profile venue. The talk page of a redirect is for discussing a redirect. Editors interested in the content should be active at Talk:Cockroach Janta Party.

  At the very least, post a link at Talk:Cockroach Janta Party, but in the end, consensus to perform a WP:SPINOUT needs to be established at Talk:Cockroach Janta Party. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for your response. I have already mentioned the best three sources in my opening statement. Now while writing this one more source has came out from NYT . Even if this DRV is closed as endorse due to procedural concerns, I hope someone other than me would initiate a discussion to bring the article to mainspace. If media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Regards. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I read your first three links. WP:BIO1E applies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  I already explained how the subject is notable by integrating WP:BIO1E. WP:BIO1E states that in considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. I have already explained how the subject's role has grown larger, because of which a seperate standalone article is justifed at the moment. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but it’s not really larger, it’s all the same narrative with the CJP.

  I have also read your latest it offering, NYT “The Accidental Hero …” July 26. It is only about Dipke in connection to the CJP plus close-perspective promotion. This is not good coverage for a Wikipedia article. It is not an obvious SPINOUT, and even if it were, coverage of Dipke at the redirect target is very brief. I ENDORSE the redirect and tell you to leave the standalone article alone for six months. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Followed proper citation format for Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia. A tool found a rehosted Wikipedia article and admin did no verification. This was previously undeleted twice so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2026_May_22 This makes me sad. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LizeLive (talk • contribs)

• Question - Exactly what is being requested? There is a draft, and it has not been deleted. I don't think that the appellant really needs Deletion Review again, but is there some sort of help that the appellant needs or wants? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Astrawiki3203 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

This user is an extremely active LTA, having been WMF banned just a week ago. Not all of their socks use obvios usernames such as "Astro is banned", given that their modus operandi also involves creating sleepers that are sometimes only revealed in range checks from their SPI. The fact that Astrawiki3203 seems to want this LTA page means next-to-nothing- Grawp also wanted his LTA page, but it was found that does not mean that WP:DENY overrules all the reasons to have a subpage for an active LTA- not only that, but users that got their LTA subpages deleted due to WP:DENY, such as Johnny the Vandal and Willy on Wheels have sometimes become even MORE prolific, due to the Streisand Effect and the inherent infamy in a user becoming so annoying that Wikipedia tries to remove any trace of their existence. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

What are you asking for? The page was deleted G5 as created by banned user and then create protected. Are you asking for it to be undeleted? That doesn't align with your nomination so I'm confuzzled. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. (1) From the information available to me, this would appear to be a valid G5 that should certainly not be overturned. (2) Making a page exist again after a previous, G5-eligible page at that name was deleted never requires overturning the G5, and if undeletion is sought, as opposed to recreation, the question is always—why. (3) The nominator did not talk with the deleting admin. (4) LTA pages should not be treated as any other page and should not be brought to general forums including DRV; instead, the status of these pages should always be discussed more "internally", among the users who work with those pages the most, and only if there is some serious dispute concerning the deletion policy should such pages be brought up for discussion.—Alalch E. 09:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. Valid use of the deletion criteria, and I cannot ascertain an argument here for why it shouldn't have. This absolutely did not need to rise to the level of DRV, at no point was this discussed (or even notified properly) by the filer on the deleting admin's talk page. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse This is a clear G5. – LuniZunie_(talk) 15:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Endorse - Deletion rationale was clearly correct and I see no good reason for that page to be retained from the time of its creation. ~SG5536B 15:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I think that Long-Term Abuse files, like sockpuppet investigations, should be managed by checkusers and SPI clerks, and have said this previously. I have not tried to study whether this was a valid speedy deletion, or whether it should be salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed, although I suspect this isn't the place to decide that. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• comment we have a socking problem on this page so I have applied ECR Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:18, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable, with the possible exception that appellants should be able to comment freely. Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 Open Araba en Femenino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

There was no clear consensus to keep here. Essentially, we can presume that the nominator is still in favour of deletion, since they never withdrew. The one 'keep' argument cited a Wiki Project guideline page, which itself says This is a WikiProject advice page on notability. It contains the advice of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. This page is not a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. In my opinion, citing this as a sole reason to keep an article is a very weak argument. There were no other editors in favour of keeping at all. The AfD was closed by a non-admin with little experience in closing AfDs. It may even have been a WP:SUPERVOTE rather than a proper neutral close, in which case they should have registered a keep !vote instead of closing the discussion.

I would prefer for this close to be vacated and the discussion reopened. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Done. I reverted the incorrect NAC, and reopened the AfD per WP:REOPEN. At this point, I would normally close this DRV as moot, but there seems to be some grumble about my early closes, so I'll leave this open, although I'm not quite sure to what end. Owen× ☎ 20:32, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Reopen/moot, i.e. I endorse the action Owen has already (speedily) taken. An article credibly nominated for deletion, with the nomination not withdrawn, and the discussion consisting of only one keep only weakly engaging with policy, is not suited for a Keep close. Especially one day after a relist. Absent that relist, a NC close would have been defensible (but not really helpful as a NAC). With it, the NAC seems most likely to be a well-intentioned (super)vote by someone inexperienced in deletion discussions; relisting speedily is a sensible solution. Martinp (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Deleted in January 2021 due to lack of notability. Since the deletion, a variety of sources cropped up. Here's a list of the reliable ones that I've found (per WP:VG/S):

• http://www.jeuxvideo.com/test/619203/everlasting-summer-enfile-ta-chapka-camarade.htm
• https://www.igromania.ru/article/33548/anatomiya-strasti-luchshie-igryi-na-den-vlyublyonnyih
• https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/07/steam-data-leak-reveals-precise-player-count-for-thousands-of-games
• https://www.igromania.ru/news/161485/soviet-games-anonsirovala-beskonechnoe-leto-2-sikvel-kultovoj-vizualnoj-novellyi
• https://www.igromania.ru/news/161530/avtoryi-beskonechnogo-leta-2-otvergayut-obvineniya-v-ispolzovanii-nejrosetej

Please undelete and draftify the page. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 15:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close. You didn’t ask Eddie891. @Eddie891: Hi, please undelete to draft and close this per WP:DRVPURPOSE#4. It will not count as an overturn of your close. Igromania.ru is a reliable source (former print vg mag). Subject can be broadened to cover both games in a single article.—Alalch E. 16:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  I’m out of town camping, so not well situated to take action here, but it seems like the article has already been restored at User:Electricmemory/Everlasting Summer. Work can be done there, or that moved to draft space, I imagine. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. Log entry for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=169255015
  —Alalch E. 17:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Law & Crime (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

This article passes WP:NCORP and there was no consensus to redirect. Keep votes outnumbered redirect votes but were dismissed by the closer for being "less grounded in policy" despite being "valid and logical".

Two redirect votes claimed the article lacked in-depth and independent sources, which is false when you look at the article. None of the sources are affiliated with the company, and plenty of them contained significant coverage. G13 vs G14 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Weak endorse. There is a 3-3 split between retaining and not retaining the article, but AFD is not a headcount. The keep voters asserted a pass of GNG/NCORP without presenting sources to back up their claim, while the nom and redirect votes provided more P&G-based depth. Frank Anchor 16:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I agree with Frank Anchor that the bare claims of passing NCORP carry little if any weight in the face of critical source analysis. However, Nathannah readily admits that The entity passes NCORP, weakening her own Redirect !vote. Despite the popularity of WP:TNT, there is no policy support for deletion as means of improving a poorly written article that isn't subject to CSD. Phrases such as, WP:TNT is needed are contradictory to policies like WP:ATD-E and WP:EP. This leaves us with a solid nom, and HighKing's Redirect, both well anchored in P&G, but not enough for a consensus to do anything in the face of multiple objections. This wasn't an easy AfD to close, and I applaud Gommeh for doing a thorough job of weighing the different arguments. I wouldn't call this a BADNAC. I'm sure there are many admins who would have closed it the same way. Owen× ☎ 17:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• No opinion here; I am ok with whatever happens here, but I do stand by my decisionAFD is not a headcount (there's a reason why when speaking, you're supposed to pronounce "!vote" as "not-vote"). In my eyes, the redirect !votes carried more weight in terms of consensus. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. I think Nathannah's comment is not contrary to policy and should be given some weight. If nothing currently in the article is appropriate content then redirection is a valid editorial decision even if a full rewrite is possible. Also no user who asserted that NCORP was met identified which sources met the criterion. Redirect is a better read of the discussion than No Consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse I suspect if an actual admin had closed this then there would be less dispute and this is a challenging afd to close. I don't see anything fundamentally off with it so would endorse as in discretion but would suggest to the closer to leave ones like this to an ain as after all, we get the big bucks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I commented in the discussion but did not vote, IDK if that makes me involved or not. The votes for redirect did not explain how it failed NCORP except asserting that it did, and it was otherwise exactly even; poor arguments all around. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, one of the redirect !votes substantively argued the topic passes NCORP… —Alalch E. 21:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  You don't need to provide evidence that it fails a notability guideline; instead the onus is on editors who wish to keep the article to prove that it passes the guideline, which they failed to do. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  That isn't true. There is no such onus. On top of there not being such a thing, and more importantly, articles can be deleted or redirected or kept entirely agnostically to the issue of notability. Notability is advisory (roughly so, because its criteria are a very imperfect, rough approximation of the application of core content policies) and an optional consideration. Consensus is not. —Alalch E. 21:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I never said consensus was optional; on that I think we agree that it's clearly not. I'm done with this conversation, as I think if I continue explaining myself here it might go in a direction neither of us would really want it to, and it's likely better for my mental health anyway since I've had a long day. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 22:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  As I said, poor arguments all around. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn WP:BADNAC (vacate). The discussion was contentious and the close was likely to be controversial. An admin should close according to that admin's reading of the discussion. —Alalch E. 21:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to No Consensus, not as bad non-admin close, but simply as a close that doesn't reflect (the lack of) consensus. I disagree with the closer's discounting of the Keeps; I don't know exactly what further coverage would have been needed. Sometimes there isn't a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Sarcastic question - Spartaz says: I suspect if an actual admin had closed this then there would be less dispute. Is there any other sort of admin? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  oooh that's excellent pedantry! Bravo Robert. Lol. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus Note my vote was a redirect, not a deletion or keep, where I felt it met NCORP if sources could be found and I stated my hope for such (especially after the CourtTV acquisition which usually draws WP:TV interest in a RESCUE, but is muddled here because this product is mainly online), but we really only had a couple of other edits to the article from the review nominator that did add those sources after my vote, and usually I'd think that someone would come along and add more, but that didn't happen, and I am always receptive to changing my vote if an article is properly rewritten or a better target is found. This could've done with one more AfD relist cycle, though I don't know if we would've gotten any more movement, but I didn't feel there was enough consensus to decide on a redirect. Nathannah • 📮 22:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. It was a BADNAC, being tough call, being contentious as proved in hindsight by this DRV, but it was the right call. It should have been left for an admin. I hesitated only because of

“Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2026

which is very very short a !vote, but when I look at the edits between nomination and closure, it’s just fine detail tracking of the company activities, no commentary, not good enough.

User:Nathannah undermined their own !vote, but User:Timtrent and User:HighKing were clear and correct. The article does not deserved the benefit of “no consensus” given the reference bombing of churnalism, exactly as per Timtrent’s nomination. If anyone wants resurrect the article, take it to draftspace and read advice at WP:THREE.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I follow @Bearian:'s comments closely as their analysis is usually on point and a good pointer to where the actual policy sits. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I did not undermine my vote, I simply asked for more sources to prove this met NCORP and that the article needed help. Nathannah • 📮 17:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Asserting “The entity passes NCORP” without evidence or explanation makes you look like a verbose variation on “Keep as under WP:NCORP its notability is beyond question. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2026”. That might be harsh, but the question of NCORP was asked and went unanswered, which left your !vote looking at least confusing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I still don't see how there is a "reference bombing of churnalism". Everything seems reasonably cited to me. There's not more than 2 refs on any statement; how is that refbombing? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

45 references, including “Dan Abrams launches LawNewz website”. Reference bombing and churnalism are obvious. It was flooded with uninterested referenced information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

45 references does not equate to churnalism or refbombing; how does this match anything at WP:REFBOMB? I don't see any problem with saying that they launched a website, though that specific article might not be sigcov. Not every single reference has to be "interesting". If interestingness is a requirement for GNG I never got the memo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I saw that between June 22, when this two-day-old article was nominated, and July 1, when I popped in, it had been very much improved. Thank you, Spartaz, for your support. I'm not going to go through every single edit, but overall it's much better. I don't recall that any other non-BLP requires every single thing to be perfectly sourced. I'm the first editor to call out an organization that has a badly written and sourced article. It's not a big deal for me. However, I do want to give kudos to the editors who tried to rescue this. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  You also have my support. I also thank those who “tried”, but my advice to them: when the rationale for deletion starts with reference bombing and churnalism, adding more material of low significance and more sources is not persuasive. When the best NCORP-meeting sources aren’t good enough, more worse sources doesn’t help but hurts. Instead, focus on what is good about the two or three best sources, or other NCORP claims. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Again, what is refbombing here per WP:REFBOMB? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Reference bombing is putting in many references sourcing non-significant content.

  Reference bombing appears like a WP:GAME to intimidate reviewers, although I don’t believe it is actually true. I think the problem is that newcomers are not told clearly enough that it is the two or three best sources that establish that the topic meets the Wikipedia-threshold, and that if the best three sources aren’t good enough, more worse sources won’t help. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn Per Alalch E. as too contentious per a NAC, and per OwenX on the merits. Good discussion. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
• Weak endorse When someone advocates for not retaining a page based on a lack of appropriate sourcing, some effort ought to be made to rebut the assertion. It is helpful for editors who advocate to keep the article to point out 1-3 sources in the discussion that meet our standards (especially if the nominator points out that the references in the article are simple press releases). And second, while all comments need to be evaluated fairly, trends after a relist are important too. In this case, the only comment after the second relist was to redirect the article, so while that comment should not be over-emphasized, it does align with the overall direction of the discussion. My weak qualifier is that this wasn't an easy discussion to close and probably should have been left to an admin. --Enos733 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse Even without the more liberal interpretation of implied WP:NOPAGE we appear to be moving towards in assessing AfD discussions, this was a reasoable close - keep arguments were little more than waves. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Nonsensical CfD outcome. Target is a container category and the outcome does not align with any of the !votes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

the outcome does not align with any of the !votes is false; Mclay's vote suggested precisely this outcome.

On the merits, prior to its deletion, Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland was the only member of Category:Medical scandals in Ireland. The close was therefore equivalent to delete Category:Medical scandals in Ireland; add Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Medical scandals by country, which is both entirely sane (who needs two Ireland categories?) and reflective of the consensus in the discussion. Speedy endorse. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

If so, the correct target would be Category:Medical scandals. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland belongs in Category:Medical scandals by country, not Category:Medical scandals. The target was entirely correct. Regards, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

No, because we can't merge articles to a container category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

No articles were merged to a container category, because Category:Medical scandals in Ireland did not contain any articles. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• "merge Category:Medical scandals in Ireland to Category:Medical scandals by country" is a nonsense closure; the latter is a container category and should not have any articles. But what appears to have been done is merging Category:Medical scandals in Ireland to Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland. That seems less offensive. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Withdraw !vote. I am inclined to trust Users:HouseBlaster; Extraordinary Writ; and Jclemens. User:LaundryPizza03 appears to have been sufficiently answered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Reopen BADNAC. This is a reasonable contest of the close. More discussion is necessary. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

If you want, I can take over this close as an admin because it was spot-on. I don't think a contest can be described as reasonable when it contains a demonstrably untrue statement. Regards, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

User:HouseBlaster, yes please, and demonstrate a more convincing closing summary.

Was the target a container category? Is that an issue? I for one find the CfD a challenge to understand. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

A closing statement should reflect consensus, not explain why that consensus is a good idea.

To answer your question: Yes, this is merging to a container category. WP:CONTAINER says that container categories may only contain other categories. Merging to a container category would be a problem if the old category had regular pages in it. In this case, there were not regular pages, so merging to a container was perfectly acceptable. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I know what a closing statement is. A better closing statement could be written. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it within the scope of DRV to review the quality of closing statements? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course it is. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. Correct finding of consensus, participation normal for CfD, non-admin closure is widely considered normal there too. The nomination is wrong on the facts, based in incomplete facts, and the nomination's arguments are wrong on multiple levels (every conceivable level). This DRV is going to be such a waste of time with the non-CfD-initiated scratching their heads…—Alalch E. 22:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I’m CfD initiated, and it hurts my head. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. What HouseBlaster said is correct: Category:Medical scandals in Ireland contained nothing except a single subcategory (Category:Medical scandals in the Republic of Ireland), so merging it into a container category was just fine. No articles were put into the container category, just the subcategory. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse per Extraordinary Writ. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - I am satisfied with the conclusions of administrators who can see the deleted category. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Administrators can't see the prior contents of the deleted category. Categories report incoming links, they don't hold the information of what they contain. To find the prior contents, you have to go to the edit history of the prior contents, which is feasible if you know who or what bot emptied the category. Sometimes, rarely, category pages have header text that can be seen as deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

I think there's arguably a decent number of sources to justify the page being recreated, even if basically all the good ones are primarily about the manga adaptation. Smileghozt (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-01-09/seven-seas-licenses-wadanohara-and-the-great-blue-sea-manga/.110802

https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-feature/2018/06/29/from-tool-to-subgenre-to-anime-the-mysterious-journey-of-rpg-maker

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2017-01-09/seven-seas-licenses-wadanohara-and-the-great-blue-sea-manga/.110802

https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2017/01/09-1/seven-seas-licenses-absolute-duo-wadanohara-and-the-great-blue-sea-and-hatsune-miku-presents-manga

https://www.pixivision.net/en/a/933

http://natalie.mu/comic/news/157105

http://www.moguragames.com/entry/wadanohara_comic

https://web.archive.org/web/20251020095158/https://screenrant.com/best-horror-games-with-cute-art-style/ Smileghozt (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

http://gekikarareview.com:80/review_rpg/1602wadanohara.html my friend said this is probably not reliable but i mean this hasn't been properly assessed by the community

https://web.archive.org/web/20250704201940/https://gamerant.com/horror-games-at-sea-ranked/

https://web.archive.org/web/20240907092421/https://gamerant.com/horror-games-that-look-innocent/

I don't think this would be a strong keep, but I know ANN and Natalie are reliable, Mogura Games I was told is probably reliable and Screen Rant and Game Rant are marginally reliable. Idk about Pixivision and Crunchyroll. Smileghozt (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interest/2018-07-24/best-and-worst-manga-of-2018-results-comic-con-international/.134599 this i forgot Smileghozt (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Deletion review is not the venue for discussing whether sources exist for a deleted topic. Nobody is stopping User:Smileghozt from creating Draft:Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea and requesting review at WP:Articles for creation. BusterD (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  oh Smileghozt (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  well im not really a fan of the game its just that this game has one of the bigger rpg maker fanbases and its had a somewhat colorful history with this wiki Smileghozt (talk) 05:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  it used to have a page but it got deleted in 2022 because there was only 5 sources of varying quality and literally nobody came to post about deleting or keeping the article Smileghozt (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• If you wish to recreate the article, please feel free to do so via a draft and submit at AFC. You can request the deleted version of the article to be restored to draft at WP:REFUND. What we're not going to do is overturn a deletion discussion from 3¾ years ago and let the article languish. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the 2022 closure, but this does not appear to be an appeal, but a request to create a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Allow Submission of draft, which was already allowed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - Many editors, some of them experienced, think that Deletion Review is required in order to resubmit or recreate an article that was previously deleted for lack of notability. It is probably easier to continue to advise occasional appellants that they only need to resubmit a draft than to try to deal in some other way with that misinformation. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. Go to WP:AfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural close. Nothing to overturn or endorse, no issue for Deletion review to deal with according to its purpose. About AfC, AfC is not a venue.—Alalch E. 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• No action per above. However, if I was presented such sources at a theoretical future AfD, I would lean towards saying the sourcing is not enough (almost all sourcing is only trivial announcements or listicles with very little coverage, the two best are the pixivision interview and gekikarareview, but the pixivision is very generic, and as appealant notes, gekikarareview may not be reliable). The current article is WP:ECP WP:SALTED, and the appealant is not EC, so they would be required to use WP:AFC to publish an article on the subject. Jumpytoo Talk 05:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

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

I came upon this AfD in a different context and did not participate in it, but the close to me does not seem like a fair and accurate summary of the discussion. Overall 7 editors argued keep, 9 argued delete. Most keep voters mainly argued that the sourcing was sufficient, most delete voters thought sourcing was not sufficient. The strongest case for 'keep' was made by Beccaynr who noted that there were 16 sources at the time (10 more sources were added by Beccaynr during the course of the AfD), and specifically referenced 7 of them in their argument, the strongest 'delete' argument was by ZDRX, who said that 5 of the 7 presented sources failed NEWSORGINDIA, but whose argument was weakened by Beccaynr's source analysis which found that the sources do not actually fail NEWSORGINDIA. Sources were also discussed in the previous AfD in 2021, where the article was kept (5 keep votes all of which thought sourcing was sufficient in 2021, we only have more sources since then; 3 of these 5 also participated in the 2nd AfD, all 3 voting keep). As such, I find the close bizzare in that it found that the "contention that sourcing isn't quite there hasn't been effectively refuted." As Goldsztajn noted in the discussion with closer, this seems like a supervote. The result of the discussion seems more of a "no consensus" close to me than what it was closed as (a redirect). Overturn the close and either relist or close as to 'no consensus', based on the above. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2026 (UTC) edited to change to only 'overturn to no consensus', I believe relist will be unproductive. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus. The close doesn't address any of the NCREATIVE or NBIO arguments in the discussion, instead only focusing on the GNG/sourcing question. Even on the GNG, the closer inappropriately discounted !votes because they referenced a past AfD, pointing to changes over time. The issue here is that the !votes in question argued that the last AfD found sufficient sourcing for the subject to be notable, which is not an argument that should be discounted.

If are going to discount arguments, we should discount the votes claiming no coverage existed of the subject that wasn't about the company, which is manifestly not correct. Katzrockso (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• (involved)Endorse : Nothing in this request shows how the AfD was wrong. It rather reads like "how I would have closed it". The unwarranted mention of "the previous AfD in 2021" makes this DRV even more unproductive. Chronos.Zx (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  • (For the sake of transparency, Chronos.Zx was among the delete voters in the AfD). UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• (involved)Endorse perfectly valid closure. There was clear failure to establish the person's notability outside of the organization. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  • (For the sake of transparency, Georgetgedragonslayer was among the delete voters in the AfD). UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

    please don't label editors by their stance in the afd Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:44, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

    I think it is a good practice for editors to reveal that they are involved, which all other editors had done except for the above two. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

    credit the closer with being able to work this out without needing labels put on a vote. It's a way to devalue the opinions of people you disagree with and it's not our thing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

    I think I'm well within my rights here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

    I have been active at DRV for 20 years and was the regular closer/behavioural moderator for over a decade so you can take it from me that this is not normal behaviour here and should be avoided. So just knock it off and leave the closer to work these things out themselves. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

    "I also note that you are not labeling the commentary from two keep voters here"

    Because both of those keep voters themselves declared that they were involved (see here and here). Neither of the the above two delete voters declared so (see here and here, the (involved) tag was added later in both). I didn't feel the need to mention that the keep ones were involved because they mentioned so themselves. Assuming some good faith of me would be appreciated. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

    I explained nicely that we didn't do it but you insist it's your right That's not our thing. Go look through the archives and see for yourself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

    <involved> and <uninvolved> became a thing several years ago at MRV, where MRV was routinely used as RM#2 with many RM regulars dominating the MRV discussions.

    I support self declarations for those who want to, but people clerking and labelling others’ !votes is a much more complicated thing, which I think should be reserved to admins and accredited clerks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

    User:UnpetitproleX, stop it please. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

    I'm not saying it's my right, but that I don't believe it is misconduct to do so. If there indeed is consensus here at DRV (or in general) that mentioning that other editors are involved when they fail to do so is misconduct, then I apologise. But the allegations of bias (now removed, for which I thank Spartaz) are untrue, and that is all I have to say. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• (involved)* Comment This was a complex AfD for a number of reasons (meatpuppets the more obvious, but less significant perhaps) and while I expressed my disagreement with the close, I am more concerned about a certain element of the close. I raised a number of issues in my comments on Spartaz's talk page and I'm here mostly because of the responses. Spartaz includes this statement in the close: "I have discounted arguments that notability has already been established at the last afd because of course standards change over time." When pressed to explain what measures they use to assess "change over time", no reply was given. My concern here was that the last AfD (resolved as keep) was five years ago and nothing in the intervening period suggests that there have been substantial changes in "standards" raised in this AfD. If we were talking about an AfD a decade or two prior, yes; if we were talking about NSPORTS five years ago, of course, but there have not been substantial changes in the GNG or BASIC, nor seismic shifts in community views on how they are applied since the last AfD on this subject. Spartaz did not engage with these points, which leads me to treat the close as a partial supervote as their rejection of a previous discussion and references to that disucssion does not have any basis (notability is enduring etc). I also disagree with their assessment of the sourcing discussion, there was no substantial counter refutation of the detailed analysis presented by Beccanyr, but this to me is the less important issue. I'm more concerned that previous reasoning or discussion, not shown to be lacking in relevance by any measure, was presumptively dismissed. *(I !voted keep and recommended no consensus in my subsequent talk page comments after the close). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  i'm sorry about my silence but once I get accused of supervoting which I have always found to be at best a mildly bad faith claim, I tend to tune out of discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. Notability is a necessary condition for retaining a standalone article, but it is not a sufficient one, per WP:PAGEDECIDE. The Keeps (edit: with one exception) only addressed notability, without rebutting the claim that any encyclopedic content was already (or could be) covered in the proposed target page, and that readers would be better served by seeing the content at that target. Even if we accept Beccaynr's source analysis at face value, that still doesn't tell us why this content, notable as it may be, isn't a better fit in Humans of Bombay. The Deletes weren't much better; none of them presented a valid case against redirection as an ATD, which weakened their argument. At best, I'd count those Delete votes as not opposing a Redirect outcome, as pburka correctly noted.
  I accept Goldsztajn's claim that this AfD suffered from canvassing, or even meatpuppetry. In this case, it hardly matters, since those stacked voted didn't carry much P&G weight even if they weren't canvassed. I do not accept Goldsztajn's accusation of a supervote. I have no doubt that Spartaz did not have an opinion about the article or its subject. The accusation concerned differing interpretations of WP:PRECEDENT between the two admins. Personally, I only take a prior XfD into account if the new nomination was within our WP:RENOM timeframe, but there's no policy or guideline to dictate this. But in this case, it doesn't even matter whether notability was established at the 2021 AfD or not, since a decision to redirect or merge is not dependent solely on notability. Either way, whether we agree or disagree with it, difference of opinion over common practice is not something we normally refer to as a "supervote". Also note that during the 2021 AfD, Humans of Bombay was a 142-word stub, so redirecting to it was not as appealing a choice as it is now.
  Knowing Spartaz's approach to administrative vs. editorial decisions, I'm sure the "Redirect" did not intend to exlude a selective merge. Spartaz explicitly left the door open for a selective merge. Editors are encouraged to merge any sourced, encyclopedic content from behind the redirect into the target. Those who still believe there's a case for a standalone article about the founder are welcome to start a spinout discussion at Talk:Humans_of_Bombay. Owen× ☎ 13:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I explicity wrote "partial" above and "had an air of a supervote" on Spartaz's talk page. I appreciate Owen's points, but this reinforces to my mind the slippage between a closer's discretion and supervoting. A closer when asked should be able to indicate how they assess precedent rather than assert a nebulous, things change position (and RENOM doesn't provide much help there either). Spartaz wrote on their talk page: "Keep arguments that are basically this was kept last time offer no contemporary commentary on current notability standards so I'm obviously going to discount them." (my emphasis). But the notability standards have not changed in this particular case, they are the *same* standards. Owen is absolutely right that in general keeping a standalone page is not dependent on notability by itself, but in *this* specific discussion Spartaz excluded arguments (arbitrarily in my mind) in favour of a stand alone page, thus changing the weighting. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that Spartaz's reply on his Talk page could have been worded better. I also agree that neither WP:PRECEDENT nor WP:RENOM give us any useful guidance as to the proper weighting of previous XfD results. Traditionally, when someone brings up an argument of the the kind, "Nothing has changed since the last AfD", the general response is to direct them to WP:LASTTIME, which tells us: An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion. Of course, LASTTIME is a section in the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions essay, not a policy, but is one of our oldest, most entrenched practices. Any close that hinges on a result from five years earlier is likely to be successfully challanged at DRV. So while GNG and BIO haven't changed since 2021, I don't blieve there was "an air of a supervote" in Spartaz's decision not to give weight to the 2021 outcome. But again, it wouldn't have mattered if the 2021 AfD was given full weight, since it, too, failed to present a compelling reason why the content must reside on a standalone page, rather than be merged into an article where readers see it in a broader context. So while we can argue on the eligibility of a previous AfD as evidence in a current AfD, the discussion would be purely academic in this particular case. Owen× ☎ 15:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  @OwenX: re: "The Keeps only addressed notability, without rebutting the claim that any encyclopedic content was already (or could be) covered in the proposed target page, and that readers would be better served by seeing the content at that target."

  This is evidently not true. Beccaynr, immediately following their source analysis, offered this justification for two separate articles: "From my view, this type of Mehta-focused coverage is in addition to coverage and commentary on the HoB website, so having two articles seems to reflect the available coverage, in accordance with the WP:BASIC and WP:CREATIVE guidelines (noted in my initial !vote above)." and then proceeded to provide sources about Mehta beyond HoB here and here. These rationales were also offered by other keep voters.

  Indeed, as Katzrockso noted above, "the close doesn't address any of the NCREATIVE or NBIO arguments in the discussion", it completely ignores them without any engagement. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I fully met my accountability responsibilities on my talkpage and expanded on my thinking there. It's not really for you to decide what valid arguments I should consider. That's my role as the closing admin and if I got it wrong DRV will correct me. What I do feel strongly about is that allegations of bad faith on my part thread through this discussion. I can be wrong but don't characterise me as biased. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Spartaz: I apologise if any of my comments come across as assuming bad faith from you. I am only arguing that the close is wrong and arbitrary in which arguments it focuses on and which it discounts and ignores—not that you are biased. I understand that you may be feeling like you've been put on trial here, that is not my intention nor do I think anybody here is accusing you of misconduct. One can act in good faith and still be wrong, and that is precisely what I think here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm closing most of the difficult AFDs and therefore naturally come here regularly. Fact is, my endorse rate is currently extremely high by historical levels so you can be reassured that I do not feel threatened or on trial. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Great then. I will just reiterate that I did not characterise anyone as biased. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  @UnpetitproleX: Beccaynr's claim that sources provided significant coverage of Mehta beyond her role at HoB was disputed by other participants, and certainly didn't gain consensus. The consensus is that if it weren't for HoB, Mehta wouldn't meet our notability guidelines, leading to the redirect/merge outcome. Owen× ☎ 19:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  OwenX, that’s open to interpretation, I do not see any editor who meaningfully addressed or disputed Beccaynr’s sources—nobody at all disputed the coverage of the discourse about Mehta’s decision to freeze her eggs, for instance. But your original comment was saying that keep voters only argued notability and not that Mehta had coverage beyond HoB to merit a standalone article. This is not true, and is not a correct reading of the discussion. Several editors did argue in that vein. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  @UnpetitproleX: Fair enough; I amended my original comment to show that not all Keeps ignored the NOPAGE question. Owen× ☎ 20:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I do note that not only Beccaynr, but also another participant (Jishara) in their keep vote argued that there were "sufficient sources to establish individual notability." I’d say the other editors who directly referenced Beccaynr’s rationale could be assumed to have accepted their conclusion about two separate articles, though I will not press on that conclusion. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Once again, "sufficient sources to establish individual notability" is not, by itself, a valid argument against a merge. Owen× ☎ 21:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment (involved). I don't object to the outcome, but I do object to discounting the previous AfD discussion. Neither the nominator nor any other participant provided any evidence that standards related to this page had changed since the previous discussion. Since the relevant notability guidelines are all relatively stable, all of the arguments in the previous discussion are equally valid today, and we shouldn't establish a precedent that deletion can be relitigated every few years until the desired outcome is achieved. pburka (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  frequent requests can be closed as disruptive or procedurally if there is no new basis and the previous discussion was recent but standards change and there is not and should not be an exemption from failing to meet a new standard because a previous discussion in another time found it met the then current standards. And the previous discussion was 5 years ago and expectations and standards have hardened since then. If you are not with that then you are out for synch with the community. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  I feel like the nominator ought to at least review the previous AfD and explain what they think has changed. If that's not already implicit in BEFORE, it perhaps should be. Often the only thing that's really changed is the semi-random selection of editors who happen to participate. In this case, I think that was the only real difference. pburka (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  no, I flatly disagree with that. A closer may well choose to review a former close but I'll be honest, I'm not going to be strongly swayed by a 5 year old discussion that has been referenced without commentary by multiple users. If there are powerful arguments from that former discussion then it's the role of the participants to bring them in. I'm not going to give credit to an argument that is basically this was kept five years ago so this discussion is invalid. If it's more recent then naturally the closer may well think the arguments are more relevant and choose to treat the current discussion as an extension of the old one, but it's honestly subjective and a hard rule isn't in policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. Normal, average, AfD close within discretion.—Alalch E. 16:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

weak meh leaning *shrug* I never close discussions that I might have an opinion on and this one was no different. It's supremely indifferent to me whether we keep, delete or something else with this article and my approach was based on administrative norms.

• Non policy based arguments get down weighted. There is no precedent and keeping because of an aged previous discussion has no real policy basis.
• Redirect or merge have no meaningful difference and in a case where there is a strong argument the article covers material that is also covered elsewhere it's always a valid outcome.
• there was no consensus to delete but a strong feeling of having 2 articles where 1 might do.
• Allegations of socking and meat puppetry are aspertions until there is a factual finding on it. It would have been grossly inappropriate for me to take that into account when there was no obvious evidence of this in the AFD. No SPI or checkuser had been requested and I accepted all opinions based on the strength of their policy argument.

I explicitly permitted a selective merge in my close.

We just did a DRV where the approach to redirect over merge was accepted as valid. (Well it's still running but the outcome is explicit.

I'm closing based on my understanding on how DRV expects me to close cases like this. If you think that is wrong then we need to give me clearer explicit guidance in this discussion

I apologise for my lack of engagement on my talkpage, but I'm going to be honest., I generally find allegations of super voting as mildly bad faith at best and I tune out of conversations afterwards. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. Difficult close, but within admin discretion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse - Per OwenX, in addition to WP:N we must consider WP:PAGEDECIDE, and yet it often isn't considered. Spartaz addresses that here and it looks like a good close. Certainly within closer's discretion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Revelator Limited (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

1. The page was deleted under G11 and that was not the goal of the article at all.
2. Some phrases may require be written in a more neutral tone, but the topic is about a relevant company in the music industry with documented history and financing. Moreover the information was obtained from independent sources.
3. The page was originally created as a draft, went through Articles for Creation and was accepted by an independent reviewer.
4. I know some people working in the project, but I did not receive any payment at all.
5. Furthermore the company has gained more relevance and interest from Warner Music Group as new independent sources indicate.
6. I kindly request that the G11 speedy deletion be overturned, that the article be temporarily restored, and that it be listed at Articles for Deletion for a full community discussion.

As I understand, when a notable topic is considered under G11, correcting and replacing the promotional language should prevail before elimination. Tecnoprima (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• It should when that's practical, but when replacing promotional language means making at least one change to every sentence in the article with the sole exception of "The company was formally incorporated in 2012." then that amounts to throwing the article away and starting over. I'm sympathetic to the fact that this was mainspaced by a sockpuppet and (presumably) not you, but the plain truth is that this would have been a G11 in draftspace too. Endorse. —Cryptic 18:58, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse This is written in marketing speak and feel promotional from the get go. Feel free to start again in draft and use AFC to save us permanently deleting this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Temp undeletedSpartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse - agree with Cryptic and Spartaz. Promotion may not have been the goal, but the phrasing is. Point 5 is not relevant, as deletion was because of existing phrasing. Jay 08:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you all for the clear feedback. I accept the point about the promotional tone and I withdraw my request to restore or list the article at AfD. I'd prefer not to keep the current version. With the maintainers' blessing, I'll start a fresh draft through AfC, written in a neutral tone and based on independent sources, and I'll disclose my connection to the subject up front. Appreciate the guidance. Tecnoprima (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Category:1640s establishments in Puerto Rico (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

The closing admin closed the discussion with a Result=Delete using "there seems to be rough agreement that the only article doesn't belong" as his reasoning. However, there is no such thing as a "rough agreement" for closing delete discussions: we operate on the basis of consensus, and on whether there is consensus or there isn't. His "seems" qualifier is further evidence he wasn't himself sure about "agreement" one way of the other. We operate on the basis of consensus and, when consensus isn't clear, the delete request should be relisted to seek greater participation in the discussion. That wasn't done either. Third, all the projects involved should be notified as well as ancillary projects (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean and Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America, just to name two), so the discussion can get greater exposure and other editors are given an opportunity to chime in, but that wasn't done either. Fourth, the last comment made was made on 06:13, 8 July 2026 and the closing admin closed the discussion on 00:37, 9 July 2026, less than 24 hours from the last comment. That would not allow sufficient time for additional discussion to occur and, in effect, it cut off off everyone with a different opinion from providing a rebuttal. In summary, the closing admin failed to follow common and expected practices. Mercy11 (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Endorse As the person who closed this discussion. Your argument failed to refute the claim that the date of c. 1646 is not an establishment date, and Yarfpr's argument actually supports the delete argument because they claimed that in fact, there was already a population there during that period. If my judgment was wrong, the category should have been upmerged as originally proposed and this discussion doesn't do much, since the only article was Ponce, Puerto Rico. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

With that comment, I am sure that your close was a WP:Supervote. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• It could have been closed as “no consensus”. Non admins should not be calling rough consensus. The points above about notifications suggests that relisting with notifications might be a good idea, except that it looks to be a pretty unimportant category, not worth the attention. Was it underpopulated? Given the brevity of the CfD nomination, I suggest “overturn to no consensus”, do not revisit at CfD for at least two months after the close of this DRV. Advise the close to be more hesitant in doing NACloses of unclear discussions, and advise the CfD nominator, User:Smasongarrison, to put more work into nominations. Terse nominations lead to inefficient discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  Do not relist. Relisted a complicated discussion is far less productive than allowing a renomination, with a fresh renomination rationale that addresses the concerns raised in the first discussion. It should not be rushed in to, because there might have been some things written that are worthy of thinking about. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus I just don't see a consensus to delete there; you have equal numbers of people arguing to a standstill about something based more on facts than on Wikipedia policy. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 22:21, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to Relist - It appears that there was one vote to Upmerge, two votes to Delete, and two votes to Oppose, which may mean Keep. That isn't a rough consensus to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - Before criticizing an administrator's work on categories, it might be a good idea to check how much work they are doing on categories. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  Are you talking to me about criticising Mason? Asking for more work? I regret that word. I mean, it would be better for nominations to contain more words explaining the nomination, to reduce the effort required by the participants, which then makes the CfD easier to close. I certainly don’t mean to criticise Mason, she is an awesome Wikipedian. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• (involved) It would be reasonable to relist because of the short time between last comment and closure. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  What were the members of the category? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

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

Embox became more and more popular DungeonLords (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Re-create it That's a 15+ year old discussion, so I doubt anything from the deleted article is worthwhile. If it's suitable for an article now, feel free to make a completely new one at the same title or use the AfC process. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Original text should be restored and then we can tune it. Because to forget the contribution is disrespect to people who wrote this article 15+ years ago. Please restore the article. DungeonLords (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  endorse but feel free to try again. There is no meaningful text to restore. Just write a new article based on 2026 sourcing standards and not a rejected stub that couldn't meet ancient sourcing standards. This isn't about respect, it's about writing a compliant article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Dan J. Sullivan (Petersburg, Alaska political candidate) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

I came to DRV as it was suggested to me by the closer. See User talk:Spartaz § Your AfD closure for my conversation with them. FaviFake (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

What are you looking for here? The history of the article is still visible at the redirect and anyone can merge anything worth merging. The closure specifically called out merging any material worth keeping. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I came here because my request was denied. I asked the closer to temporarily [restore] the article and [apply] the merge tags to it, so that it is correctly inserted in the backlog, aka to change their closure from redirect to merge. I do not believe I am knowledgeable enough about the topic of the article to carry out the merge myself. FaviFake (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Then who do you expect to do the merge? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:09, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Someone who is knowledgeable enough about the topic of the article to carry out the merge themselves. FaviFake (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Who would that be?! What do you want to do with the fact that we clearly don't want to maintain a separate page in the meantime and the election will be over before the end of the backlog reaches this page? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with your job of impartially judging the consensus of the discussion? FaviFake (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I take it you don't have an answer to my question then. I'd simply draw your attention to the fact that we are not a bureaucracy and that process theatre is less valuable than using good judgement to find solutions that balance competing arguments. That's what experienced admins do when they close discussions and it must be working as this is the first time in 19 years that someone has wasted time arguing about process when they could have just done the merge.

By the way, your edit to the redirect has broken it. Would you mind fixing it please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done. FaviFake (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

strongest possible meh I'm disappointed that the nominator couldn't find the words to properly articulate their objection to this close rather than pointing the good editors here elsewhere to find out for themselves what the issue is. I'm afraid that this is consistent with my recent conversation about leaving me messages in dummy edits. When I challenged they told me that it was quicker for them so clearly having a conversation like equals on my talk page is not a priority for them. The issue here is that I closed a merge proposal with deletion arguments as redirect with explicit permission to do the merge anyway. I did this because merge and redirect are functionally identical and there had been a good argument not to have the page. The nominator admits that there is a months long backlog on merges and had I closed it as merge the election would have been over before we got to doing the admin. I have been closing discussions like this for over a decade and I don't recall any previous issues with it. I might gently suggest to the nominator that in the time it took to complain to me and raise the DRV they could have done the merge themselves and they would have time to respond to editors appropriately if they spent less time worshipping process. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I note that almost nothing of what you said should be considered by a closer when judging the consensus of a discussion, per WP:Consensus. FaviFake (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a back and forth when I have a garden to weed and I'm happy to leave it to other editors to opine on whether my action was consistent with all of the opinions expressed in the discussion ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• I manually added the redirect to the merge backlog using {{DMC}}. The appellant is welcome to add an explanation on the redirect's Talk page. I hope this addresses the appellant's concern so this can be procedurally closed. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  My request was not solely to categorise the redirect, and I don't want to make future editors waste even more time by creating tailor-made solutions if there was consensus to merge the pages in the first place. The category you added will be deleted in a few weeks once the PAM-AFD merge is complete; among other things, your edit will result in unnecessary maintenance. Categorising an article to merge by hard-coding the template-populated category into a redirect is unheard of. FaviFake (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  your edit will result in unnecessary maintenance - I agree! This whole appeal is a waste of time. Overturning a perfectly valid close just to add the page to a backlog category is--to use your words--unheard of. I was hoping to minimize the time wasted with my manual DMC shortcut. But if that doesn't satisfy you, then I endorse the close. Spartaz specifically left the door open to merging. If you feel you aren't knowledgeable enough to carry out such a merge, solicit help at the Talk page or the relevant projects. Owen× ☎ 14:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  You haven't supplied any rationale for your assertion that the closure was perfectly valid. I explained by objections at the closer's talk page. FaviFake (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The only rationale brought up for a merge was failing to meet NPOL. That would be a good argument for deletion or redirect, but for a merge, you also need to demonstrate how the content would be relevant and WP:DUE at the target, which none of the "Support" voters did. Enos733 pointed out that all encyclopedic content is already included in the proposed target, which would imply a "zero-byte merge", namely, a redirect. Faced with P&G-weak calls for merging, and solid arguments for deletion or redirect, Spartaz did the only sensible thing, WP:PRESERVING the content for anyone who believes there's anything worth merging. Owen× ☎ 15:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse as the right close of the deletion discussion. I am not entirely sure what the issue being appealed is, but it was the correct close. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse clear consensus to not keep, with an appropriate WP:ATD identified by the closer. The redirect close does nothing to prevent any interested user from merging content in the article's history. Frank Anchor 18:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse in an ATD situation keeping the content visible to wait on a formal merge is rarely advisable and it was not in this case. Spartaz' close was not only acceptable but the best close in these circumstances. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closure was sensible and anyone who actually wants to merge the content rather than have it sit in a merger backlog until the heat death of the universe can find that content under the redirect. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't know the heat death of the universe will happen in 3 months! Good to know, I'll get ready. FaviFake (talk) 12:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. The “deletion” !votes were poor arguments. Otherwise non notable candidates should be left in draftspace, or draftified, but none of the participants mentioned draftification. User:FaviFake Appears to be asking to enforse the old merge process that is incompatible with merge discussions at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I am one of the few people who is updating the AfD merge templates for the transition, so I know what I'm talking about. I'm trying to enforce the current AfD process for articles with consensus to merge, which has remained unchanged for more than a decade and was largely unaffected by the PAM–AfD merge.​ FaviFake (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

When merges were.. er.. merged.. with AFD you didn't create a new standard consensus and there therefore isn't a consensus around merges to for you to enforce. The thing is, there isn't a practical difference in AFD terms between redirect and merge, historically they are identical.

Indeed, you last comment reinforces what I have suspected for a while. That you are intentionally clerking AFDs involving merges and trying to impose your own perception of what should and should not be the consensus.

The thing is, you aren't an admin , we don't have clerks in AFD and the whole area is an incredibly admin heavy workstream compared to the old merge system. And a lot of the admins are very experienced and set in their ways so you simply aren't going to enforce or encourage anyone to change their ways.

Even your recent attempts to change the boilerplate on DRV reflects this sense of status you are trying to give yourself. At this point, I sincerely hope that you get the message that you do not own the outcomes of the merge discussions and do not have any more voice than any other user when it comes to AFD/DRV. In other words, stop trying enforce anything until you are a) really experienced at AFD and DRV and/or b) an admin. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I used the word "enforce" because it was the word chosen by the user I was replying to. Of course I'm not going to "enforce" a merge if the consensus at AfD or DRV (as judged by the closer) is against it.

I've explained why I'm "clerking" all new merge nominations at User talk:Novem Linguae § XFDcloser updates, in case you're interested.

I have no idea what the edits to DRV have to do with any of this. I regularly update any outdated project pages I encounter to simplify the instructions and remove outdated information. And a part of WP:DRV is clearly out of date, as evident from the talk page discussion. FaviFake (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

its relevent because you did use the term enforce and now as a stranger to DRV you want to make changes without getting consensus. That's very relevant to the point I was making and super bold. If you do not agree with my characterisation then you are not obliged to engage with it. Other editors may agree or disagree as they wish. I'm just one editor who shared a perspective. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure. FaviFake (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Response to FaviFake (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2026: There was no deletion. The close was a good rough consensus call that all the !votes were consistent with redirection. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

• Request speedy close per WP:DRVNOT#5, because this is about a technicality, and deletion review should be used to argue technicalities.—Alalch E. 11:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  For the record, I opened this DRV after the closing admin recommended it to me as a form of dispute resolution. I would've preferred sorting this out with them at their talk page. FaviFake (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate this circumstance that you’ve brought up, but it doesn’t change how the issue here is a technicality and can be and has been resolved (by User:OwenX) on the level of a minor technical/maintenance issue, so it’s literally a technicality in every sense of the word.—Alalch E. 14:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  it was always a technicality because merge and redirect are identical more or less in deletion terms and it was always open for the nom to do theeege themselves. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Also, I oppose a speedy close. We are closing too many DRVs early Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  We found one thing we can both agree on! :D   FaviFake (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

2026 FIVB Women's Volleyball Nations League preliminary round (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

2026 FIVB Men's Volleyball Nations League preliminary round (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

There wasn't a proper consensus as the men's and women's pages are identical and most of the conversation regarding the pages was on the men's page. I also find it highly disrespectful that the person who decided to close the discussion as redirect just ignored the people who are on my side and deemed their opinions as invalid. She also accused me of canvassing even though all I was doing was asking for people's opinions as I wanted to discuss the situation without specifically one editor around. Instead of saying instantly that what I did was canvassing and then disregard their opinions, they should have just warned me rather than instantly disregarding their opinions. I asked about around ten editors individually for their opinions so it wasn't like I was trying to manipulate the vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveSport2006 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, I have independent sources. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The presence of independent sources is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a stand-alone article. The articles were redirected as a matter of due weight. If there is additional information in your sources, you may add it to the parent article, and its due weight can be discussed on the parent article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

They were already on the pages and I could probably find more.

H ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Endorse, if this is asking us to review the close the AfD. The appellant is the only editor who opposed a redirect and their argument was not policy-based. No reasonable close would have resulted in a keep, or even a no consensus result. Katzrockso (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse both. I see a unanimous P&G-based consensus to redirect both. No valid argument for standalone retention. The appellant would be well advised to stick to substantive arguments instead of interpersonal drama. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Katzrockso I had support from people so your point doesn't make sense.

  @OwenX You don't know the situation so kindfully, don't advise when you don't know.

  Also, to both, I literally stated I have independent sources, which I heard is necessary for a standalone page. Did you just ignore that? I am fed up of Wikipedia editors not listening to me. It gets me very upset when my points are ignored and once again, the same thing happened. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Independent sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't see the second AfD link, but my evaluation remains the same Katzrockso (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Katzrockso How does your evaluation remain the same? I just said I have independent sources and had support. What else do I need? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Our job at deletion review is to evaluate whether the close is an accurate summarization of the consensus engendered in the discussion. The consensus in these discussions was to redirect these articles.

  What you need is to wait a significant period of time and submit a draft through AfC and see if consensus changes. Katzrockso (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  May I ask two questions?

  • How is 4:3 vote a consensus?
  • How am I supposed to improve the articles when I added already independent sources which should've been enough and have no idea how to improve the page further? The volleyball project talk page is very unresponsive.

  ILoveSport2006 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE. Closers can, should and do WP:DISCARD votes that are compliant with policies and guidelines. Moreover, in the first AfD discussion, I did not see any 3-1 ratio. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 FIVB Women's Volleyball Nations League preliminary round, you were the only editor to !vote to keep the article. In the second one, there were canvassed non-policy votes that were appropriately discarded.

  Since the edit history is preserved by the redirect, you can copy that (with attribution) to a draft and continue to work on the draft to improve it. However, you should not move the draft to mainspace and would need to have it accepted by AfC. Moreover, you would need to address the concerns of the delete !voters in your draft. I would recommend waiting to even attempt this, as doing it so quickly would be in violation of the consensus at the AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse both as the right calls by the closer. How much information about the preliminary rounds should be included in the parent articles can be decided by normal discussion on the article talk pages. In my opinion, the amount of detail in the redirected articles, and therefore their length, was excessive, so that there was policy-and-guidance rationale for redirection; but if the appellant wants to add the material to the parent articles, they can discuss at the parent article talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  I tried to talk but the volleyball editors are very unresponsive so it is very difficult. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sometimes one must accept that one is in the minority . Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Caution the appellant. AFD and DRV are content forums, but casting aspersions as to motives, and personal attacks, are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. Properly run AfDs, in both User:ILoveSport2006 failed to persuade. If there are more independent sources, discuss at the redirect target talk page. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• User:ILoveSport2006 - You wrote, on my talk page: Look, I was being ignored by these people when I tried to discuss the issue. That is why I got so upset because it felt so unfair. I don't appreciate your reply when you don't understand the situation and how I felt ignored. Mind your business. You made the AFDs the business of the community of editors at DRV when you filed at DRV. You asked us to make those AFDs our business. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon this comment: the appellant. AFD and DRV are content forums, but casting aspersions as to motives, and personal attacks, are not permitted. is not needed. You don't know the situation so in that regard, mind your business. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Improving Wikipedia is everyone's business. ILoveSport2006, if you keep violating WP:CIVIL, you will be blocked from this discussion. Owen× ☎ 15:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Then why do you conveniently ignore any points I am making? That gets me very irritated as I've dealt with this on Wikipedia for too long. It is not about improving, it's about not putting your opinion into something you don't know about. I was very hurt by people in volleyball not seeming to listen to me so yes I did react very badly to that. Volleyball editors would tell me to get a consensus then when I try to get a consensus, no one would ever respond.

  This conversation is supposed to be about the merits of my arguments and the fact that I do have independent sources, this isn't about telling me how I should act on Wikipedia. I am civil but if you ignore everything I say then I will react badly to that as I deem that as highly unfair and disrespectful. I have dealt with people on Wikipedia that think being passive aggressive is okay and they never get punished, which to me is wrong.

  If you can't understand the paragraphs above then it's a lost cause. The last thing I need in this moment of time is a lecture. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  You don't know the situation so in that regard, mind your business is not WP:CIVIL commentary that is appropriate to say to other editors. Katzrockso (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse clear consensus to redirect in both AFDs, especially given that the redirect !votes have much stronger bases in policies/guidelines than the keep !votes. The history is preserved in the redirect, allowing any user to take a version from the history into draftspace for improvement. Frank Anchor 17:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

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

This page should really be restored and updated: I've been a journalist for well over two decades. Stories I've edited have won the Livingston, Polk, Pulitzer, Mirror, SABEW and NYFWA Impact awards, and journalists I've mentored have gone on to columnist roles at The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Atlantic. I currently oversee tech, innovation, sustainability and VC coverage at Forbes. I previously ran BuzzFeed News' award winning tech desk. With Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg, I helped found AllthingsD.com, where I was the first editorial hire. I accompanied them to Recode, where I oversaw our edit partnership with NBC. I got my start at The Mercury News where I wrote one of the first daily tech newsletters, Good Morning Silicon Valley. https://x.com/JohnPaczkowski https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnpaczkowski/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/pczki/ https://bsky.app/profile/pczki.bsky.social https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbespr/2022/05/26/forbes-names-john-paczkowski-executive-editor-of-innovation-and-technology/ Polk Award: https://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpress/buzzfeed-news-wins-george-polk-award Livington Award: https://news.umich.edu/livingston-awards-for-young-journalists-announce-2019-winners/ Mirror award: Ryan Mac, who reported to John and was edited by him, also won The Mirror: https://www.nytco.com/press/ryan-mac-joining-technology-team/ 2023 SABEW award: Kenrick Cai and Iain Martin worked for Paczkowski:Winner – Forbes Magazine; The AI Founder Taking Credit for Stable Diffusion’s Success Has a History of Exaggeration
Kenrick Cai, Iain Martin John hired, mentored and edited Emily Baker White's award winning TikTok coverage: https://libraryfoundationsd.org/events/baker-white

https://fortune.com/2015/03/20/paczkowski-rocks-buzzfeeds-star-apple-reporter-is-earning-his-keep/

https://talkingbiznews.com/media-news/forbes-hires-four-buzzfeed-tech-news-staffers/ ~2026-38015-07 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/28/11626138/john-paczkowskis-back-with-daily-codered-column-on-recode

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/author/johnpaczkowski

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/inside-iphone-7-why-apple-killed-the-headphone-jack

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2014/05/02/recode-wwdc ~2026-38015-07 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Are you, by any chance, referring to the article discussed here? If so, I'll be happy to fix the header for you. As it stands, you copied the example without following the instructions to replace "Foo" with the actual page you are discussing. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - If OwenX has correctly inferred what the appellant is asking about, then this is another version of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 25, a malformed request by a new editor or temporary editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Procedural Close as malformed. We don't need to waste our time assembling and considering a Deletion Review when the filing editor can't even provide a title or formatting and gives us nothing but a URL dump. I am aware that some editors think that we should be helpful. So do I, but there is a limit to how much help we should give to users who pop up and don't even try to use Wikipedia correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse if we are reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Paczkowski. This closure was already reviewed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 25. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Allow submission of draft to AFD. That will be a waste of time if the draft is prepared with the same lack of skill as this filing, but that is their problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. This is the wrong place to seek approval for recreation. Use WP:AfC. Read advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse No grounds presented for review of the close. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Dabrowski-Stefani tennis partnership (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

I am requesting review because there have been significant developments since the AfD closed. Several participants based their !votes on the assumption that the partnership had ended permanently and was unlikely to reunite. However, Dabrowski and Stefani reunited for the 2026 season and have continued to compete together, adding further notable achievements after the discussion concluded. In addition to their previous records, they also reached multiple Grand Slam and WTA Tour semifinals and won various WTA titles across every tournament category (250, 500, 1000) on all major court surfaces and they have continued to add to their résumé since reuniting, becoming one of the three most successful pairs of 2026. These post-AfD developments were not available to participants in the original discussion and may materially affect the assessment of the partnership's standalone notability. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

what sources are there that discuss the partnership to GNG level? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the close if this is an appeal of the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
• Allow Submission of Draft for AFC review. DRV approval is not required to allow the submission of a draft. The draft will need to answer Spartaz's question of what sources satisfy GNG, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Endorse the 13 month old AfD, deny permission to recreate because no new sources are offered, but Draftify to allow new sources to be added at leisure. Read advice at WP:THREE. Use AfC processes if you think the draft overcomes the reasons for deletion in the 2025 AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse as delete was clearly the only plausible close. However, new information has come to light which may affect the notability of the subject, as per WP:DRVPURPOSE #4. Restore to draft to allow Haddad Maia fan or any other interested user to improve with newer references. A Google News search of the topic shows several articles which post-date the AFD. I did not review these references against GNG as deletion review is not a content forum. Frank Anchor 14:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

In response to @Spartaz's question regarding sources satisfying WP:GNG: since the AfD closed, there has been additional independent coverage discussing the partnership itself, beyond routine match merely reporting individual match results.

@Frank Anchor also noted above that a Google News search identifies several articles published after the AfD.

The examples below are some of those newer sources that I believe demonstrate the changed evidentiary landscape:

Ge (21 November 2025) covered the reunion of Dabrowski and Stefani for the 2026 season in a dedicated article. It discusses the history of the partnership, why they reunited, their previous achievements together, the interruption caused by Stefani's injury, and expectations for the renewed partnership.

UOL (28 January 2026) published a feature on the pair returning to a Grand Slam semifinal four years later. The article reviews the partnership from 2021 onward, discusses Stefani's injury, their brief reunion in 2023, the split, and the decision to reform the team for 2026, rather than simply reporting the Australian Open result.

The Canadian Press (21 February 2026) covered their Dubai WTA 1000 title with a focus on the reunion of the partnership, its history, quotes from both players about the partnership, and the significance of their renewed success. This is independent coverage centred on the partnership itself rather than a routine match report.

WTA (21 February 2026) In addition, the WTA published a retrospective on the partnership that recounts its history, "Dabrowski and Stefani win first title together since 2022 in Dubai".explains the reunion, and includes comments from both players. While this is not an independent source for GNG purposes, it provides additional context regarding the partnership itself.

One of the premises underlying the AfD discussion was that the partnership had effectively ended and was unlikely to resume. Since then, Dabrowski and Stefani have reunited for the 2026 season and have continued to add to their record, including two further Grand Slam semifinals, another WTA 1000 title and additional tour titles and continued deep runs on tour.

I appreciate that DRV is not intended to determine notability itself. My point is simply that the evidentiary record has changed materially since the 2025 AfD. If the consensus is that these newer sources should instead be assessed through Articles for Creation, I am happy to proceed through that process. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Those sources hardly seem to be very significant coverage. Is there any reason this can't be covered briefly on the biographies of each respective player?

In any case, Restore to draft. I would personally not !vote to keep this standalone article at an AfD based on the sourcing provided here, nor would I accept any AfC draft that had these sources, but that doesn't impinge on the relevant argument here (as made by Frank Anchor). Katzrockso (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The issues that existed at the time of the AFD still exist. There are many doubles teams which achieved far far better results (winning even career grand slams together) which don’t have their own articles. The bar for doubles teams in tennis to be independenly notable is far far higher than you think. Two masters 1000 titles and no grand slam finals just doesn’t cut it. The reality remains that both players had more succesful partnerships than this one in the past.Tvx1 13:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close. This is ostensibly a claim that significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify undeleting the page, with previously deleted content probably being helpful for writing a new version of the page -- but it was necessary to ask Explicit to undelete the page before coming to DRV, per WP:DRVPURPOSE#4.—Alalch E. 09:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Since my previous comments, there have been further developments that were not available either at the time of the original AfD or when this DRV was opened.

  The partnership has now reached its first Grand Slam final, directly addressing one of the recurring points raised during the AfD that the pair had "not even reached a Grand Slam final together." Although they finished as runners-up, the result also helped Luisa Stefani achieve a new career-high doubles ranking and moved the partnership to second in the Race to the WTA Finals, placing them among the leading teams on the tour this season.

  These developments are in addition to the partnership's existing record of titles at every WTA tournament category (250, 500 and 1000), multiple Grand Slam semifinals, and success across all three major playing surfaces. The partnership has also continued to receive additional coverage following its reunion in 2026.

  I appreciate that DRV is not a forum to determine notability. My point is simply that the factual circumstances continue to evolve and that the subject today is materially different from the one considered at the 2025 AfD. If the consensus remains that these developments should instead be assessed through Articles for Creation after restoration to draft, I am happy to proceed in that manner. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hot Girl Walk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

In my opinion the discussion has been closed too quickly, I think it's odd to claim no consensus after so many comments in one week. The closure also doesn't seem to have been done correctly as the notice is still on the article and was closed by a non admin without any note along those lines. Apologies if this is the wrong place for this, I'm not so familiar with deletion admin. orangesclub 🍊 16:51, 1 July 2026 (UTC)