Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 June

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

I was told that my deletion review proposal could not be accepted because I had received help from an LLM. Fine. Since I still believe I manage very well with English, I will proceed, and this time I will not even use a translator.

So, I believe that the deletion of the page carried out by administrator Owen was unfair, because he distorted the score—which had been 3-2 in favor of Delete over Keep—into a 4-1 with two errors.

The first error attributed a Delete vote to Lijil, who had opened the AfD, but the AfD had actually been wanted by me. In fact, there is proof, which you can find in the history, that I had requested a third opinion and had discussed it on the talk page. However, not having found any participants, I decided, perhaps on the advice of an admin, to open or to request the opening of the deletion page. Therefore, Lijil's "non vote", for this reason, cannot be considered delete.

For the same reason, the vote of TortugaP cannot be considered invalid—meaning it must be considered valid, whereas Owen had instead canceled it, claiming that the user had registered just for this purpose. On the contrary, we have seen in the global contributions that Tortuga P had already been present on the Catalan Wikipedia for quite some time.

But beyond this, I generally oppose the deletion of the Palamara article because I have demonstrated updating the artiche also with the new that IHI in May sayd that is ready to start the construction of the Messina Bridge such as had do with Akashi Bridge and in 13 June the Italian and Japanese Prime Ministers had a summit and told the the Messina Bridge is very very important for the cooperation of two natios, both on the talk pages and in the deletion discussion, that 9 out of 16 sources are national. Therefore, his notoriety regarding the Strait of Messina Bridge project is high enough to be considered sufficient to have a Wikipedia page as an engineer. Moreover, there are no specific notability guidelines for engineers, but there are those for WP:CREATIVE professionals and the General Notability Guidelines (GNG), which Palamara absolutely satisfied.

Therefore, I hope I have been brief enough. I request a deletion review. --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm astounded that someone with 80,000 edits and autopatrolled status is so utterly unfamiliar with AfD and notability guidelines...

• The AfD nominator is always counted as a !vote for deletion unless it's explicitly noted (e.g. a procedural nom). It doesn't matter who "wanted" the AfD, by opening it and providing a reason for deletion Lijil obviously endorsed a deletion outcome. Your claimed alternative is facially absurd.
• TortugaP's !vote would have been discounted by literally any admin. Some random editor with 2 edits in April to Catalan Wikipedia who then ~somehow~ shows up two months later to a single AfD on English WP is already extremely suspicious, but even if it came from an editor with 50k en.wp edits it would have been discarded because it provided absolutely zero policy-based rationale for keeping the article.
• The subject of the AfD was Palamara, not the Messina Bridge. Coverage of the bridge's importance is irrelevant. I don't know why you have latched onto this "national media" distinction when you, as a very experienced editor, should already know that that holds no weight whatsoever in the absence of IRS SIGCOV of the subject. Palamara's being asked by "national media" about the bridge contributes nothing to notability. Palamara's quotes themselves contribute nothing to notability. The brief descriptions of who Palamara is before he is quoted are trivial and contribute nothing to notability.
• Palamara does not qualify for WP:CREATIVE (which I've never seen applied to engineers anyway):
  • 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. "Regarded as important" must be supported by extensive discussions of the subject describing him as such. "Widely cited by peers" means other independent engineers have directly cited his work in their own work, something that obviously isn't applicable to a non-academic non-artist.
  • 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Not applicable.
  • 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews... Not applicable, as Palamara only had a tiny role in promoting just the tourism aspect of the bridge.
  • 4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument... Not applicable.

JoelleJay (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. Properly run AfD and properly deleted. User:Kasper2006, read advice at WP:THREE. Use WP:AfC when you have found three good sources for establishing that the subject is Wikipedia-notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. First, AFD is not a vote count, especially considering one of the two keep !voters is a WP:SPA. Second, JoelleJay posted a thorough source analysis showing that all of the sources in the article and presented at the AFD failed GNG, this was not adequately refuted. Delete was the best option, relisting would have been an acceptable option as well considering the low attendance, but a second relist was in no way required. Frank Anchor 14:21, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• @Kasper2006: what is your connection to the subject of this article? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:38, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  Question about undisclosed COI editing. I see by File:Giuseppe Palamara.jpeg that you are the rights holder of the image yet in none of the deleted revisions or here, or on your talk page have you made a COI declaration. Is there an explanation that isn't leading to the conclusion that you have been deceptively and disruptively editing with an undisclosed conflict of interest. As an editor with 80k edits I won't be accepting ignorance as an explanation Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:07, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse close. A reasonable and unrefuted source analysis established that there was insufficient in-depth, reliable, independent sourcing. While many sources were present in the article, they were not sufficiently independent (e.g. interviews) or focused on the individual and their accomplishment rather than on the bridge. As SmokeyJoe has written, the way forward would be to find 3 (at least 2) sources that are independent, reliable, and in-depth. Absent that, the AfD discussion and close seem reasonable. Martinp (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the source analysis from JoelleJay meticulously details the sources' failure to satisfy the GNG. There was no rebuttal whatsoever; a subsequent "I like it" keep !vote (with four en.wiki edits to its entire history) does contribute to the weighting at all. One small addenda - a little less righteousness in this discussion, please. Some of the comments and tone vis a vis the requestor are unnecessary and immaterial. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

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

I am formally requesting a Deletion Review of the AfD for the article "Giuseppe Palamara", which was closed by administrator Owen (talk · contribs) as "delete" based on an alleged consensus. The closure and the subsequent explanations provided by the closing administrator on his talk page rely on demonstrably false factual claims regarding user registration, an arbitrary invention of non-existent participant counts, and a severe misrepresentation of community consensus.

In his talk page response, administrator Owen justified discarding the Keep vote of user TortugaP (talk · contribs) by stating it was "a brand new account created for the purpose of voting on this AfD" and implying meatpuppetry. This is factually incorrect. Global account analysis (GUC) proves that TortugaP (talk · contribs) is an established contributor active on other language projects, such as the Catalan Wikipedia (ca.wikipedia), with a clear edit history dating back to at least April 2026—months before this AfD was opened. Furthermore, the user contributes from Catalonia, focused independently on regional infrastructure and historical bridges, demonstrating zero correlation or "call to arms" with the article creator in Italy. Disqualifying a legitimate cross-wiki editor's input based on a false premise is a severe administrative oversight that violates WP:BITE and WP:AGF.

The actual breakdown of community members who took an explicit stance and voted in the AfD discussion was a tight 3-2 split:

• Delete: 3 editors (Adri08 (talk · contribs), JoelleJay (talk · contribs), Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk · contribs)).
• Keep: 2 editors (Kasper2006 (talk · contribs), TortugaP (talk · contribs)).

On his talk page, Owen claimed there were "four participants arguing for deletion" to assert an artificial "4-to-1" split against retention. This fourth distinct voting participant does not exist. While user Lijil (talk · contribs) technically opened the debate as the nominator providing structural background, they did not cast a separate, independent vote, meaning the total count of delete proponents is strictly three. Even if the administrator had valid grounds to discount TortugaP (talk · contribs), the real count would be 3-1, not 4-1.

More importantly, if we look at the independent community feedback by subtracting the two primary opposing parties—the active nominator who led the deletion push (Adri08 (talk · contribs)) and the main contributor of the article (Kasper2006 (talk · contribs))—the outside community was split at a minimal 2 to 1. A 2-1 margin (or 3-2 overall) represents a glaring lack of consensus under WP:CON. Fabricating an additional participant to claim a 4-1 "consensus" to delete is an unacceptable distortion of the process. Per WP:DELGROUP, when no clear consensus is formed, the default outcome should be to keep or extend the discussion.

Instead of evaluating the 16 secondary media sources provided—9 of which are major Italian national networks and outlets (such as RAI, Mediaset, and La7) providing independent expert coverage—the closing administrator dismissed the arguments by claiming the text "reads like it was generated by an LLM". Utilizing structural or language assistance to present a well-documented table of national media coverage is entirely within policy. An administrator cannot bypass a rigorous source assessment under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV simply by attacking the drafting style of a non-native English speaker.

Because the closing administrator relied on a false claim to invalidate a valid Keep vote, invented a non-existent fourth Delete participant to inflate the numbers, and declared a "consensus" where independent editors were split 2-1, the closure violates standard consensus-building guidelines. I respectfully request that the deletion be overturned, the page restored, or moved back to a neutral, third-party discussion. Kasper2006 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kasper2006 you have a misunderstanding of AfD. Owen did not invent anything. The nomination is their participation. Unless they explicitly say it's procedural or they're otherwise neutral, it is counted as an argument in favor of deletion. This is how the process works. That an editor of your tenure doesn't know this is bewildering. No comment on the rest of this at this stage, but pLease remove the headers and bullets from your thread here. They break the page. Star Mississippi 03:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse and Procedural Close although I am not sure that this is the right place to enter this, because of the way the appellant has broken DRV. Maybe I can explain something to User:Star Mississippi. I don't think that Kasper2006 has misunderstood how AFD works, because I don't think that Kasper2006 has written this appeal. An appeal that begins with an introduction of the form I am formally requesting a Deletion Review and is followed by three points and a conclusion is probably written by artificial intelligence. So the experienced editor didn't misunderstand how AFD works, because the chatbot misunderstood how AFD works. The Keep statement in the AFD was largely copied in this DRV and so was probably also written by artificial intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse LLM does not have standing at DRV. Jumpytoo Talk 05:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kasper2006, please review WP:LLMTALK, thanks. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The most unfair accusation that can be leveled against me is that my text was written by an LLM. I have already explained that, not being a native English speaker, sometimes I use a translator for assistance, but the arguments and thoughts are entirely my own. What is true, however, is that I am an expert wiki user. Therefore, before drawing the conclusion that Lijil automatically voted 'delete' by default simply because they opened the AfD, I would strongly advise Robert McCleon to review the entire history starting from April, when the article was first created, he can look at my contributions to see the steps I have taken. This was well before Adri08 brought their cross-wiki not-notability campaign over to en.wiki, in fact before his intervention the page had remained quiet in the namespace for almost a month. Doing so would reveal that it was actually myself who wanted the AfD process, after multiple attempts to obtain third-party opinions over several months had failed. It is a pity he did not check, because if he had, he would have noticed at least a few other editors there who had explicitly expressed their support for Palamara's notability. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify for the reviewing administrator: the previous editors who explicitly expressed support for Palamara's potential notability did so on the article's talk page (Talk:Giuseppe Palamara), which is currently deleted and thus only accessible to administrators. My extensive efforts to seek third-party input over the past months also included opening a Third Opinion request and posting on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I respectfully invite the closing admin to verify the deleted talk page history to confirm this context.

I therefore ask for a review of the two who voted endorse in light of these three new facts: 1) I rejected the accusations of having used LLM; 2) In fact, Lijil opened the AfD because after two months I myself wanted it, having failed to obtain a third opinion beyond that of the two contenders (me and Adrio08); 3) You failed to consider the fact that Owen stated something untrue by saying that TortugaP had registered to vote, in fact he had been active on the Catalan wiki for some time. Therefore, the 2-3 could not be considered a 1-4 by Owen (the addition of Lijil's vote if, even if it is true that he opened the AfD, I had understood this myself and the justification for the deletion of TortugaP's vote is not true).--Kasper2006 (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

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

The merge discussion was not tagged at the merge target. It had the deletion tag on the page but no one responded to the deletion discussion. It was therefore closed after one relist as consensus to merge to the proposed target. The proposed target is the wrong target. The correct target would be Christ Embassy. I only noticed this when consensus to merge was tagged on a page I watch (Chris Oyakhilome). It is not clear that there's anything to merge though, and straight deletion might be better. Either way, discussion should be relisted for another week, with a tag at the proposed merge target, so that editors watching that page can be involved in the discussion. Attempted to request this be done informally yesterday at closer's talk page but the closer has not responded, despite continuing to edit (and close discussions). Requested action is to Relist for one week, properly tagged. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Our procedures for nominating for merging segue with deletion, and and are under significant churn at the present time. These procedures should either be ignored, and DRV is well placed to do this, or should be examined in precise detail to be sure of the correct procedural status at each relevant time. Thincat (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The AFD started as a nomination for deletion so there was no relevant merge target. Then it was switched to a merge discussion using, I think, an undocumented but often used procedure. Thincat (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus because there was no consensus. If the "merge" closure was correct there seems to be no adequate closing procedure documented for delete nominations. Thincat (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Neutral – It really slipped under the radar here. Since it was an AfD with low participation, I view any administratively made decision favorably. Svartner (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Also pinging @Chubbles: to explain the reasons for his vote. Svartner (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Relist Closure was reasonable but arguably wrong. I doubt anyone would have much heartburn with the alternative merge target, assuming both articles meet our inclusion guidelines themselves. I don't see a reasonable case for deleting if that's the case per WP:NNC, because merging only verifiable content can sometimes devolve to a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• This is a classic case of WP:SOFTMERGE, which states, A soft merge closure may be used when a discussion receives very few or no comments [...] any editor can reverse this by splitting them back out [...] the discussion does not need to be relisted. @Svartner: if you agree, please change "merge" to "soft merge", and we can close this DRV as resolved. Owen× ☎ 16:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Done. Svartner (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'll close this. Owen× ☎ 23:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Soft merge or alternatively relist The decision to close as merge was not wrong, but I agree with others that the merge target articulated in the discussion may not have been the most optimum choice of target. Merge has always been a plausible outcome at AfD, so I do not agree that notification of a plausible target is necessary by editors at AfD. --Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Soft merge per above. FaviFake (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Relist per nom. Notifying the target talk page of a merge proposal is procedurally necessary, absolutely. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

List of brands notable for sponsorships with content creators (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

This discussion was closed 8 days after it was opened, by which point it only had a few comments, which I thought had only indicated mixed consensus so far. I talked to the closing administrator, who provided this rationale:

there is no set length of time beyond a minimum of 1 week and I believe in closing things once a consensus has been established. That said I did ponder for longer than normal about whether to relist or close it and I ultimately decided there was a consensus established and 4 editors is enough to establish such a consensus. Because it is not a vote, I did not simply count numbers but instead considered the comments in finding there already was a consensus. The comment, while not leaving a bolded !vote, cast doubt on the reasoning behind the keep !vote. This echoed the concerns of the 2nd delete !vote (the first being the nominator) and thus was enough to find a consensus.

Although I consider these points to be fair, I still think this discussion was closed too soon for the consensus to be considered quite clear just yet. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

What he excluded from that comment is that I asked him Do you have substantive reasons to offer for it being kept? as if he did I was prepared to relist it. However he did not and apparently does not being instead focused on process concerns. I look forward to the feedback from others here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse but relist, this is a valid reading of the discussion, but a very slim consensus. We have an established editor who, I presume, wants to add to the discussion. More days for a firmer consensus does not hurt anyone. Star Mississippi 00:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  @MrPersonHumanGuy can you confirm that you would like to add to the discussion? When you wrote I was hoping for other AfD participants to be able to find enough additional sources to potentially rescue the article and didn't answer my question I got the impression that you were concerned about consensus rather than looking to add. However, as I said above if the answer is "I have a !vote I wish to add" I'm happy to reopen and relist this myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  If I was planning to !vote in the discussion, I would've done so as soon as I became aware that it was nominated for deletion. (I didn't unintentionally "miss my chance" to do so) When an article is nominated, I assume it means that the nominator thinks the existing source coverage is insufficient, and I don't think I could personally argue against that myself. (although other editors might be able to) I would appreciate the AfD being relisted. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  struck that part of my comment per your followup, MPHG. I guess a relist isn't technically needed if there isn't someone looking to add to the discussion? Firmly meh as I'm not sure what the answer is here. Do we need to spend seven days here? Star Mississippi 02:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  My assumption is that, even if I have nothing to add, at least one other contributor (besides any of us so far) may decide that they themselves would've wanted to add to the AfD if they become aware of it, so I'm leaving this DRV open just in case. Only time can tell for certain whether my hope for that will turn out to have been valid or misplaced. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can't recall DRV ever reopening a discussion merely because someone said they wanted to add to the headcount. Searching, I can find a couple where we (well, I) have indicated willingness to reopen a discussion someone had missed if they had something concrete to add like an unconsidered source, and said what that was here at DRV (1, 2, 3). While that's never been successful, I still think it's a good metric.

  I'd intended to ask MrPersonHumanGuy what, precisely, they planned on saying if we reopened this afd for another week, but looks like we've gotten the answer while I was still searching for precedent. Hoping someone else will come along and rescue the list, or perhaps that another closer will read the same discussion and come to a different conclusion, isn't sufficient reason, I'm afraid. Endorse. —Cryptic 02:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can't recall DRV ever reopening a discussion merely because someone said they wanted to add to the headcount. I was going to say I did, but then realized I'm probably thinking of talk page discussions where - as was the case here too - closer says essentially, "OK, will relist if you have something to add."

  To any potential closer, don't let my !vote hang up consensus. I'm firmly split in that the close was fine but a relist would be too There's probably no wrong outcome here other than seven days of bureaucracy Star Mississippi 03:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• We are normally loathe to treat DRV as AfD round 2. But in this case, I'm with Barkeep49: I'd like to see what argument for retention the appellant presents before I decide. There was no procedural error; eight days is more than the required duration. Barkeep49 gave the appellant every opportunity to present his case on merits, yet MrPersonHumanGuy chose to appeal on procedural arguments I see as baseless. MrPersonHumanGuy: the floor is yours; tell us why the page should be kept, rather than why the AfD should be reopened. Owen× ☎ 01:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Relist a 2 v 2 discussion, not previously relisted, even with one side having a better grip on policy, is probably best relisted just to avoid situations like this where even if this might have been the right final answer (and I'm not advocating that it unequivocally is; I have no opinion on the topic), it just looks bad for a numerical tie to be closed conclusively in either direction. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know how you get a 2v2 discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

• Relist. With only two users who opposed retention, there was not a quorum to delete. Take out any keep arguments and it would be a soft delete, subject to immediate restoration upon any good faith request (e.g. this DRV). The presence of keep votes takes soft deletion off the table, meaning the discussion should have been closed as no consensus or relisted. I would opt for the latter as there is an interest in continuing this sparsely-attended discussion. Frank Anchor 12:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Relist - the discussion was not well attended, and while I don't feel that Barkeep's close was unreasonable, given the good-faith request to relist I now see no reason why we should not. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Relist. There was no quorum to delete here, so a deletion closure is improper, per Frank Anchor. Katzrockso (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: as the original AfD nominator, I will not oppose the outcome of this DRV whichever way it goes. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:22, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Relist - Two Deletes, one Keep, and one Comment is not a quorum to delete, and after one week it is usually preferred to relist rather than to try to tease out a consensus that isn't really there. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
• Trout to the appellant. Requesting to reopen or review an AFD simply because of timing is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

LoopMe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

I'm contesting the deletion of the LoopMe article under G11 (unambiguous advertising). I believe this deletion was in error and the article meets Wikipedia's notability standards.

LoopMe is a significant UK-based adtech company with extensive coverage in independent, tier-one trade publications. The article is sourced primarily in AdExchanger, TechCrunch, Broadcasting+Cable, MediaPost, Digiday, and ExchangeWire (all highly renowned publications!). LoopMe has also been used as a data source for articles in non-trade publications including the BBC, CNBC and Forbes.

A G11 deletion assumes the article's purpose is to promote the company. But the article describes what LoopMe does (i.e. its business model, history, products, and industry standing) in neutral, factual language. It doesn't use marketing claims; it reports on third-party coverage. Describing a company's achievements, awards, and products is encyclopedic, not promotional. Wikipedia has similar articles on Criteo, Databricks, and other adtech/martech companies.

The product descriptions are grounded in trade publication reporting, not company marketing copy.

I'm more than happy for neutral editors to review the article and toning down any language that reads as promotional.

The article was deleted without discussion an opportunity for improvement before removal. I'm requesting restoration so the article can be reviewed and improved by the community. Hannahloopme (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Even this request reads like a promotional piece. If the article is written even close to the same tone and manner as this then you are better off to walk away and let someone else create it from scratch, if the company is indeed notable. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 09:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying but I'm just trying to make my case! Hannahloopme (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Its written in promotional language and is a paid for article that was restored to mainspace 3 times on successive days by the nominator after 3 different admins deleted it as a g11 I suggest that we endorse and salt. Multiple creations in these circumstances is disruptive and I question whether we should allow the nominator to continue editing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Please can you define promotional language? I wholeheartedly believe that I have been neutral in tone and I've given tons and tons of citations - both industry-specific press and in the general press (e.g. BBC). Hannahloopme (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

its ref bombed and far from neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not ask the volunteer editors at DRV to assist you (a paid editor) in writing or rewriting your article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

To add - I complied with Wikipedia's policies in disclosing my affiliation to the subject too! Hannahloopme (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thats honestly the bare minimum and you don't get credit in the bank for that Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse and SALT per Spartaz. I appreciate the appellant declaring her paid editing status--eventually, after being prodded to do so by an admin. But in recreating the article in mainspace a day after it was deleted, she was not only violating WP:PAID/WP:COI, but also engaging in an edit war. The 8 June 2026 revision removed a lengthy product listing section, but was otherwise essentially identical to the one deleted the previous day, promotional tone and all. While I'm not yet ready to swing the ban hammer, if there's any attempt to circumvent the SALT with title-gaming, a p-block from mainspace is in order. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please can you try to appreciate that I've been trying my very best to stick to Wikipedia's rules. I added a paid disclosure note as soon as I found out that was required. I can infer the meaning of edit war but that wasn't my intention. I'm trying my best to understand and adhere to a complex system of rules. I'm also confused because so many similar companies have pages with far fewer citations: Quantcast, Criteo, OpenX etc - so I don't understand how those pages are live when LoopMe was taken down? Hannahloopme (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  I understand how daunting it can be for a new user on Wikipedia to learn our elaborate and often complex policies and guidelines. But let me boil things down to this: on 5 June, you were notified that the article was tagged for speedy deletion, along with a clear explanation of the reason for tagging, and links to relevant policy and steps to contest such a deletion. You did not engage with the editor placing the notice on your Talk page, nor follow the guidelines to contest it. The article was deleted on Sunday, 7 June, at 4pm UK time. The next morning, Monday at 08:46 UK time, you simply recreated the article, minus one section. This does not come across as the action of someone who is engaging with Wikipedia in good faith.

  Arguments pointing to other companies with articles here are typically rejected; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for details. As for earned vs. paid, how long would it take us to find examples of LoopMe buying ad space in one of MediaPost's 20+ publications? I don't think you want to go down that path. In general, trade journals are considered non-independent sources in almost all cases. Owen× ☎ 15:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• I have restored to Draft:LoopMe so non-admins can comment. Personally I'm not seeing the "unambiguous advertising or promotion" but no comment on notability. I also note it was accepted via AfC in April, so this probably deserves discussion at AfD rather than speed deletion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  To take one of many examples, the paragraph starting with, LoopMe has contributed to broader industry discussion on AI through publications and podcasts doesn't strike you as corporate marketing brochure penmanship? The repeated reliance on paid trade rag MediaPost for many of the claims is itself a red flag. Owen× ☎ 11:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  MediaPost articles are earned not paid! Hannahloopme (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  What does that mean ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Earned media, I suspect. Left guide (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  well that's a new concept to me. The problem with marketeers is an inability to communicate in a way that people who live outside their world can readily understand.

  I'm kind of blown away that the distinction appears something necessary to say. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes exactly I was countering the claim that I was relying on articles in a 'paid trad rag'. Yes it's a trade publication. But we're talking about earned media rather than articles which you pay for. Hannahloopme (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Technically overturn G11 but keep in draftspace. The article is not exclusively promotional and would not need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as [an] encyclopedia [article], as required by the policy. That said, this article as written would stand zero chance at AFD. Keeping it in draftspace allows for improvement to encyclopedic standards (both for notability and POV) to eventually be restored as a better article, or to be abandoned and G13ed. No opinion on whether or not the mainspace title should be salted. Frank Anchor 12:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse G11 If I had come across this in the AFC process I would have flagged it there for G11 as well. This is not an encyclopedic article written about a subject. It's a promotional fluff piece discussing how much affect they have had on the industry and boasting about the "coverage" they have recieved. It needs to be rewritten from the ground up by someone else. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. I can find all of four sentences that could survive unchanged in a neutrally-written article, two of them dubiously so. —Cryptic 13:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Really? I would be curious for a sentence-by-sentence breakdown. Here are six that are factual and neutral and I'm not even halfway down the article....

  LoopMe is an advertising technology (AdTech) company headquartered in London, United Kingdom.

  In January 2022, LoopMe received a $120 million investment from private equity firm Mayfair Equity Partners, valuing the company at approximately $200 million

  LoopMe was founded in 2012 by Stephen Upstone and Marco van de Bergh, two executives who had previously worked together in mobile advertising at Ad Infuse (later acquired by Velti)

  In 2022, former OMD (part of Omnicom) CEO Mainardo de Nardis was appointed as Chair of LoopMe's board of directors.

  In December 2024, LoopMe acquired Chartboost from Zynga, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive (Nasdaq: TTWO), for an undisclosed sum. Zynga had originally acquired Chartboost in 2022 for $250 million

  Chartboost is a mobile programmatic advertising and monetization platform that connects app developers with marketers through immersive in-app advertising experiences, and operates a mediation business for gaming publishers Hannahloopme (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please do not ask the volunteer editors at DRV for assistance in writing or rewriting an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  Noted! Hannahloopme (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  are you able to explain that last paragraph in plain English and not marketing gobbledegook? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  Chartboost is a mobile programmatic advertising and monetization platform that connects app developers with marketers through advertising in app environments, and operates a mediation business for gaming publishers Hannahloopme (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  if I have to follow 7 links to understand a 28 word sentence then that should basically tell you how this article was deficient. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  One half out of seven, and the only reason that the first sentence might (dubiously) survive is because nobody thought to excise the gratuitous buzzword. —Cryptic 16:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse and I'll note that the appeal sounds suspiciously like AI that has been told to minimize the chance of it being detected as AI. I realize this is a drown-the-witch sort of approach, but... We don't need this article, or any other article made on this company, which I believe fails NCORP in any event, nearly so much as they need a Wikipedia article to seem legitimate. Thank you, appellant, for disclosing your COI, but we just don't want your company's article here. Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

  For the record, I refute the AI accusation. I was trying to explain my case clearly and in accordance with Wikipedia's rules/terminology. Hannahloopme (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse and block Hannahloopme as they're clearly here only to promote LoopMe. Frank Anchor if you or any other non conflicted editor want to work on this, I'm happy to provide it for you as I'm sure you'd produce an acceptable draft if sourcing is available. Star Mississippi 18:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I personally have no interest in the topic but I believe there is some non-G11 material available if anyone would want to work on the draft available. Frank Anchor 19:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the speedy deletion from article space. The page is not so promotional that it should be speedily deleted from draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• ECP salt in article space, to allow a neutral reviewer to accept a submission from draft space to article space if/after it has been rewritten by a volunteer editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse, salt, ECP, and block the nominator. Then they might begin to get the message. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Keep deleted from mainspace and salt, retain in draftspace (where it is now). Wikipedia fundamentally does not want articles written by COI editors. Those editors tend to have an objective of "get X listed in Wikipedia", therefore edit with a bias, and community time is wasted policing for this bias. Such COI editors have a clear interest in pushing the boundaries of promotional content and tone. That is why COI editors have to disclose, and cannot write/place a COI article directly into mainspace. They need to draft it in Draft space, where the AfC process should decide whether to promote it to a mainspace article, with particular rigour to make sure the sourcing is good, the entity is notable, and the tone is nonpromotional. In this case, the current draft has indeed been written by a COI editor, and a quick look at the sourcing shows a tell-tale pattern of many sources, but not sufficiently in-depth and independent to support an article on this company. They're "Company had this (pretty routine) corporate/financial event", or "X from Company was interviewed and said ...". What will make the difference are sources that discuss, with an independent editorial voice, why this company is interesting and what makes it more notable than a run-of-the-mill company in the space. So at best more work is needed on the draft; at worst, there is just not enough independent in-depth coverage to warrant an article. Draftspace is the right place to figure it out, without trying to short circuit the process. Salting is appropriate, since there have been multiple attempts to do so. Technically, I'm not sure CSD G11 was appropriate (not unambiguous enough as advertising for my taste, per Martin above) but I also note the concerning history noted by Owen; an AFD discussion would not have been a good use of time. Martinp (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to note that it already went through the AfC process and it was accepted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

and it was deleted then too prior to the deletion @Hannahloopme is contesting. I think the community consensus is fairly clear and if she remains unblocked and moves the extant draft it will probably be deleted again. That said, not opposed to an AFD if folks think that would be helpful for a final enough. Star Mississippi 13:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse utterly unambiguous. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Just a note that the promotional content is blatantly a product of a LLM (probably ChatGPT) being asked to write an article about the company. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  Where is the evidence this was LLM-generated? @Helpful Raccoon Katzrockso (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  Numerous instances of WP:OVERATTRIBUTION and WP:AITREND/WP:SUPERFICIAL, such as "Industry publications including Cynopsis and Street Fight have reported on this trend in the context of LoopMe's position in the mobile app ecosystem". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate your point of view here but please note that I did not use any kind of LLM to write this. I was actually working with a spreadsheet of LoopMe related press coverage and weaving in citations that way. I was under the impression that I needed lots of attributions/citations in order to meet Wikipedia's standards. Hannahloopme (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

• Retain as draft, review at AfC: The draft is promotional. If @MSGJ says it was accepted at AfC, but was deleted per G11, then retaining in draftspace (or even userspace) is acceptable. The editor has declared they're being paid, and clearly appear to be engaging here, so a block would be punitive (and correct me if I'm wrong, but DRV isn't a conduct noticeboard). Improve the draft, send to AfC. 11WB (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

ArbCom has found that most of the editors who voted to delete this article were involved in meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing across this and other Michael Jackson-related discussions, producing a skewed consensus. Another editor who voted to delete, 2BOARNOT2B, was not included in the ArbCom case but is now suspected of being has since been banned as a sockpuppet of Mr Boar. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2BOARNOTOOB. Popcornfud (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: what is the remedy you are seeking? Owen× ☎ 11:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the article ought to be restored. Popcornfud (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus and, optionally, start a new AFD. This AFD was heavily influenced by canvassing/meatpuppetry as all but two of the redirect voters were included in the linked ArbCom case (of the two, one had four edits prior to that AFD and the other is currently being investigated for sockpuppetry, though that case is still open a confirmed sock). With, at best, two one good faith voters supporting redirect, there is not a quorum to do so and the article should be restored. The presence of keep votes makes NC the best option. No error made by the AFD closer as it was closed correctly based on information known at the time. Frank Anchor 12:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

modified vote based on now-confirmed sock investigation linked above Frank Anchor 11:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment What is the current problem that DRV needs to solve here? I'd be inclined to Vacate the AfD and allow anyone to un-redirect without this discussion being labeled as consensus, but at the same time I would be hesitant to spontaneously un-redirect it ourselves, as a lot may have happened since the article was first redirected. Also, I really don't like the naming of the two articles and am almost positive a better naming convention could be established with community discussion that we're not going to hold here at DRV. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  I initially just un-redirected the article myself, then discovered the DRV process and thought that seemed like the more proper route, so self-reverted. Happy to do it myself if DRV is deemed unnecessary. Popcornfud (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Vacate AfD as tainted by meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, with no prejudice against a new AfD, basically as Jclemens explained. The page should be restored (as it seems to have been done already). Katzrockso (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Vacate the AFD as tainted by collusion as found by ArbCom. Restore the article from the history and allow a new AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment to User:Popcornfud - It appears that several DRV participants think that DRV is the appropriate forum, so thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Hi, I just became aware of this discussion through a Reddit comment (https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/s/vfpcyM7wDq

) and am concerned that it may constitute inappropriate canvassing in support of Popcornfud. According to that comment, an article with substantially the same content, albeit under a slightly different title, was deleted only two or three months ago following a repeat AfD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Overview_of_Michael_Jackson_sexual_abuse_allegations ).TroVes6 (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi TroVes6, the Reddit post that you linked to appears to have been scrambled using a tool (which is equivalent to the Reddit user deleting it). According to its metadata, the post was created on 28 February 2026 and last edited on 13 March 2026 (UTC). How is it that you "just became aware of this discussion" through the comment when it was scrambled over three months ago? — Newslinger talk 11:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• From a procedural viewpoint, I'm inclined to restore the article. The newest AfD (linked above) does, however, indicate that such an "overview" article may not have support. I'd probably prefer we find another way forward. Perhaps bring this to AfD with a link to the last-real version of the article and discuss it rather than restoring and hosting what the last AfD concluded was non-ideal material (SYNTH etc.) which may have BIO issues. But second choice is a regular restore and allow AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Marija Brenčič Jelen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Reliable sources seem to exist for this person and she seems to meet notability requirements to have her own article. Article in Slovenian already exists and is a good start. StructuredFlorescence (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Allow recreation. This is a low-quality discussion from 12 years ago. Even if we want to evaluate the close (which a delete close seems reasonable here), WP:Consensus can change. Katzrockso (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy close / recommend withdrawing, see WP:DRVNOT #2. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the close, but it doesn't appear to be. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Allow submission of draft subject to acceptance or Allow creation of article subject to AFD (but DRV was not required for those permissions). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus and REFUND to draft. I know, it's a 12-year-old AfD, and the inexperienced appellant is trying to relitigate the case without presenting a valid appeal rationale. But the appeal rationale is right there: there was no quorum to delete, let alone consensus to do so. The nomination was supported by one participant. Even if we discard both Keeps, it can't be closed as anything stronger than a declined PROD. There's no valid reason to force the appellant to start from scratch, when we can provide them with a better starting point in draft. Owen× ☎ 09:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse but chide the closer for twelve years closing a contentious discussion per BADNAC, chide for “please request it at deletion review”, although it was before draftspace, refunding to draftspace does not require DRV, unless unreasonably refused at WP:REFUND.

Refund to draftspace.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

How on earth was this a "bad non-admin closure"? —Cryptic 15:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Every !vote was weak. The nomination was very weak. The closing statement didn’t explain anything and anticipated objection. It could have been closed “no consensus”, and so the nonadmin (I believe there were?) supervoted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

SarahStierch was sysoped over a year before the AfD. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok thanks. So that’s not a problem. Still, it was a poor quality discussion, an unimpressive close, and twelve years ago. It is no barrier to recreation, even if the closing admin said to come to DRV. There is no basis to make someone come to DRV to get the deleted page draftified or userfied or emailed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• The Slovene article and sources were considered at the afd, and it's gotten no new sources since then, and, for that matter, is barely changed at all. All the sources were present in the English version of the article, too.
  Which isn't to say we can't have an article on this person, or even that it'd necessarily be speedy deleted if recreated verbatim, but you're going to have to do much better than just point at the Slovenian article again. —Cryptic 15:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• Allow submission of draft If new sources have emerged, they should be evaluated at AFC. --Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Darializa Avila Chevalier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Spartaz closed the AfD with the summary The result was delete and redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. In discussion on Spartaz's user talk page, CopyleftEverything offered a robust assessment of the AfD, including:

On the merits of the deletion closer: I mostly agree with إيان. (Disclosure: Both of us !voted "keep", so we may be biased.) By my count, there were 9 !votes for keep (Tiamut; إيان; BobFromBrockley; Chao Garden; Edittttor; CopyleftEverything; Tbrechner; Katt Wilm; Smgraves623), 6 for delete (CambridgeBayWeather; EaglesFan37; CharlesBluth; Cachedio; Stanloona2020; and Pretzel Quetzal would've !voted), 6 for redirect (Enos733; Cfgauss77; FantinoFalco; pburka; William.E.Goat; Biosketch). That's 9-12. Closing this as delete is not unreasonable. But there was NOT a clear consensus.

IMO the debate was essentially between WP:GNG through WP:SIGCOV (for "keep") versus WP:BIO1E (for "delete"). I think the sources, including those listed by إيان above, clearly meet WP:GOLDENRULE coverage of activity before & outside the election campaign. The election campaign itself is arguably notable in-and-of-itself -- the coordinated Mamdani-DSA-JusticeDem effort to unseat a powerful incumbent received an enormous amount of coverage. After the article's deletion, there is no coverage of this effort on Wikipedia.

To point to a recent AFD for a challenger candidate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner. When that article was listed for AFD, it had 6 sources. But it was kept, long before the election, because a few months later, it had 27 sources, the vast majority of which WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. It is hard for me to see why that page should've been kept, but not Darializa Avila Chevalier, when DAC's article contained more sources and a similar amount of WP:SIGCOV.

To close with WP:THREE: 1. City & State's June 2026 profile of DAC; 2. NYTimes's May 2026 profile of DAC, 3. The City Reporter's January 2026 profile of DAC. Each discusses DAC's past activism, present campaign, and ideology in detail.

Spartaz then expanded on their close summary:

Firstly the relevant policy here is NPOL which is a special use case of 1E. Consequently, coverage has to be outside the context of elections. At least in this case the keep side put forward some sources but these were not universally adopted, were challenged and after the last relist the consensus very clearly coalesced around a redirect. While maybe unfair on the early votors, I find the opinions of users who come to a more mature discussion are usually the most informed and have the benefit of the whole source picture put up by the keep side. That they were unpersuaded by the keep arguments was what directed my conclusion

As I had stated in the AfD discussion, NPOL is for presumed notability. It does not supersede SIGCOV and the policy explicitly states:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

The !votes to delete the article, a number of which appear to be drive-by !votes, do not provide any convincing argument against this. إيان (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse involved. Editors split 9 (keep) - 12 (delete/redirect) on leaving the page as a stand-alone page and deletes and redirect comments were grounded in policy. This is the second AfD of the subject, which was closed initially as delete in February 2026. In addition, 5/6 editors who commented after the relist were to delete or redirect the page (after sources were provided in the discussion and in the article). --Enos733 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  I have no objections to the revised close retaining the article's history. - Enos733 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse redirect but restore the deleted history behind it. Counting noses is a fool's errand. If the entire SIGCOV cited by the Keeps revolves around one election cycle, coverage in the relevant election article may very well be all that is encyclopaedically warranted. Enos733 said it best, and their !vote, along with those who agreed with Enos733, carries more P&G weight than that of the Keeps. That said, I see no valid argument to delete the history behind the redirect. If there's any copyvios or other policy violations there, those--and only those--revs can be deleted. But the rest should be restored, allowing anyone to selectively merge relevant content to the target while observing WP:DUE. Owen× ☎ 22:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  The issue with covering candidates in the election articles is that their traditional standardized structure is not beholden to contain the encyclopedic information that is covered by the sources. Where in 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 13 (an already overburdened article) would you suggest the policy positions of each candidate (which are often covered by reliable sources) go? There is plenty of pertinent and encyclopedic information in an article like this . Katzrockso (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I concur that there is a consensus against retaining a standalone article in the discussion, however, so overturning to redirect is the best outcome. Katzrockso (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to redirect (with history retained) largely per OwenX. I do see policy based consensus to not keep as a standalone article. However there is not consensus to delete rather than redirect, nor is there any valid argument to not redirect or to delete the article history. As the argument for not keeping the article is BLP1E, a redirect to that 1E is a very reasonable ATD. Frank Anchor 23:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Spartaz, was there anything particularly concerning in the history that prompted the delete & redirect? This is a BLP, so the risk of something inappropriate in the history is much higher than entertainment content. I'd really like to hear the rationale behind delete and redirect, because like the above 2 !voters, I'm not seeing a compelling reason--or arguments in the AfD--to support delete and redirect instead of a simple redirect. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  To be fair, in retrospect I probably flubbed the delete part and would be prepared to undo that part of the close. I suspect that I was swayed by the split of later votes between delete and redirect. I stand by the clear consensus to redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to Redirect if this is what we should say to restore the history. The close of Redirect was correct, but I don't see a reason to delete the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• I have restored the history below the redirect. In retrospect I think I was swayed by the post relist voters being split between delete and redirect but logically the correct outcome is to maintain the redirect and leave the history below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, Spartaz. I believe this now addresses the only overturn issue brought up by participants other than the appellant. No objection to a SNOW close of this DRV. Owen× ☎ 12:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, this addresses all my issues and would make it easier for editors to recreate the article if Avila Chevalier wins her election and/or gains more significant coverage. I wouldn't object to a SNOW close either. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Pretzel Quetzal and Spartaz: Thanks for restoring the history. :) As a keep !voter, this is better. Looks like consensus here remains against keeping.

  I am frustrated at this consensus. To revisit my example of Graham Platner: That AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner) was closed as "no consensus" (with 22 keep, 17 redirect/delete). That's roughly the same ratio as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darializa Avila Chevalier (2nd nomination) (with 9 keep, 12 redirect/delete). The kept version of Graham Platner had 0 RS predating the election (of 27 sources) and 6 non-lede paragraphs about Platner's life before the campaign, most of which about his military job and bartending job. The deleted version of Darializa Avila Chevalier had 6 RS predating the election (of 45 sources) and 10 non-lede paragraphs about Avila Chevalier's life before the campaign, most of which about her public protests. (It hasn't been WP:10YT yet, but I remember the 2018 Marion Sims protest!) Beyond that: Both Platner and Avila Chevalier are DSA members whose campaigns represent a noisy fight between the socialist/progressive Left wing and liberal/centrist Right wing of the Democratic Party, and IMO are notable in their own right. TLDR: If the Platner article deserved "no consensus", then the DAC article deserved "no consensus".

  I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc etc, but it's frustrating. Anyway, thanks for the undeletion. :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  If you are counting votes then you won't get that this was a genuinely no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  The arguments in both discussions are very similar. Both cite the same Wikipedia guidelines around sustained coverage, routine coverage, politician presumed notability, and enduring notability. I am engaging the substance and suggesting DAC's article should pass even more strongly. CopyleftEverything (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  FWIW, if Graham Platner were renominated today, I'd argue to delete that one, too. No consensus shouldn't be confused with a consensus to keep. pburka (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  The difference is in the flow of the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Which itself presents a game theoretic problem, since many editors are partisan on these type of deletion issues, it incentivizes postponing a vote to show a change in opinion. Or it can equally just reflect a random change in the proportion of partisans from 'each side' (i.e. more non-elected politician lovers showed up after the relist and never would have been convinced by the delete arguments). Katzrockso (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, this is a big challenge with candidates at AfD. There are incentives, especially of supporters of the candidate, to come out an support positions to keep the article, thinking it will either help their candidate or to argue about fairness: "their opponent has a page." The answer is not to discourage deletion discussions of candidates that do not meet our expectations of notability, but perhaps we should recognize that a closure in the middle of a campaign may not be the final word. - Enos733 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  They are never the final word as circumstances might change at anytime and previous consensus will change as soon as the policy basis for inclusion will change. This has always been the way we handle these Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why especially of supporters of the candidate but not editors who seek to suppress coverage of the topic? إيان (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  oh please. Suppress? That's real battlefield language and fundamental failure to assume good faith. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  !votes are not votes and consensus is not established by tally, but by evaluation of arguments grounded in policies and reliable sources. إيان (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I definitely share your analysis of the similarities between Platner and Avila Chevalier, and their representation of this wider fight within the Democratic Party. However I think Platner is much more notable than Avila Chevalier as he is running in a swing Senate seat, whereas Avila Chevalier is running to unseat an incumbent Democrat. Platner has been discussed a lot in national politics whereas at the moment I have seen little discussion of Avila Chevalier outside of NY and progressive circles. Obviously this could easily change, if Avila Chevalier were to win tomorrow it would (I think) be the first incumbent Democrat to be primaries (apart from Al Green in Texas where gerrymandering forced two incumbents to run against each other), and she would likely receive significant coverage. Actually a few hours ago, the Guardian covered the race as well , which would be further international coverage. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't really understand the rush to run these articles into main space. It would make far more sense to concentrate our editing efforts on those candidates who win their primaries or, god forbid, actually win the general. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t really understand the reticence. If the sources to establish the notability of a subject are there, why not make sure the information is represented on Wikipedia and available to readers precisely when they are seeking to learn more about the subject in order to make an informed decision when they cast their ballot. إيان (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  One of the many things Wikipedia is not is an election guide. If we want voters to make informed decisions then we ought to include biographies of every candidate. That is one reason why I, and many other editors, believe that no candidates should be included (unless they're notable outside of election coverage). pburka (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  If they meet GNG they should have articles. إيان (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  إيان, you seem to be relitigating the AfD here. DRV is not AfD-round-2. We are here to determine whether the AfD was closed in accordance with a reasonable read of consensus there. If you believe the AfD participants erred in their assessment of the sources, start a spinout discussion at Talk:2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. DRV is the wrong forum to conduct a source assessment.

  If they meet GNG they should have articles - that is incorrect. WP:PAGEDECIDE makes it clear that not every subject that meets GNG must have a standalone article, especially if the subject can be adequately covered in another page. Unless you have any new argument relating to the closing of the AfD, I'll ask one of our regulars to close this DRV. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just responding to some comments here. Not opposed to closing this DRV. إيان (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  I just want to make a point that GNG is not the standard we are using here and NPOL is the controlling guidance dusted with a generous sprinkling of 1E. There is absolutely no value in fighting an established consensus in an area is a contentious topic. You should really reflect on that and ask yourself if your enthusiasm is helping yourself or the project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  GNG has a big carveout that you're ignoring: WP:NOT. pburka (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Overturn (to redirect, with history intact). There was not justification to delete the history. There was a clear consensus to redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Nobody suggested draftification? I think it should have been draftified. Unelected candidates for elections, who were not notable before becoming a candidate, are routinely required to remain in draftspace until they are elected. There are good reasons for this. I encourage proponents to ask for the history to be moved to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Annisa Suci Ramadhani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

I just opened my article watchlist and found out that Annisa Suci Ramadhani's English Wikipedia article was deleted on the grounds of WP:G11. Someone put the speedy deletion tag on G11, and the article was then deleted. I was stunned, since this subject's article had existed for more than a year until someone deleted it under the pretext of promoting it. Honestly, I just translated Ramadhani's article from Indonesian to English, and the Indonesian version (id:Annisa Suci Ramadhani) doesn't have any promotional tendencies or flowery sentences. Her article is just like other regents' (second-level local government in Indonesia) articles on English Wikipedia, showing her date and place of birth, education, previous jobs, and how she won the election. This deletion was sound too unfair and hence I made a request for Ramadhani's article deletion review. I hope this review will bring positive results. Faldi00 (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that the position held by Ramadhani is a local political appointment and therefore does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians and judges criteria for the English Wikipedia. It could be argued that they have enough notability to be included, on the basis of the references, although these even included a LinkedIn profile. The article that you wrote had been substantially changed by User:Kominfo Dharmasraya, who had a very obvious but undeclared conflict of interest. Looking further back, I see that the older versions still consisted mainly of a CV, and the subject was referred to throughout by her first name. Numerous articles for Indonesian local politicians have been created recently and many of these have been deleted for both A7 and G11, so I propose a deletion discussion to settle it. Is that acceptable to you? Deb (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm chiming in to say two things. First off, regents are elected, not appointed. They are the equivalent of mayors for rural areas in Indonesia. Secondly, people in Indonesia are generally referred to by their given name. For example, Sumitro Djojohadikusumo is referred to as Sumitro rather Djojohadikusumo in the article. Kaythehistorian (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Undelete and send to AfD. On reading the google translated Indonesian article, I don’t think it meets G11 or A7. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Speedy undelete and send to AfD. Undelete as a reasonably contested speedy, and per SmokeyJoe. I agree with him that a direct translation of the Indonesian article would not merit a G11; no opinion if subsequent edits did, but a non-G11 version is clearly possible. Concur with Deb (the speedy deleting admin) that notability is at best unclear, and so a discussion at AfD is warranted. (@Deb, since Indonesian does not use first vs family names in the same way English does, I would read nothing into what/which name a translated article might use). Finally, since our policy on contested speedies is clear, since Deb themselves proposes a deletion discussion (therefore undoing the G11), and since all of us here seem to agree, I think we can do it speedily rather than waiting 5 days. If indeed the article in its most recent form suffered from promotional undeclaried COI editing layered on top of a not-so-promotional version, it could be rolled back prior to AfD nomination, or at least the AfD nomination could include a link to the earlier, pre-COI version. This is since the discussion should be about notability and suitability of an article at en.wp at all, not about a COI-polluted edit in particular. Martinp (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Self referral here as the close has been challenged at my talk page here basically arguing that my close to redirect as an ATD was a super vote and that I should enforce the clear consensus of the discussion. I have some sympathy to this argument as the only real support for the redirect was from the nominator. However, my close was informed by recent DRV discussions where the expectation that admins follow a valid ATD has become a constant theme. So basically what I'm asking for is a steer on whether I should have closed this as direct as I believed the expectation at DRV would be or whether I should have deleted anyway, which would have seen me put a redirect in as an editorial decision. Essentially, the end state is the same but the second more closely reflects the discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse 1) status quo was as a redirect for the past year, 2) Nothing added in the attempted un-redirect and improvement was attack, copyvio, or unambiguously promotional, 3) No one who argued for deletion also argued against the AtD. This is a perfect AtD: clearly not notable, notability/verifiability is the main problem, and there is a notable and sensible redirect target. Mind you, the Psyclones paragraph in the target article kinda sucks at the moment, but that's something to work on without needing admin tools to spruce it up and smooth it out. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse While there were more editors who supported deleting the article, no editor explicitly expressed opposition to the redirect. A delete close would also have been acceptable, but we have frequently given lots of leeway to an AtD. --Enos733 (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse – when an ATD is suggested and there's no argument to the contrary whatsoever, I do believe closing as delete would just amount to raw vote-counting. (Thanks for bringing this here. I think more DRV self-referrals would be a good thing.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. Yup, that's how almost all of us interpret ATD-R. Owen× ☎ 08:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. I was the one that raised this on Spartaz's talk page, and I did so because my understanding of policy was that when the question of a possible redirect was raised during an AfD discussion, the result on this was determined there, by consensus on the matter. If this isn't the case, the relevant policy should probably be made explicit in WP:DISCUSSAFD, which as it stands seems unambiguously to state that whether a redirect is created is one of the options being determined by participants. As for the specifics, Spartaz says the content on Psyclones in the redirect 'kinda sucks', which in my opinion is an understatement, since dedicating getting on to a quarter of an article supposedly on one band, which at least has a claim to be notable, to another band which, per the AfD, isn't, seems to me to run contrary to WP:DUE and to the spirit of the AfD consensus. Anyway, I'm not going to make a big thing of this, since it appears the redirect is seen as acceptable, and my time is probably better put into trying to sort out the confused mess at the target, which isn't even consistent as to whether it is discussing a band (or two bands?), an individual, or a 'project' lead by said individual, and which arguably is basing its 'notability' claim around flipping between one and another. If the target was less of a mess, the validity of the redirect might be clearer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  My sense is that participants at AfD need to explicitly argue against a redirect. And there are many reasons why a redirect, while reasonable, may not be the preferred outcome. Examples include: if a subject is mentioned in the targeted article as the current holder of a position (and might be removed from the article), there are multiple redirect targets, or there is not any substance in the targeted article. In this case, I do agree, a redirect may not be the optimum outcome, but no editor suggested that restoring the redirect was incorrect. - Enos733 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  My sense is that participants at AfD need to explicitly argue against a redirect.

  Which seems rather inconsistent with the insistence at DRV that delete !voters must have explicitly endorsed a redirect if they want to avoid a delete/redirect split being closed as no consensus..... JoelleJay (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think very many people actually agree with that position (I know I don't), and sometimes DRV has overturned closures along those lines, e.g., Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 March 14#Masini Situ-Kumbanga. I guess you're referring to the Fraser DRV, but that one was enough of a mess that I'm not sure it tells us very much either way. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse clear consensus not to keep and no opposition to redirect from the delete !voters. Consensus is not required to close as an ATD instead of deletion. Anyone who does not believe the redirect to be correct can start a discussion at WP:RFD. Frank Anchor 16:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. No argument against a redirect was presented in the AfD. I second Extraordinary Writ's notion that closing as delete would be vote counting rather than evaluating the strength of arguments (i.e. determining consensus). Katzrockso (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse - Redirects are both cheap and useful. Sometimes there should be a redirect unless there is a reason not to redirect, and no reason was given. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse As I wrote here on Spartaz's talk page, "I agree with Spartaz's interpretation of the community opinion at deletion reviews to supporting Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and strongly support the close as redirect given the discussion at the AfD."

  When a redirect is an alternative to deletion, I always support keeping the article's history accessible to non-admins if there are no BLP violations or copyright violations or anything else that should be publicly inaccessible in the history. The article may contain useful content for a merge or useful sources. The article may have unreliable sources that cannot be cited. But the unreliable sources may have information that helps editors find reliable sources that can be used. Without having to ask an admin to restore to draft, a non-admin who is interested in recreating the article with better sourcing and content can immediately view the prior state of the article to see if anything can be reused. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment about notability: I consider Psyclones notable through the significant coverage in reliable sources I provided at Talk:Psyclones#Sources. Of the eight sources I listed there, I think only one—the 2021 Times-Standard article—was discussed at the AfD. Rather than deletion, Psyclones should have a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please read Wikipedia:Deletion review. This isn't a rerun of the AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but this falls under the "significant new information" purpose of DRV. Moreover, Cunard didn't advocate for overturning the result to keep, since that obviously wasn't within any discretion for a closer. Katzrockso (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  If " Rather than deletion, Psyclones should have a standalone article" isn't advocating for overturn of the result, what is the purpose of writing it here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Why would Cunard explicitly write just above "Endorse" and then quote their own post I agree with Spartaz's interpretation of the community opinion at deletion reviews to supporting Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and strongly support the close as redirect given the discussion at the AfD (emphasis mine) if they were advocating to overturn? Katzrockso (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  I endorse the close as an accurate and well-reasoned interpretation of the policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, consistent with the discussion at the AfD and the community consensus established in many recent deletion reviews.

  I support the creation of a standalone article based on the new sources I found at Talk:Psyclones#Sources, eight of which were not discussed at the AfD. I am stating that opinion here based on the "significant new information has come to light" purpose of DRV as explained by Katzrockso.

  These two statements are not in conflict. I endorse the close while also supporting the creation of a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. Endorsing the result of the AfD is not related to whether or not a different result should arise for the subject in question (i.e. we could endorse a keep closure and then advocate for discussion on the talk page to merge the subject into another article). Katzrockso (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. The AfD nom mentioned the prior redirect, and User:UtherSRG explcitly supported the redirect, and no one argued against redirect, so the close was not a Supervote. The target mentions the topic, so the redirect is appropriate. It was a pretty obvious ATD-R, although unusual in the number of clean and simple “delete” !votes.

The inclusion of Psyclones at the target feels clunky. Hopefully that will be fixed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• ATD-R is not, and never has been, a license to close an AFD contrary to consensus. The alternatives listed are things that an AFD (or indeed an editor) is permitted to do. In other words, ATDs are options, not mandates. One person suggesting an ATD does not take, and never has taken, deletion off the table. Where redirection has been suggested and the participants at the discussion choose not to take forward that suggestion and instead form a consensus to delete, the closer should close according to that consensus. There is no blanket requirement for !voters to explicitly !vote against an ATD for this to be the case.
  That being said, in the very specific facts of this discussion, where the article was spun out last month from a redirect that had been existent for a very long time, and where the nominator expressed this, and where most of the participants didn't seem to engage with this, reverting to a redirect is the most sensible outcome. I don't know if that constitutes an endorse, but I will go with no action. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree completely with this position. JoelleJay (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  This is just endorsing vote counting as a legitimate method for evaluating consensus, which is contrary to policy. Katzrockso (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  As far as I'm aware, mind-reading, i.e. assuming that because somebody didn't actively oppose a redirect they must support it, is definitely contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:Silence implies consent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Nice try, but an essay on content editing doesn't equate to a policy on how AfDs are conducted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  It’s not just a content essay, but an ancient proverb. Once redirection is mentioned, for all subsequent posters, there’s an onus to to mention an objection if they have one. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Even if we assume (which reasonable minds can disagree about) that delete !voters oppose a redirect, presenting no argument against a redirect, but opposing it, is WP:JUSTAVOTE and should be discarded by a competent closer. Katzrockso (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:JUSTAVOTE is an essay and does not bind closers in any way. Without waiving that objection, delete !voters are not, and never have been, required to traverse every possible alternative !vote that they might have cast and write a wordy explanation of why they have considered that possibility and ruled it out. They are expected to explain why they support the course of action they are !voting for, which most of the participants did. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  It is a clear extension of the WP:CONSENSUS policy you reference elsewhere, which states Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. The idea that a bare !vote to "delete" or "keep" an article should be counted is not consistent with existing Wikipedia PAG, practice or community consensus. WP:ATA is not WP:JUSTANESSAY, but one that garners significant community support. Katzrockso (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  The problem is that our peripheral P&Gs, like WP:DGFA, WP:PRESERVE, WP:CHEAP, and of course the seminal statement at WP:ATD, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. inform the process. I get that Stifle and AndyTheGrump don't see it that way, but this goes to the purpose of Wikipedia: to provide appropriate articles to the public. Using the least invasive ways to correct problems, consistent with allowing the most people to fix such problems, is an important part of the process. Thus, arguments about whether ATD-R must be prioritized in any given situation are not dry legalities based on meticulously parsed grammar and flowcharts, but informed by common sense: "What ends the problem in a way that leads most readily to it being fixed (if possible) and put back in mainspace?" and that is going to be something where no administrator action is needed to undelete something 10 times out of 10. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  All very florid, but these are guidelines that the community is able to take into account. If a discussion comes to a consensus that deletion is appropriate despite all those things, it is to be followed, even if the !votes do not traverse seriatim every last guideline, essay, and process guide and say that they have considered it. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  But in case you want to argue logic, WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS means that a deletion !vote when there is no policy-based reason for deletion, either per se (no WP:DEL#REASON applies) or because an WP:ATD would correct all reasons for deletion, is not a policy based !vote and is to be deprecated by the closer. There is no "default to delete" in Wikipedia: a reason for deletion must exist, and no other way to resolve the problem by editing can exist, before a deletion discussion can be closed as "consensus to delete". In practice, this has meant that such sub-par delete !votes were still accorded the understanding that the !voter didn't believe the article should be present in mainspace as it currently existed and counted toward whichever ATD was most relevant, usually redirection, unless an argument was made that the article in question should never exist as a mainspace article, a much more narrow and forceful argument. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  That presupposes ATD and ROUGHCONSENSUS are policies, whereas they are in fact a process guide and a guideline respectively. WP:CON, on the other hand, is a policy, so trumps all the foregoing. As for the question of "default to delete", that's a strawman (attacking an argument I never made).

  Nice try though. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:ATD is policy. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know when that happened or where the consensus came from, but you appear to be correct. Nevertheless, ATD outlines things that editors are permitted to do, not that they are required to do. The application of ATD to a given situation is to be determined by consensus. Nothing in ATD says it overrides the requirement for a consensus. There is not, and never has been, a requirement that a person !voting to delete set out seriatim every possible ATD and why they have rejected it. Such a !vote would be looked upon as sarcasm or disruptive. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  You not remembering that ATD is policy and me not remembering a time when it was ever not policy might go a long way to explaining the differing perspectives. I seriously do not know that that section ever existed anywhere outside of the deletion policy page, and me viewing it as a policy has shaped my view on its prioritization, as expressed here and elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  A !vote advocating for deletion for a reason that is remediable by a non-deletion option is not policy-based and should be either downweighted or read as a vote for the AtD which addresses the concerns of the editor. This a straightforward application of WP:ATD and WP:CONSENSUS. Katzrockso (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse, with others. Article was a redirect, redirect got restored. Valid ATD. Skyshiftertalk 02:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• endorse I would endorse a redirect even without this having been a long-standing redirect in the past per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. But in this case it's easy. Also, as Cunard has noted, there are enough sources to actually have an article that easily meets our inclusion guidelines. So in many ways, the AfD, while closed correctly, it got it wrong (though maybe WP:TNT applied?). Hobit (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse the close as a reasonable interpretation of the discussion, given its context, and our overall approach to redirects. In fact, a good example of a thoughtful close which goes beyond counting noses. That said, a close like this would have benefitted from a closing comment to explain the reasoning pre-emptively. And it would also have been very reasonable to not close, rather to relist with a targeted request for comments whether to redirect, since the discussion had barely engaged with that and yet there were voices emphasizing the content shouldn't be merged into the (possible) redirect destination. Martinp (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: the threshold for retaining a redirect is much lower than that for retaining an article. Therefore, any Delete !vote at AfD that presents a valid argument against keeping the article, but fails to meet the more stringent RfD standard for deleting the proposed redirect ATD, can--and should--be counted as acquiescing with the ATD. This has been our common practice for as long as I can remember. The Stifle doctrine can result in absurd situations where an article is kept as "no consensus" because participants, unanimous against retention, are evenly split between "Delete" and "Redirect". Perhaps an added sentence at WP:ATD could align the policy, as written, with our common practice and with common sense. Owen× ☎ 11:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  I hadn't thought of it that way, but that's a very useful illustration: problematic enough to redirect but not bad enough to delete is a real thing. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

  Agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think this might fit better at WP:DGFA? Katzrockso (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. The nominator recommended redirection, that suggestion was explicitly endorsed and nobody (explicitly or otherwise) presented any arguments against redirection so this was a correct close. Deletion wouldn't have quite been outside the bounds of administrator discretion, but it would have been on the edge and distinctly sub-optimal outcome in the cirucmstances. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: Regarding Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, there is a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Recent reversion and its subsection Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Why should redirecting be preferred over deletion?. Cunard (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Kenya Agricultural & Livestock Research Organisation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Per my statement on the closer's talk page: "For one, the close did not address or change KALRO at all. In addition, no one besides the nominator voted on this discussion, making the current state of [the] close almost look like a WP:SUPERVOTE. My recommendation is that [the close be reverted and the closer] participate in the discussion instead.". Steel1943 (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Withdraw this DRV per the closer reopening the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Source assessment/CWC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

This is a source assessment page for keeping track of which sources would serve the argument that the target of a once-unwanted publicity campaign by bad actors may be considered notable under Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Spartaz impromptly deleted it yesterday with the rationale Wp:blp. Enough of using Wikipedia to hold information on this person. Before then, an RfC discussion had been taking place on its talk page since early May over whether or not there should finally be a Wikipedia article about this person.

This is the first time that a source assessment page has been deleted. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn, at the very least for Wikipedia talk:Source assessment/CWC (which could be moved elsewhere if needed). It had an ongoing RFC with multiple established Wikipedia editors participating. Skyshiftertalk 20:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse I have reviewed what's out there on the Internet at large, and endorse Spartaz' action as a legitimate G10 without having to see what's in the file. That is, I looked at what's out there and agree that even evaluating online what has been said about or by this person likely violates BLP to the point we shouldn't even be hosting a conversation about it. BLP deletion is not like other CSD's that must be overturned for a consensus process if one good faith editor objects. Jclemens (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
• Immediate context is yesterday's deletion review. —Cryptic 20:58, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I always find it disappointing when an editor claiming an admin action is out of process fails to follow the process by not discussing with the deleting admin prior to raising the drv.

In this case, I deleted the content because it was being used to try and force an article about a victim of extreme online harassment on gng grounds when the standard is blp and specifically, WP:VICTIMIZE. Even hosting the sources is an extension of the harassment out there. There are no sources that would support a neutral balanced article that isn't a total hatchet job. In my opinion, the content needed to go and no discussion engaging the GNG was going to overcome the BLP issue. The policy is that any admin is required to remove BLP violating content and that said content cannot be restored unless there is a consensus to do so. Therefore, Mr nominator, can you explain to us why you think Wikipedia should be used to extend the harassment of this individual and how hosting wholly negative sources about them is not an extension of their victimisation? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

To answer both parts of your question:

• If I had set out to help the harassment campaign, I wouldn't be supporting the implementation of measures to prevent its participants from turning a hypothetical draft into yet another G10-worthy attack page. Asking me why I think we should help the harassment campaign is like asking a citizen who espouses socialism or traditional values why they think the government should abuse its power and deprive its constituents of their freedom, for lack of a good non-political analogy.
• I didn't think that keeping a list of sources mentioning her would be as bad an idea as recreating a draft would have been. I am aware that WP:BLPCRIME says editors must seriously consider not including material in any article that suggests the person [is alleged to have] committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime, and that libelous content should be deleted (or removed and oversighted if added to a page).
  This makes me wonder if Wikipedia:Source assessment/DoorDash Girl controversy could also be deleted for hosting lots of sources that suggest that a specific delivery worker has entered a customer's home and captured him on video sleeping naked.

As this page was created by Duke of New Gwynedd, I think the responsibility of defending its existence may instead belong to them and to whoever else added the sources that mentioned the subject's alleged crimes, unless each of them agrees that what they have each done is wrong in hindsight. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I asked you, because you actively demanded I undelete it by raising the DRV. As I explained the policy, if you are arguing to restore BLP deleted content then the onus is on you to justify the inclusion of that content. My questions were designed to emphasise the impact of hosting the content and they reflect the reason why a BLP deletion was implemented. Addressing them is pertinent to the argument to retain the content.

You made some comment at the RFC about maybe having an article because she might be a public figure and because deleting it would Righting Great Wrongs. Is that still your position now that you have seen the strong views expressed here about the blp violation?

Finally, you asked about the doordash girl source analysis. My answer to that is in the MFD nomination I just raised. I don't think the BLP violation is anywhere near the scale as on this one. The door dash person isn't a vulnerable individual subject to years of online harassment. Regardless, it's a pointless page and I don't see the value of it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Therefore, Mr nominator,

I can be a bitch, but even I rarely attack established editors in such a direct manner. Users who do have a mop should refrain from using such language IMHO. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this connected to my nominating your source analysis table at MFD? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

To directly respond to the comment. I'm a bit confused here. According to our own article, Mr is an honorific and I'm not aware that calling someone Mr is an attack.

I used the phrase as as substitute as the edit box was covering the nominators username and I didn't want to open another page to check it because I was making my response literally as I was going to bed.

Help an old guy out here, how is this an attack? I don't see it from my cultural perspective at all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Since "Mr" is part of the nominator's chosen username, it's clearly not an attempt to impose or assume a gender identity. I don't buy the third party outrage here. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this connected to my nominating your source analysis table at MFD?

That MfD made me look at your talk page, and the newest message there linked here.

Mr is an honorific and I'm not aware that calling someone Mr is an attack.

This came across as sense #8 on wikt:Mister#English: "(colloquial, sometimes hostile, sometimes written 'mister') Used by itself as a familiar term of address to a man whose name is unknown, or sometimes even if the name is known." (emphasis mine) Compare "Hey, Mr. I'm so Informed becuase i am older than you". If you were simply looking for a way to refer to the OP, it would be more common to simply say "OP" or "nominator" (without the Mr). And given that your sentence continued with the loaded question "can you explain to us why you think Wikipedia should be used to extend the harassment of this individual", my reading of "Mr" to be hostile in this context doesn't seem out of the ordinary. It's unclear to me what you are referring to when you say "my cultural perspective". — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That seems a stretch to me but let's keep this discussion focused on the harassment and victimisation of the subject of the source review, rather than tone policing a comment that I have already explained came, in my mind, with no connotations. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:32, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You explained that, and I explained how it came across from my point of view. I don't see the problem.

let's keep this discussion focused on the harassment and victimisation of the subject of the source review

Isn't this supposed to be about discussing whether the deletion of the source assessment page was appropriate or if it should be restored? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

You can't have one without the other. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Hardest endorse you could ever imagine per the diligence of User:Spartaz. Even as someone who participated in discussions on the talk page, there is no reason to retain so much negative content, a pretty decent portion of which serves the purpose of harassing a living person. WP:BLP, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:IAR. There is a consensus among editors who are not looking to harass living people that, whatever notability notwithstanding, this individual is a cyberbullying magnet whose hypothetical BLP article would be a nightmare to maintain, and the only thing that disappoints me about this deletion is that I cannot find the names of the fabulous editors who were so eloquent enough as to explain to the user who created it why retaining it is a nightmare. Enough is enough -- it is already dismaying and downright depressing to see this harassment campaign continue as long as it has, and Wikipedia should have no part in furthering such truly appalling behavior. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Fabulous (and otherwise) editors are visible here and here. —Cryptic 00:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse and I would support sanctions at ANI on editors who continue to repeatedly bring up this BLP in a continual attempt to harass them and circumvent the extraordinarily clear community consensus that there should not be an article for this person. Katzrockso (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse deleting the list of sources, which in itself was violating WP:AVOIDVICTIM by linking to articles about a profoundly disabled person's arrest. Suggest having a summary of the RfC closure be reinstated in some form in one way or another, for accountability purposes and to forestall another RfC. A note in a deletion log does not suffice and will just cause this to relitigate in another year or two. lizthegrey (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

(I should note I have a COI wrt the most prominent place that harassment campaign has been coordinated off-wiki, but also that I do think the individual in question has transitioned from low-profile to high-profile status and that still does not avoid our obligations to avoid causing harm by facilitating the creation of attack pages against an otherwise non-notable individual, who is also profoundly disabled and whom we owe an extra degree of care beyond WP:BLPCRIME and WP:HNE) lizthegrey (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• The thing with Chris Chan is that they're a low-profile individual, despite arguably passing the threshold at WP:WIALPI. JClemens' otherwise admirable essay doesn't cover the topic of capacity.

What I mean is that Chris Chan's a child. Yes, I know she's in her mid-forties. She has fairly serious learning difficulties with significant delays. She has the mental age of a pre-teen and will never be a normally-functioning adult.

I don't have a source for saying that. What I have is eyes and editorial judgment.

It's up to us, as adults or presumed adults, to see when we're dealing with a child and adapt our approach.

Like most physically mature people with low mental ages her psychosexual development is screwed up. It's doubtful that she's notable as a criminal. She's on record as having confessed to acts that would be criminal if a functioning person confessed to them, but even in the US, criminal acts need mens rea. She doesn't have the mens.

It's true that she's displayed some attention-seeking behaviour. That's in keeping with her pre-teen mental age. It's right to treat it like a child's attention-seeking.

The people who've devoted significant amounts of their lives to bullying her need to go and have a little think about themselves.

It's absolutely right to delete each and every single thing about her that makes its way onto Wikipedia, and bugger any rule or guideline that says otherwise.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Given the overwhelming consensus against recreating this page, I hereby accept having this discussion undergo a SNOW close (if it is no longer possible for me to withdraw this nomination) in favor of the endorsing side per WP:BLPDEL, which states that protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative; I myself hadn't been conscientious of this (or followed the "talk to the deleting admin first" rule) when I nominated this page. If the highway I got on when I started participating in the recent RfC leads to destruction, I'm getting off at the next exit ramp. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Gorky Anisimov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

The article appears to be a hoax. There's not a single available source confirming this person's existence, and, furthermore, Gorky isn't a given name (at least, not a name that would have been given to someone baptized into Eastern Orthodoxy in 1874).--Eliatxo (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Christine Weston Chandler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

Topic is listed at WP:DEEPER, but an existing assessment on sources wields a non-trivial level of coverage from reliable sources, on top of articles on other languages as listed in the entry on Wikidata, and in the event of recreation, we can prevent further WP:BLP violations by protecting the page when needed. ZeroJaguar (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Question - Was this page deleted for notability or verifiability issues, in which case reliable sources may be useful, or was this page deleted because of harassment? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

There is a zero chance that the deleted content can be undeleted as it is unrelentingly negative without positive counterweight. If all we can create is a negative hatchet job then this cannot be hosted. I do suggest you work on a draft and present it for approval. If approved then the create protection can be removed but until that point we have nothing acceptable to host. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

for the record I decline to undelete this for the DRV on BLP/Do No Harm grounds. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 11

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive335#Creating the "Chris Chan" article

admins only. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I've found, without looking very hard, deleted revisions at four mainspace titles and one in draft. Your Special:Undelete link doesn't actually point at anything, so I don't know which you meant; but none of the ones I saw have anything I'd be willing to undelete either, even temporarily. —Cryptic 19:35, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment So, based on the above, it sounds like yes, the content as it was will remain deleted indefinitely. Given that that's the case, shouldn't a request for reduction in page creation protection go to WP:RFPP rather than here? Regardless, I think a first step is going to be a draft of a BLP-compliant page that demonstrates appropriateness (V/RS, N, etc.) for Wikipedia sufficient to overcome the risk of past problems resurfacing. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Close this request as redundant to the existing, far more thorough, discussion at Wikipedia talk:Source assessment/CWC#RfC CWC. And, I personally find it very suspicious that the proponents of both discussions are relatively new accounts with so few other edits; I'm honestly inclined to indef both of them as only here to stir up trouble but I know that's not how Wikipedia's blocking policy works. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 20:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
• Horrifying but unsuprising anecdote: very few of the articles on other wikis seem to be organic creations, all posted by relatively new editors ...

  Bclwiki - created by a user with only 23 edits on bclwiki, and only 300 global edits. Apparently per the edit summary and tags a machine translation of the French Wikipedia article.

  Cawiki - created by a temp account with no other edits on the wiki.

  Dewiki - created by a user with no other edits on the wiki, who's blocked on frwiki as a sock. (dewiki imported from frwiki in a way that caused WP:Parallel histories which makes this hard to see)

  Frwiki - created by a user who was later WMF-banned.

  Hewiki seems to be a legitimate organic creation

  Kowiki - created by a temp account with no other edits

  Nlwiki - created by a temp account with few other edits, currently being discussed at that wiki's version of AfD

  Ptwiki seems to be a legitimate organic creation

  Zhwiki - created by a temp account with no other edits, already tagged as a suspected machine translation.

  Finally for good measure the Wikidata item was created by an IP with no other edits to Wikidata. Although Wikidata keeps items on any topic with an article on any Wikipedia, so it would have been created anyway regardless. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 20:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Master Grunthos the Flatulent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

while this doesn't matter that much, there is a good chance this talk page was legitimate, in which case the question comes to mind of should it be undeleted or not User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 01:33, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Full content was {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}. —Cryptic 01:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Moot: I've recreated the page with the original content plus a banner shell. I'm not a sock, so the deletion reason doesn't apply. This is a weird interaction between WP:DELTALK and WP:G5 (a talk page created by a sockpuppet), but in this case I don't think we need to debate which one we should follow. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC) (Struck at 04:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC))
  • I don't think WP:DELTALK is the shortcut you meant to use; this wasn't a user talk page. —Cryptic 03:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for catching that. I could have sworn DELTALK applied to all talk pages. In any case, it's really weird to delete a talk page without deleting the parent page like this. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  the parent page doesn't qualify for WP:G5, as I did not create it while evading any sort of relevant punishment placed on any account I have ever used, all of which besides this one and I suppose some TAs being legitimate alternates directly linked to this one, primarily double-goers and such. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 16:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• If you had just asked me, Oreocooke, I would have just restored the page or told you to go ahead and recreate it. I'm not sure why that step was skipped.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Not the most controversial page around, but a problematic WP:NAC nonetheless. There were three extant opinions voiced in the AFD; the delete of the nominator, a keep and a merge. The discussion was then closed as merge by User:VerdictByLogic, which is problematic for three reasons: (a) the user is inexperienced and currently has slightly more than 2,000 edits (b) the consensus does not appear clear at all (c) the choice to merge looks like a blatant WP:SUPERVOTE since VerdictByLogic argues for this choice, with it being VerdictByLogic's own opinion that the subject "does not require" a standalone article. The user also did so when I first asked about this on the talk page. I suggest that the closure be overturned to relist. Geschichte (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

List of fungi of South Africa – A (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

This is my first DRV listing, so apologies for any mistakes. I believe this closure should be overturned to merge or the discussion should be at least relisted. While in the discussion there were a total of 2 !votes in favour of merging and 1 opposing, the supporters' rationales were clearly founded on policy-based arguments, while the opposer's only comment didn't mention any policy-based argument. The opposer even agreed with the nominator on the fact that [i]t probably does make sense to organize it using current taxonomy [...] rather than embalming Doidge's original arrangement. This was their only comment, as they did not respond to another editor's reply which addressed their concerns in detail. After I asked the closer, they mostly argued the nominator's support doesn't count and agreed that we need to hear from other people. FaviFake (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. Choess's !vote was solidly anchored in P&G, effectively rebutting the nomination. With only one other !vote supporting the nom, there was no consensus to do anything. The AfD was open for over 23 days, so the call to relist it is baseless. The closer already explained all this to the appellant on his Talk page. Owen× ☎ 15:20, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  the call to relist it is baseless
  Why? The closer and I clearly agree that more discussion was warranted. Per WP:RELIST: (emphasis supplied)

  • the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator); [...]

  it may be appropriate to relist the discussion instead of closing, in order to allow for the possibility that further discussion might lead to a discernible consensus. However, relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive discussion, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, but consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.

  And in the same paragraph a third or fourth relist is allowed. It's common for large bundled merge discussions to take a longer time to wrap up compared to other, single-page nominations, as Stifle said below. FaviFake (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  I believe you are presenting a very liberal (mis-) interpretation of both Doczilla and of Stifle, neither of whom actually called for a relist. Owen× ☎ 21:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  I generally keep out of it on the occasions when something I've closed comes up for DRV, but I do feel I should address "The closer and I clearly agree that more discussion was warranted." No, I do not. At first I wondered where the nominator got that idea, but maybe my remark (when the nominator appropriately asked on my talk page) that "we need to hear from other people" is what gave that impression. I could have worded that in past tense to try to be specific to that one AfD instead of using present tense, as I did, to speak about AfDs in general. The AfD had already been relisted twice. From Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Relisting discussions: For several reasons, "relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice." (Italics and boldface appear there, not added here for emphasis.) Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, the appellant has a habit of misrepresenting a policy or someone's comment to say what they'd like it to say. Owen× ☎ 07:23, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  That was neither a policy nor a guideline, and I definitely didn't describe falsely an idea, opinion, or situation in that instance, to quote Cambridge Dictionary. FaviFake (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  I can confirm I had no desire to call for a relist. My observation infra was a lament about the lack of wisdom of the consensus the community reached to combine AFD and RM. That consensus having been reached, however, the approved process is as the esteemed Doczilla states above. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse; there was indeed no consensus and that was the proper closure.
  (This is a demonstration of one of the reasons why crowbarring requested mergers into AFD was a bad idea; merge discussions tend to take a longer time to get agreement and AFD's tighter timelines mean more no-consensus closures which might have germinated into something with more time.) Stifle (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Technically speaking, endorse the NC closure and oppose a relist. The discussion was not ample enough or clear in its conclusions to divine a consensus, and it seems unlikely a further relist would change that in the time typically allotted. I agree with Stifle that, doubtless with good intentions, AFD was not a good veniue for this. While not technically wrong to bring it there, it's not a good place to reach a consensus on a complex, multi-page problem that requires subject matter expertise to parse. I'd suggest those recommending a merge open a discussion on relevant article talk pages or project pages, where (with more time and more specialist participation) a consensus may emerge. If that involves deletion, I expect bringing that "3/4-baked" consensus to AFD will find generalist, policy-focused regulars much more willing to endorse it (or object, if not appropriate). If the consensus is just a series of merges, with redirects, and the consensus is undisputed, bringing to AFD may be unnecessary as those merges, if that is indeed the solution, can perhaps be implemented purely editorially. Martinp (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Since the AfD-PM merger, formal merge discussions are supposed to be held at AfD (another reason why this was a colossal mistake) Katzrockso (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Endorse there is hardly a quorum here, let alone consensus to do anything. Katzrockso (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment just to clarify, my comment did not "agree with the nominator". It was intended to suggest that the list be overhauled so that species which have been moved to a new genus since Doidge's publication be listed under their current name, rather than the original one. I'm afraid I ducked out after a somewhat cursory engagement, as it was clear that the nominator wasn't very familiar with the subject matter. (The suggestion that the list be cut back to "genuses" is a bit like suggesting a phone directory only list the area codes of individuals, to save space.) I was concerned that protracted engagement would lead me to say something rude that I would regret. This general type of list (organisms of place) is a relatively common one (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 70#Inclusion criteria for List of organisms of Place); if editors are still concerned about the large size and scope of the list, I think it would be best to solicit advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi rather than making major, arbitrary content decisions to facilitate merger. Choess (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse Closing a discussion as anything other than "no consensus" after a full week of no further comment post-relist would be itself problematic. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Hi there, this is my first time doing a DRV listing so my apologies for the mistakes in this. I thought I'd make sure to give this a try in regards to the topic as the topic at hand is somewhat controversial due to the indefinite deletion decision. So for those who are unaware, from 2017 to 2018, there were a few users on the website who attempted to add an article for a professional wrestling promotion known as Defiant Wrestling. Obviously enough it was deleted for persistent disruptive editing and failed to meet WP:PAID, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:GNG, and WP:CORPDEPTH guidelines. This time however, since 6 years have passed since the final deletion, I've decided to give the article a try and see if I can piece together anything from various sources and the official website for the promotion. It's still work in progress but you can see the work I've done on the draft here. If anything, I do believe that enough time has passed that it may be time to re-examine the deletions and potentially reinstate the Defiant Wrestling article. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Go through AFC. The 2nd AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Defiant_Wrestling_(2nd_nomination) and led to a delete and salt due to COI promotion after the 1st AfD's Stubify conclusion was implemented. However, that was 8 years ago. A new draft can be evaluated on its own merits, and there will be little objection on overturning the salt if indeed notability, sourcing, and COI issues have been addressed. Since you have written such a draft, that can best be evaluated there. I have no opinion on the quality of the sourcing of the draft, but it looks at a quick glance that most of the sources are quite old, and pre-date the 2nd AfD. That doesn't make me optimistic, but I don't know enough about RS in this area to be sure. It does mean there aren't obvious grounds to overturn the 2 AfDs, and hence AFC is the best option. Martinp (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I did a very quick search and I don't see anything that indicates that this topic has become more notable since it was last deleted. Obviously, I could be wrong but I don't think it has much of a chance. Anyway, as Martinp says, AFC would be the way to do it if it is doable at all. (BTW, I recommend to take all the red links out of the draft. Those almost certainly have no chance at all and they just make it look worse.) --DanielRigal (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do that immediately. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Downgrade the protection to ECP so that a reviewer will be able to accept a draft if the draft should be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Template:Jews and Judaism category tree (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

(If I remember correctly...) This is a useful meta-reference template for how to categorize various categories & articles related to Jews & Judaism which are not necessarily intuitive to, or easily confused or forgotten by, lay editors. The template was nominated by a now-blocked editor @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 26#Template:Jews and Judaism category tree, was transcluded on over 1,000 pages, protected for 13 years, and only received 1 vote in the TfD. A next-to-WP:SILENT-consensus I think is insufficient to have warranted a closure, let alone an immediate closure with no relisting.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:02, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment So for those of us who've never seen it and never used such a template, what can you tell us about it and why it should be undeleted. Who else liked it? Who's complained about it being gone since last year? Why would it be a net good thing to bring back? Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
  • It's useful to me and to any other editors that do broadscale categorization. That's not a front-burner sort of activity, so it's infrequently done and doesn't get much attention, as demonstrated by my not noticing until 7 months after the TfD. Dimadick & Smasongarrison are the first editors that come to mind that may have found it useful. The template was basically a cheat-sheet for what types of pages & categories should be categorized into which of the several Judaism WikiProjects. Perhaps an admin could temporarily refund or draft or screenshot it to demonstrate.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:10, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

    I've temporarily undeleted it for you guys. Template:Jews and Judaism category tree (At a glance, it seems helpful) ^SMason_Garrison 01:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

    Thank you. By the way, congratulations on the adminship nearly a year ago now (par for the course for me, it seems).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ok, on the basis of the discussion here, I see no reason NOT to bring it back. The discussion was minimal, and initiated by a user who's since proven problematic--but full disclosure, I'm pretty sure I disagreed with him about his approach previously, so you can consider this an involved !vote. So, I suggest we treat this as an overturnable-on-request soft deletion, even though TfD participation is generally low, with anyone allowed to start a fresh deletion nomination as desired. Jclemens (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'd pasted the full content here, but seems I'm edit-conflicting with Smasongarrison's tempundelete, so I'll leave it out.
  I'd thought on first viewing that this might change based on the specific page it was placed on (say, if it were on Category talk:Spanish Jews, it would generate links to Category:Jews and Judaism in Spain, Category:Judaism in Spain and Category:Jewish Spanish history instead of the top-level cats), but nope, it doesn't take any params or use any magic words at all. —Cryptic 01:26, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think it's a template worth improving & building on as-needed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:31, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Inclined to overturn, after seeing the previous tfd at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 27#Template:Jews and Judaism category tree in the history. Same nominator, same nomination - almost verbatim! - but resoundingly kept. You don't get to keep proposing the same material for deletion over and over until one time nobody notices it. —Cryptic 01:33, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

  Courtesy notification of previous participants was unsurprisingly absent. Technically should not have been soft deleted because of prior TfD, Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• REFUND. Whether the close was correct or not, this was a minimally-attended TfD, with one of the only two participants later indef'd as a sock. As such, it should be speedy REFUNDed per any legitimate request. Owen× ☎ 12:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to Soft Delete, which appears to be as per OwenX. It doesn't matter whether it is overturned to Soft Delete or to No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to soft delete per above, then immediately refund as a good-faith request (i.e. this deletion review) was made to refund a category deleted in a sparsely attended discussion. Frank Anchor 16:16, 6 June 2026 (UTC)