Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 June 6

Christine Weston Chandler – I have been ponding this for couple of hours and given the other page highlighted by Pppery this looks like a campaign to force an attack page onto Wikipedia coordinated by off-site actors. This page cannot comeback and be BLP compliant and the pattern of external accounts trying to create this screams of off site interference. Enough Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC). Noting that I have now blocked the nom as a self-confessed sockpuppet Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC) I have title blacklisted a few relevant terms. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 22:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
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)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Christine Weston Chandler – I have been ponding this for couple of hours and given the other page highlighted by Pppery this looks like a campaign to force an attack page onto Wikipedia coordinated by off-site actors. This page cannot comeback and be BLP compliant and the pattern of external accounts trying to create this screams of off site interference. Enough Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC).
- Noting that I have now blocked the nom as a self-confessed sockpuppet Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
- I have title blacklisted a few relevant terms. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 22:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

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)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Related Articles