Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
  4. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
  5. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
  6. if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions include creation protection and title blacklisting.
Shortcut

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. to request undeletion of a page deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion. Place such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
  2. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
  3. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  4. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  5. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  6. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  7. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  8. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  9. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions

Shortcut

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2026 March 19}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 March 19}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 March 19|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

  • *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
  • *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
  • *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
  • *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
  • *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

The usage of large-language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

  • If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
  • If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally, all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly. But, in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time, it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

Shortcut
  1. An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though it were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
  2. Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  3. Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
  4. Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, a large language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".

Active discussions

19 March 2026


18 March 2026

Charlotte Proudman

Charlotte Proudman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article itself if full of non-notable stuff and the subject itself seems non-notable. At the talk page it says the article was nominated for deletion and the decision was 'delete'. Why's it still there? ~2026-17101-24 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

20:42, 23 April 2025 Southdevonian talk contribs created page Charlotte Proudman (created page)  Tag: Recreated
The AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Proudman “The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)”
Over ten years ago.
Maybe you want to renominated it at AfD.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Procedural Close as confused. It isn't still there. It is there again. The unregistered editor cannot nominate it again at AFD because they cannot create the AFD page, and I am asking good-faith good-standing editors not to proxy for this editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

17 March 2026

Markville Secondary School

Markville Secondary School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Admin counted votes instead of weighing the strength of arguments. The keep votes in the AfD were WP:ITSNOTABLE or challenging the RfC on the notability of schools. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 15:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Endorse. No, this was a perfectly good close. There is in fact only very limited support for the nomination. -- asilvering (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    There is in fact only very limited support for the nomination, that's vote counting Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 16:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse Obviously not a compelling nomination, with 2 redirects and 5 keeps. The keeps argue specific notability based on sourcing, not intrinsic notability, so there's no reason to discount those keeps. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    Magnolia677 said There is a plethora of sources supporting the notability of this school. but did not list any. Romeo J pointed to various sources but none of them met WP:GNG because they were not in SIGCOV, I explained this to them in the discussion. Jacona said Sufficient sources in the article and elsewhere availableto meet [WP:GNG]]. (but didn't point to the sourceS). Bearian thought that the deletion would be a WP:PANDORA by becoming a precedent for deleting all high schools. and Kelob said that it would be good enough as a list. These do not seem like 'specific' arguments, except for Romeo's and Kelob's. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 17:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse or relist: I don't think the AfD nomination was completely unfounded, as the article itself relies almost exclusively on WP:PRIMARY sources. NSCHOOL follows GNG. This YorkRegion article contributes to GNG, so the !keeps do carry the weight. !Votes such as this one claim that 'there is a plethora of sources supporting the notability of this school'. After the nom asked for these sources, they got no response. I personally didn't find anything that contributes to GNG from a brief search, which leaves the aforementioned article.
The vote count claim has no basis whatsoever, as @OwenX specifically used the word "support", which means he assessed every argument instead of simply counting !votes. I may be slightly biased as I know @OwenX, but I can say with certainty that they do not conduct closes this way.
There was some support for redirecting the article, so a relist may have provided some more support. Ultimately, I think this was the correct close. 11WB (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
That article mentions the school once, describing a player of a game as a graduate from a certain school. It clearly does not meet GNG. Also the wording matters not and it is a very pedantic to say it does. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 19:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Who are you referring to as pedantic exactly? 11WB (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse Owen's close. While indeed a closer can and should weigh opinions in an AfD based on whether they are grounded in policy, to close as Delete, there needs to be some sort of consensus for that. Nominator's Delete + 1 Redirect + 5 non-absurd Keep votes is not such a situation. And while one might debate how strongly rooted in policy those Keep rationales were, they were not absurd. I think, by the way, that a No Consensus close would also have been defensible, but the distinction has sufficiently small impact in this situation that I see no reason to second-guess that. Martinp (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    Surely you must have seen the I advocate for a redirect to YRDSB and am only listing this at AfD for a larger and quicker consensus. in the nomination statement? Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 19:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    Also note that if something would end up being "no consensus" after 1 week the standard move would be to relist it, not to close it as is. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 19:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    I concur with @EasternShah on the point about relisting if only one week has elapsed and there isn't a consensus. In the case of this AfD, there was a consensus, so an NC close outright would not have been appropriate. 11WB (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS: work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in common sense, sources, and relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines
    Sources were weak or absent, and guidelines/policies were sparingly referred to.
    WP:CON: Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. {emphasis mine} Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 20:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for the correction. It is not usual to see a nomination where the nominator is seeking a different outcome than deletion from the get-go; I missed it. However, my endorse conclusion stays unchanged. Deletion (or redirect, merge...) decisions hinging on notability-type concerns offer a plethora of policies and guidelines to choose from. In a given situation, the facts can be unclear, or which of the policies/guidelines prevails can be up for debate. Opinions may vary. The closer, if closing rather than joining the discussion as a participant, isn't evaluating the merits of competing viewpoints, but whether consensus exists. In this case, neither the redirect (or otherwise not have a standalone article) nor the keep arguments failed to be grounded in policy. Numbers prevailed, any issue on the relative strengths of the arguments being moot, since there is no way it could have led to consensus going the other way. Could it have been called NC, or relisted instead? Probably. But the discussion was reasonable, the close is reasonable; and with no damage to individuals, institutions, or the encyclopedia at stake, there's no value in trying to second guess it. Ultimately, through multiple attempts at continuing the discussion, you've found (I think) 2 others who on reflection share your view on the right policy-based outcome, versus many others who also do their best to ground in policy and conclude there's no problem in keeping this article standalone. Consensus has failed to materialize to do anything else with this article than continue as before. Martinp (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a good close. The appellant is saying that the closer should have supervoted and ignored reasonable Keep arguments, and is bludgeoning this DRV, just as they bludgeoned the AFD. Sometimes an editor is in the minority. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    I think that every argument endorsing was a new one, which is why I replied. Note that I am not asking the closer to supervote, but rather to relist the discussion again. Following your advice, I will now disengage Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 03:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse as the only possible close here. EasternShah, please stop bludgeoning the discussion. It isn't helpful to establishing consensus. Star Mississippi 02:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse and speedy close as a nomination that is hopeless and bound to fail. There is no possible way the closer could have found a delete consensus by any reasonable reading. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
    Concurred. This DRV doesn't need to run the full length. 11WB (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Stop the badgering.Jacona (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse per all above. Clear consensus to keep the article despite EasternShah harassing every user with a differing opinion both at the AFD and this DRV, and despite EasternShah attempting to relitigate the AFD here. Frank Anchor 12:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

13 March 2026

List of most popular social platforms (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was not a good choice for a non-admin to have closed. Arguments for deletion or merging cited unreliable sourcing and WP:SYNTH, a policy. The nominator and keeps specifically focused on WP:NLIST. @Deacon Vorbis explained why the page is an invalid list due to synthesis of social media platforms. All points were addressed by !delete/mergers, yet the !keeps did not address SYNTH at all. WP:USEFUL was used as an argument by several !keeps, an WP:ATA. The NAC initially didn't put a reason for closing as keep, as can be seen here. I am annoyed that specific points raised by those supporting merge and deletion have basically been ignored. I disagree with the updates rationale left by the NAC about SYNTH being a content issue specifically. This should, in my view, be reopened and relisted. I did leave a message on the closer's talk page, but they directed me here. 11WB (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The closer is also incorrect about there being a "sole delete !vote". The AfD nominator is also included here. I believe WP:BADNAC point 2 and WP:NACPIT point 1 apply to this close. 11WB (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Hello, non-admin closer here. 11WB is correct that I did not count the AfD nominator when I said there was one delete vote. The nomination also counts as a delete vote. However as it was sparse on policy based arguments, my consideration was primarily concerned with Deacon Vorbis' comments. I have gone back and added my rationale which I should have done from the start to be more clear. Moritoriko (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse The closure seems fine. I don't find the keep or not keep side particularly stronger than the other. While the appellant called out some concerns with the keep votes, I will also call out that the not keep's unreliable sourcing/SYNTH arguments to not be that strong either (sourcing is surmountable & only 1/4 expressed notability issue, and if the list is SYNTH, it would still be SYNTH if it was merged). A NC close could of also been an option, but I don't see a major issue closing as keep. Jumpytoo Talk 01:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn NAC The arguments for keeping are terrible and don't negate the arguments for NOT keeping it. Admin closure territory, even if the non-delete !votes have a numeric lead. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    With all due respect to the nominator withdrawing, I object. This is much the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest living Catholic bishops and cardinals in that it is dynamic in a way that List of best-selling albums is not: Albums never go down in sales, while social media not only can wax and wane in popularity, but cease entirely a la Google+. An admin closer would have been familiar with the strengths of arguments as held in prior discussions and likely relisted for further discussion, not just closed it as no consensus at that point. So, a relist is in order. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    I didn't close the discussion outright as you didn't endorse the closer. I agree an admin would have weighed the arguments appropriately. @Stifle actually endorsed the close just under this comment, they're an administrator, so I have to trust on this occasion that I'm wrong. 11WB (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
    That's OK, I enjoy being wrong in good company. It's far more fun than being correct in the wrong company. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
    Please don't presume that my admin flag gives me any higher likelihood of being correct. I may have had it for 20 years but that doesn't give me infallibility; far from it. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
    This is not the first time that I've been advised not to highlight when an editor is an admin. Your first sentence is confusing. You were voted into that position by the consensus of the community, so your level of knowledge and experience is obviously going to be higher than that of other editors, including myself. (Maybe not veteran editors, but certainly those with shorter tenures than your own.) If you don't want to be referred to as an admin, so be it. I won't make that distinction for any administrator from this point on. 11WB (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I would have been minded to close as no consensus due to the relative strength of argument, but the outcome is never going to be delete for me. Discussions on merger can be taken forward at the article talk page. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Endorse. Weak nomination. The sole “delete” !vote (which I find to be flawed) didn’t persuade anyone. The rest was overwhelmingly keep/merge, majority Keep, meaning it could not have been closed any other way, even if keep !votes were weakish. For those unhappy, read WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:NOTAVOTE. Both !merges included "and redirect", and the nom counts as a !delete. 11WB (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
We all know that. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Do not relist, due to the weak AfD nomination. The question for this list is not obvious, and the too brief nomination makes for a train wreck. Further discussion requests a better nomination statement, as per WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I see a clear consensus to “not delete”. There a very weak nomination, a dubious “delete” (“ clearly intended as a ranking, and not a navigational list” is a “delete because the navigation list has specific order”. Would it be better if it was random? What if it was user-sortable?). Everyone else is keep or merge and redirect. The consensus is a repudiation of the nomination, which is closer to “speedy keep” than “no consensus”. If this is to go back to AfD it needs a better nomination.
User:11WB is conflating “merge” !votes, which are a flavour of do not delete”, with “delete” !votes, which makes for a confused argument.
The above said, the disagreements here are a plain case that the non-admin would have done better to !vote than to close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
You pinged me so I will offer a short reply, without restating my position. You have missed out SYNTH entirely from your assessment, which is the primary crux of the !merge and !delete side, along with not meeting NLIST. The !keeps used an ATA argument. I agree with your final point, the NAC may have preferred to partake in the actual discussion, rather than attempt a close. If that had happened, we likely wouldn't have ended up here. 11WB (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am flummoxed by the support for a close that is based entirely off an ATA argument and weak NLIST grounds. Clearly this is going to go nowhere, and I don't wish to exert any more attention to this matter. Please take this comment as me conceding. This can be closed. 11WB (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    Even if the close rationale is not the best, the close itself had the right-ish result. I think a no consensus close would have been better on the merits, as Stifle pointed out, but there is no way this could have been closed as delete, so there isn't really a point in DRVing this.
    I wouldn't be opposed to having someone reclose this, but doing that is just unnecessary bureaucracy as it won't have any effect on the article. Katzrockso (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    I've already withdrawn this, so I'm no longer looking for any further action. 11WB (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak overturn to NC while noting that has no impact on the end result of the article being kept. This was clearly a contentious discussion with policy-based support to keep, delete, and merge. As such, it should not have been closed by a non-admin. I see no value in relisting this discussion as it does not appear consensus would form in any of these directions. Frank Anchor 18:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak Endorse - There was enough controversy that this should have been left for an admin to close, but it was the right close, and vacating a NAC for an admin to close would be silly. If a non-admin makes a close that should have been left to an admin, but makes a correct close, we, the editors at DRV, can close if necessary, rather than delegating the close to an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Vacate Close While I do agree that an admin would probably close as keep, and per Robert it would generally not make sense to reclose just for the outcome, the closing statement is also problematic (also per the closer above). In my mind, the keeps were weak on policy, and an ideal closing statement would suggest that a merge discussion could continue on the talk page of the article. --Enos733 (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC per Frank Anchor. This was a WP:BADNAC as there was disagreement amongst participants regarding WP:NLIST and WP:SYNTH and how it applied to the article. Let'srun (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Relist per Jclemens and Frank Anchor. I see four well-reasoned arguments against retention as a standalone page, including the two Merges that the NAC seems to have ignored. Some of the Keeps carry little P&G weight, placing this contentious AfD in admin territory. I didn't see consensus when I relisted it after one week, and I still see no consensus now. Exposure here at DRV may bring some fresh, experienced eyes to a relisted AfD. 11WB was right to bring this here, and I hope they'll reverse their decision to strike out their justified appeal. Owen× ☎ 00:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
    I appreciate this. I withdrew as I genuinely believed I had got this one wrong, and that I was probably more annoyed than I should really have been otherwise. I've already informed the closer that I don't plan to push to overturn their close anymore. I'll undo my strikethrough, but I doubt it will make much difference to the outcome here due to the large number of endorsers. 11WB (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Relist - I have been persuaded that the close was contentious enough that a Relist is the best option, to be followed, of course, by an admin close. I am thinking that when there was a contentious non-admin close and there is disagreement as to whether the closer got it right, it is wiser to relist, maybe getting a clearer consensus, than to vacate the close and let an admin close the same or different. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

12 March 2026

Pelian

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

Deleted per WP:G14 despite having more than zero entries. The deleting admin seems to think that the exact string must be present at all targets. However, since AFD sometimes retains pages even when that is not the case (example AFD comment by someone experienced in the DAB area advocating retention ) deletion is not uncontroversial as required by the speedy deletion policy and so discussion, or at least PROD, is needed.

I only verified the first entry while the page was still live, since at the very least that means a redirect should remain, and "pelian" is indeed a local common name for tor tambroides or perhaps sometimes tor in general . No idea on the second one which I do not remember, but even assuming it was entirely bogus, the correct action would have been to convert to a redirect.

The deleting admin seemed to imply the redirect would be invalid, and it is indeed true that such conversions are improper when the redirect would itself be subject to R3. However, as the local common name can be verified, and as R without mentions are sometimes retained at RFD for various reasons, R3 would not be appropriate there, and so an RFD would be needed for deletion.

Now I have no idea on what the outcome of an XFD would be, plausibly we would end up with the genus as a redirect target here instead, plausibly the DAB would be expanded with other entries and not just fish species . But the uncertainty of outcome, and the fact that XFDs have resulted in retention of like pages is enough reason for this to receive a discussion, or at the very least review by PROD patrol. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Endorse. The appellant's claim of having more than zero entries is correct; the DAB had exactly one extant Wikipedia page. The other was a redlink to Pelian (Star Trek), a fictional humanoid species in the Star Trek franchise, native to Peliar Zel II. The Tor tambroides doesn't currently mention "Pelian", so linking it from a DAB--or from a redir--is questionable. If anything, the term Pelian seems to refer to the species Tor douronensis (see and ). The appellant is welcome to recreate Pelian as a redirect to Tor douronensis after providing a referenced mention of the term at the target. A DAB would be unnecessary and inappropriate. Owen× ☎ 19:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'm actually not sure, an RFD might DAB. Or might retarget to the genus, seen those go both ways and would need further research. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    A redir to the genus might be a good idea, if you can find some sourcing to support it. You can do it now, without waiting for the DRV to close. If you believe that solves the issue, you can withdraw the appeal, and then close the DRV or ask one of the regulars here to close it. Owen× ☎ 20:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
    The sourcing is already above. But it's not entirely clear if all species are referred to by that common name, or just some of them. And the best way to sort that is going to be a community discussion. I do not think it matters much whether that is AFD or RFD. There is also a possibility, that based on other appearances of pelian in text as linked above, the discussion ends up including other non-species entries. Whether the discussion should close with a redirect to the genus, a species set index, or a more general DAB is hard to say without further research.
    Regardless, speedy deletion criteria are to be construed narrowly, and furthermore if pages of a similar type sometimes survive AFD, as DABs leading to unmentioned entries sometimes do (again see discussion linked through diff), then speedy deletion specifically will be improper, especially if concerns can be addressed without needing deletion.
    I do not have a thorough knowledge of all the WT:CSD discussions that have led to that set of procedures for analysis, but it is my understanding that is the general distillation of them. And I can recall seeing comments almost exactly along those lines expressed at WT:CSD (I think at least by User:Thryduulf, but probably a few others).
    The simple truth is that I am currently uncertain what the optimal outcome is here, but since it is evidently non-obvious, speedy is improper, and indeed as you yourself concede the page did not meet the criteria due to having more than zero entries. Thus, we start here, and then proceed to a more thorough discussion elsewhere with appropriate notifications sent to potentially interested parties and see what feedback comes in. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • (responding to ping) Overturn. When there is a good faith disagreement about whether a speedy deletion criterion applies it does not. In this case deletion was not the right answer, let alone speedy deletion - either it's a valid disambiguation page or it's a valid redirect. I don't have a strong opinion whether discussion should be at AfD or RfD, but it's clear that discussion is required at one of them. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
  • The quote of content above isn't quite correct; that line also had a bluelink to Star Trek. That's not, however, a valid entry per WP:DABRED, since the Star Trek article doesn't mention the Pelians. More to the point, neither does List of Star Trek aliens, which is where I'd expect it to be if it were anywhere. (Maybe an individual episode? But if so, and if we even have an article about that episode, it's not showing up in search.)
    The other entry was "Tor tambroides (Pelian), a freshwater fish species found in Southeast Asia, also known as the mahseer or kelah". No mention of "pelian" in that page, either, but it's trivially verifiable (one example source among many). A G14 of a disambig that doesn't have "disambig" in the title has to have zero non-removable entries, and this had one. At worst it should've been redirected, but given the sources above for Tor douronensis, it probably should've dabbed between those two species. —Cryptic 01:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
    The Pelian article at Memory Alpha lists a bunch of episodes they've apparently appeared in. We have articles for every one of those episodes that I spot checked. So that's maybe a salvageable entry too, for someone who knows where to find a valid source (or has at least knows those episodes well enough to put a mention into one of their unsourced plot sections). —Cryptic 01:21, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn. The deleted page listed one extant Wikipedia page, namely tor tambroides, and its title did not end in (disambiguation). This does not fit into any of the three possibilities for invoking WP:G14. Whilst I acknowledge OwenX's points above regarding the deficiencies in the terms being mentioned at the targets, that is not part of the criteria for speedy deletion, which are intentionally narrow and exhaustive. The deletion process has not been properly followed and this deletion must be overturned. I would suggest against immediately listing at RFD; once the improper deletion is overturned, a quick discussion on the talk page should be able to resolve the issues, whether they be mentioning "pelian" at the article about the fish, doing something at the list of Star Trek aliens, or otherwise. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn as per Thryduulf and Stifle. To quote Thryduulf: When there is a good faith disagreement about whether a speedy deletion criterion applies it does not. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn speedy, since it's clearly contentious, and plausible solutions short of deletion have been proposed. If someone wants to propose for a deletion discussion, or take editorial action short of deletion, they can. Martinp (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Recent discussions

9 March 2026

  • Jam.py (web framework) – Endorsed There is some support to drafting but it's not overwhelming so before I do that I will need to be shown the sources that the article will be based on Spartaz Humbug! 09:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jam.py (web framework) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On the "deletion" discussion page, there is a claim that "the only reliable-looking source is [1], but the part before the how-to guide is rather small for that source alone to confer significant notability". The Linux Magazine published a carbon paper article about Jam.py on 5-6 pages. This was clearly noted with "page xx-xx" within the references. Linux Magazine is distributed in the US, the EU and APAC. From the year 2020, when the article was published, Jam.py gained more traction, with lively mailgroup users base, and the newly published v7 - which is still under development. The new release was publicized and lives here: https://github.com/jam-py-v5/jam-py-v7 I started writing wikipedia article about Jam.py in 2019. - when I was just a Jam.py user, with no associations other than that, and no development experience. I see no COI with my involvement at that time. The page was created as a STUB. I have no desire to update this page myself any more. Hence, I'm asking for this page to be restored so that anyone with interest can modify it. Thanks Platipusica2 (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Endorse There were no issues with the AfD, and appellant does not provide any additional sourcing that was not already mentioned in the AfD. If this is a request for drafification, as the editor does not want to work on it there is no point, it would be auto deleted in 6 months as drafts expire. Any future editor wishing to work on this article may ask for draftification at WP:REFUND as per the usual process. Jumpytoo Talk 05:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for reply. I do not understand, how many additional sources are needed to be valid?
    I do not understand what changed over the sudden that the article is not notabile. Platipusica2 (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    Here is an example:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tornado_(web_server)
    This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
    It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
    Computing: Software / Free and open-source software
    I really do not see how Jam.py cannot be a stub? Pls clarify. Thx Platipusica2 (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    Generally 3 reliable & significant sources are sufficient to build a strong case. There is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that should not exist, for the example you gave, looking only at what's in the article it would not meet the notability criteria. Jumpytoo Talk 01:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for reply. Are you referring to a carbon copy sources, like books? If so, it will be impossible task in current state of the World.
    Would this be sufficient as 2nd source:
    https://com-pute.com/nick/jampy_tutorial.html
    "Nick Antonaccio has been writing software code for more than 40 years, and has 30+ years of experience in business and instruction." Platipusica2 (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    The sources do not have to be physical media. For the source you have just provided, that would be considered a self published source (WP:SPS), and would not be usable for anything. WP:42 provides a good summary of what is required. Jumpytoo Talk 01:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you. Re. WP:SPS:
    "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
    Nick is a subject-matter expert with published articles like Ebooks and paper copies.
    This is just what I've found in 2 mins searching.
    Not sure if this helps but definitely Nick tried to cover a lot and make a significant coverage of Jam.py.
    It is not really clear to me what to present as an reliable source Re. OpenSource products this days.
    Thanks tho Platipusica2 (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse unanimous consensus to delete at the AFD. I have no issue restoring to draft to allow for improvement. Worst case is that the draft is abandoned and eventually G13ed, which is not a big deal at all. Frank Anchor 14:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Question - Is the appellant saying that the closer made a mistake, or that the community made a mistake, or that the appellant wants to work on a draft? It appears that the appellant doesn't know that stubs have to pass notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Request for temporary undelete, so that I can see what the appellant wants. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    done Spartaz Humbug! 20:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for undelete. I do not see anything on the page to be able to modify anything. Platipusica2 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    you have to look in the history Spartaz Humbug! 13:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    Platipusica2: you have to look at revision 1318024680 of the article before the text was replaced with {{tempundelete}} to see the most recent text. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I still don't know what the appellant wants, but:
    • If I were reviewing this as a draft at AFC, I would decline it, with the comment {{vendsays}}.
    • If I were participating in the AFD, I would probably have said that the article does not speak for itself.
    • So I agree with the community and with the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    If possible I would like to work on draft, but saying that "you have to look in the history", does not show the article. Article was not "temporary undeleted". Where is it?
    So the article is completely gone and I have no idea how can anyone make any significant changes to improve it, or to make it to 'speak for itself'.
    Please explain. Thanks Platipusica2 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    The article has been temporarily undeleted, you can view it here but please do not edit it. If you'd like it to be restored to draft, you can request that @Platipusica2. But otherwise endorse the close and the decision. Star Mississippi 02:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you. I requested draftification below with one article I've found. However, it looks like a self published source. So more time is needed to find more articles. Platipusica2 (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    Request draftification to add a more sources to satisfy 'speak for itself.' and notability, ie:
    1. Antonaccio, Nick (2022), "https://com-pute.com/nick/jampy_tutorial.html":
    The article notes:
    "Jam.py is a uniquely productive full-stack web development framework.
    Unlike other web frameworks, Jam.py generates portable SQL database schema, without having to write any code, and it automatically wires full-featured front-end UI grids, forms, navigation, and other essential CRUD componentry, all within a lightweight browser-based development environment.
    Jam.py’s automated database/UI functionality is profoundly simple to use, even by people with zero software development experience. It is totally open source, usable on virtually any desktop, server, and/or mobile hardware/OS, and fully extensible with easy Python, Bootstrap and jQuery code, which enables the full power of the Python & HTML/CSS/JS ecosystems."
    2. Fioretti, Marco (2020), "https://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2020/241/Jam.py":
    The article notes:
    "Jam.py is an open source environment that lets you build a browser-based interface for a database. With Jam.py, you can design and then use custom applications to store, share, and analyze data inside an SQLite, PostgreSQL, MySQL, Firebird, MSSQL, or Oracle database. The interfaces that Jam.py creates are clean, customizable, pretty fast and, with minimal effort, portable on every platform that supports Python, from your laptop to your website." Platipusica2 (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Question - Children Will Listen asked you in October 2025 whether you have a conflict of interest. Your only edits have been about Jam.py. Do you have a connection or affiliation with the vendor of Jam.py? If so, you must disclose it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Approve Refund of Deleted Article to draft space. There is no guarantee that a new draft will be accepted, or that if a draft is moved to article space, it will survive a new AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for your time.
    I think I edited and contributed to a lot more with my old account, which I have no access any more. Particularly here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josip_Broz_Tito and here
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikola_Tesla years ago.
    So no, it is not true that I only managed this page. It is not my fault that no other WP editors did not touch this page. Maybe OpenSource devs have no time to spare on WP.
    Only a few days ago I've found that the page was deleted. Re COI, I answered, I started writing this article in 2019, when I gained some more knowledge about the programming. I'm not a developer by trade, I'm self learned coding enthusiast.
    To answer your question, I'm happy for adding COI to my page, as an OpenSource (OS), developer and contributor to many projects, including this one. I do not what COI in OS means tho? I do not "own" any piece of code, not employed by any company related to any OS software and not competing with anyone. I presented pure facts, with no personal bias.
    If someone can point out what is non-neutral point of view, pls do. Happy do discuss. Platipusica2 (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse the AFD decision to delete, Refund to draft space as (sort-of) requested. The discussion explicitly engaged with sourcing and notability, and reached a reasonable conclusion. The above sources (some overlap?) don't inspire confidence that enough exists to overcome this, but no reason people can't try. I empathize with the article creator who doesn't want their (apparently pre-COI?) efforts wasted if someone chooses to take this forward, but suspect the likelihood this will happen before an untouched draft is auto-delted is slim. However, a refund is easy and nondisruptive so why not. Martinp (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Endorse: From what I read in the deleted article and in the original discussion, the page is not about a notable subject and (at least to me) reads like an advertisement. CabinetCavers----DEPOSIT OPINION, [valued customer] 14:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for reply. Then, someone needs to improve it not to be read as an advertisement. But thats impossible if is deleted.
All WP articles regarding OpenSource software are quite the same. I see no difference with for example Django:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework) Platipusica2 (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Is anything needed from me?
Do I need to request anything more? Or draft is sufficient? Sorry, I dont know the process. Platipusica2 (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Blunt feedback: I don't think you understand what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is deliberately not intended -- and poorly suited -- to articles where the only things that can be said are regurgitation of the material parties associated with the subject have put out. That's marketing -- trying to amplify the voice of those associated parties -- and Wikipedia tries hard not to do that. WP articles make sense when multiple independent sources have reported on the subject, in their own editorial voice with their own judgment. Otherwise, readers are better served just going to the subject's own webpage (or similar).
In this case, so far this package doesn't seem to have made enough of a splash to such sources to exist, beyond that one article which just isn't enough. So deletion of the article from mainspace was the right call. Now, you seem to be asking for the article to be "refunded into draft space" so *others* can work on it if they wish. That can probably be done, but I'm not sure it will help you achieve what you seem to want. It won't show up in websearch (because that would be doing marketing for this product). And it will only be moved back into mainspace (to be a "normal" article) when that more signficant 3rd party coverage appears AND others take the time to rewrite the article to be derived less from the product's self-description. If no-one edits it in 6 months, the draft will be administratively deleted anyway.
We're still not clear on how long-standing your COI (conflict of interest) is, i.e. your involvement to a degree where you likely want to promote the product rather than write dispassionately about it. That complicates matters, but can be worked around in draft space. But there is no way forward here where this text, written primarily by you, who seem to be affiliated with jam.py, and essentially repeating what jam.py says about itself, is going to be a web-search-findable normal wikipedia article. Until other impartial 3rd parties cover jam.py in much more detail, and others then summarize primarily what these 3rd parties, not jam.py, are saying. Martinp (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for reply. To be fair, I based this article on 99% of other articles about OpenSource software. Many OS software have zero carbon-copy references.
Why I mentioned carbon copy? Because WP editor specifically wrote to me a few years ago that ONLY a carbon copy is relevant. Now, a few years after, the above editor wrote differently.
I understand that other articles are not discussed here.
However, the problem is this: OpenSource software is just that. A software. A software has no means to speak for for itself. If some other impartial 3rd parties cover it, it will be exactly the same cover. Software does what it does in exactly the same manner.
And that is a problem as I see it. The source will just repeat the same stuff and ultimately 99% of OS articles might be deleted. It is impossible to write a book about some software without repeating what software does. So how can 3rd parties cover jam.py in much more detail is unknown to me.
Just a note: I do not question 3rd parties coverage, I question WP decision to reject this coverage. Like the above Nick's article which is rejected on a "blog" basis. It is true that everyone can write a blog. But not everyone is Nick, and that is where the process is failing in recognizing this. WP specifically notes this in WP:SPS.
I do not agree with you Re "readers are better served just going to the subject's own webpage." Simply because WP has a comparison pages which clearly indicate what some software does and how.
Here is the example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_server_software
I have no knowledge where else to find this information on the Web, except here.
So perhaps you are right. Maybe WP is not suitable for OS products at all. Which is funny, since WP IS OpenSource.
Seems to me that this is not a discussion about Jam.py page. But the wider discussion we need to have about what to do with the software pages. Particularly OS software. The books and 3rd party coverage comes from product popularity. How is software company fueling popularity? Marketing. OS software has no funds to do that. Does that diminishes the importance of the OS software? That is the discussion we need to have imo.
Im fine with deleting the article btw. Since exhausted my energy levels. It is NOT worth to discuss Re this with "half" the Planet for me. It is obvious that no other editor will support me, guessing they do not look in here. Who knows.
I asked what is needed from me for THIS discussion. No one helped me to understand what is needed tho so Im exiting this discussion. Platipusica2 (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I think the page was "speedy deleted" with this reasoning: "with the current citations, it falls short".
There was no effort in making the citation better.
The editor "Children Will Listen" left this comment:"Fails WP:NSOFT, the only reliable-looking source is [1], but the part before the how-to guide is rather small for that source alone to confer significant notability."
Maybe if someone invested some time to fix this, we would not have this conversation.
But "speedy delete" did not leave much time to do anything. Correct my if I'm wrong. Thanks Platipusica2 (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 March 2026

More information Extended content ...
  • Draft:Care.com and Care.com – Restoration of draft article to mainspace completed as requested, I think we're done here. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Care.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Care.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Talk:Care.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Please move Draft:Care.com to Care.com. Please also undelete all revisions of Talk:Care.com. This is a contested prod. I noticed the article's deletion when I saw this edit. The article was moved to draftspace in response to my WP:REFUND request here. I cannot move the draft myself because Care.com is a redirect with history.

I posted at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests where the undeleting admin wrote, My intent in restoring a previously prodded article to draft is that it be subject to the normal AFC process. I do not intend to be further involved. This was then marked as a controversial or contested move request. I am not taking this to AfC because Wikipedia:Articles for creation says, "Established users are encouraged to create articles on their own if they do not need support from reviewers." I am an established editor who does not need support from reviewers. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Comment: Care.com passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria through significant coverage in these sources:
    Cunard (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
No comment. I don't often participate in deletion reviews. 1isall (talk | contribs) 22:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Done. It needed DRV due to the factors Cunard IDed above, but does not need a full conversation. Leaving this discussion open in case I missed any steps. Anyone can close this if we're done. Should someone wish to contest the article's existence, they're welcome to file an AfD Star Mississippi 23:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Thank you so much, Star Mississippi (talk · contribs)! I looked at the talk page history and noticed that Talk:Care.com/Archive 1 had been deleted. Would you undelete that talk page archive too? Cunard (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
       Done @Cunard
      Apologies for the incorrect edit summary, was obviously restored to mainspace, not draft. Star Mississippi 23:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
      No worries, thank you for restoring it! Cunard (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Not wanting to create investigation where everyone is happy, but looking at “what could be better done next time”. Why did User:BD2412 not simply restore the contested PROD? Was it because User:Cunard didn’t write “contested PROD” at WP:REFUND? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    It was restored to draftspace at WP:REFUND rather than mainspace. User:Cunard did not request draftification, so I'm curious as to why the article was draftified rather than restored to the mainspace. Katzrockso (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Close

5 March 2026

Brian Platt (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Brian Platt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This IAR speedy deletion by User:Star Mississippi stemmed from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_from_Msmel1979. Three BLPs were implicated in a legal case about Kansas City council. One was prodded and two were at AfD when Star Mississippi decided to speedy delete all three as IAR. Two were more clear cut and I argued for deletion of one. I think Brian Platt is not so clear cut and he's not obviously non-notable, his bio wasn't obviously BLP1E, and his bio wasn't obviously an attack page or coatrack. We have bios for three other city managers of Kansas City, Missouri, so the position is not a low-profile one. I would like AfD to run its course rather than this supervote. Fences&Windows 13:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

BLP is a policy and allows the removal of attack content. Without the controversy section we have no article and if that is all we can realistically publish then this isn't an article that can comply with our rules. On that basis endorse deletion as a valid use of BLP. This cannot be restored without a clear consensus to do so. At the time of the deletion the consensus was clearly to get rid of the article. I strongly object to the pejorative term supervote to describe an action that administrators are required to make to preserve the project. It's thrown around far too frequently and needs to stop. Spartaz Humbug! 13:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
also note that since this has been deleted for BLP reasons this cannot be temp undeleted. Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
This was not a valid G10 deletion so using BLP to block restoration is not valid. G10 is for a different situation: "Examples of attack pages may include: libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person, or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." Using this as an excuse to delete is gross overreach. Fences&Windows 19:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
that's your opinion but that doesn't remove your obligation to discuss with the deleting admin and properly notify them, which you didn't do and haven't addressed. Regardless of your opinion the policy remains clear and you need a clear consensus to bring this back. I also can't help feeling that we need to look at all 3 deleted articles as a totality and there is no doubt that these articles were created to air grievances against this subject. If that isn't an attack page, I have no idea. Spartaz Humbug! 19:49, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Why does the project need to be preserved? We are not above the public, if the public disapproves of WP then we should allow WP to fail. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 17:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Request temp,undelete, User:Spartaz‘s assertion notwithstanding especially noting User:Star Mississippi states “These are marginal BLPs with severe notability concerns”. User:Johnuniq Argued “coatrack” which is not speaking to urgency to close. This looks like a knee-jerk “IAR” shortcut without any need to have rushed the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
i won't be undeleting it but I have long argued that DRV regulars should be admins. Would you like a nomination ? Spartaz Humbug! 13:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah maybe. But note that my early pledge to only edit edit outside my expertise drove me into a shamefully low mainspace edit count. Emailing me a copy of the page would be fine. I suspect that a google or webarchive version is easily found with a little more skill than I seem to have. From what I have seen, the article lede, the close of “… speedy delete. IAR …” was unjustified, and that it was a pedestrian notability question with barely a mild aspect on the subject. I’m betting that nothing in the article wasn’t already in the public domain elsewhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Possibly available elsewhere but our BLP policy is a specific and necessary action given the power of Wikipedia's voice and the elevation in Google hits that an article provides. Spartaz Humbug! 14:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Maybe Wikipedia voice has too much power in Google and elsewhere. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 17:01, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
better us than some of the alternatives Spartaz Humbug! 16:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
One of the practical consequences of the deletion is the absence of the page from EverybodyWiki (which is blacklisted here), a Wikipedia mirror that tries to save articles which are currently marked for deletion on Wikipedia. Kelob2678 (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
and preventing the propagation of an attack page is surely a good thing. Spartaz Humbug! 22:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Overturn. The breeze smells of BLPDELETE overreach, knee-jerk supervoting, and admins closing ranks. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
The AfD nominator did not tag {{db-g10}}. There’s been a vaguewave at WP:Libel, but those who seem to have seen the deleted late versions describe a conservative summary of what is written in sources. The deleting admin does not oppose another admin temp-undeleting, which amounts to a statement that the deleted content is not libellous of G10-worthy. The deleting admin stated upfront that she was erring. The long-standing article now temp-undeleted was not an attack page, so the AfD nom’s “this is a thinly disguised attack page” was not correct. A new editor User:ThatTrainGuy1945 agreed, but two experienced Wikipedians, User:North8000 & User:Johnuniq, made detailed !votes that plainly do not support the notion that the page was G10-eligible.
The deleting admin has now undeleted some, but continues to hide the content that is being reviewed. This prevents a meaningful review of the challenged deletion. Please temp-undelete all versions, or explain what it contained, beyond the sources, that is libellous to repeat for the purpose of backroom review. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Most of the underlying situation is described in this article, one of the sources cited in the omitted section. I can't say what was more libellous in that section than the sources, because to my reading it was all less so. —Cryptic 02:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
“and damaged city government’s reputation for transparency in sharing truthful information with the public,”
The irony, Wikipedia admins decline to allow a transparent discussion about a story featuring the failure of transparency. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe I have a lot of respect for you as a fellow editor, and I like to think I deserve the same but you seem focused on finding blame here. I never said it was libel, nor am I "hiding" anything. Erring on the side of caution is not erring as in an error, it's care for a fellow human being. BLP allows us leeway, and I'm opting to use that leeway. There are a number of admins active in this thread and no one else has opted to restore the deleted content either. If the community decides it should be restored as a result of this discussion, it will be. There is literally nothing stopping anyone from writing an article on Platt, which is also what I said in the deletion. The deleted content could even be added with the source @Cryptic IDed if someone thinks a human losing his job is key information. There's no conspiracy theory here. Star Mississippi 04:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Not blame. I am not looking for blame. I am looking for respect for process. Erring on the side of caution is admirable, but refusal to tempt-undelete irks. Three admins here, you, Spartaz, and Owenx explicitly decline to undelete. This implies that each of you have reviewed the delete material and maintain that it cannot be temp-undeleted, which is moderately unusual at DRV.
With the last 12 months now being WP:REVDELed, I ask which WP:CRD applies?
AfD is a community venue for deciding questions of deletion. You short-cut the process. DRV is a venue of review, which includes ongoing education. Were you right to speedy delete? I won’t know without seeing what was deleted, and those how can or who remember make pretty mild statements. At the very least, you made an incorrect deletion log entry.
This is not about an article on Platt. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you @SmokeyJoe
I appreciate the context.
I'm curious what you think is the incorrect deletion log entry. I feel restore pre BLP edits per DRV) is an accurate assessment of what I did and the AfD close is IAR. These are marginal BLPs with severe notability concerns. I am erring on the side of respect and caution seems to be an accurate assessment of why I made my close. Not arguing, truly unclear on the last part of your reply.
It looks from this discussion that it will be overturned (fine, we're all human). I will of course take no action since I'd be considered involved and have no particular interest in editing this anyway, but I'd be very surprised if the content doesn't get removed by general editing. None of us would want the laundry of our career documented in perpetuity, and I'd like to think we wouldn't do it to a fellow human being. We are not media reporting on an issue that the public needs to know about. That said, we're absolutely not in libel territory, nor would this be (IMO, not an oversighter)-material for oversight or suppression. It's being kind to a BLP. Star Mississippi 14:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
The log issue is the failure to note that it was per WP:G10. Speedy deletions should specify the criterion being used. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't see your discussion of the deletion and notification of the DRV on the deleting admin's page. Have I missed it somewhere or Is there a reason you have skipped this step? Spartaz Humbug! 13:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
No discussion was necessary: an IAR deletion leaves nothing to discuss. It would be ironic surely to allow admins to ignore rules in deletion but then enforce rules of discussion. Fences&Windows 19:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
iar is policy. You seem dangerously out of synch with the norm. Regardless this was clearly a blp deletion and you surely must acknowledge that this is a valid reason to delete something. You might disagree but that doesn't make your opinion fact. Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse and decline temp undelete request. While the closer cited "IAR", the deletion is solidly based on WP:BLP. The arguments at the AfDs revolved around notability guidelines, but the deletion was anchored in policy, which as Spartaz correctly points out, also prohibits us from restoring the page even temporarily. "Marginal" means the call is left to the admin's discretion, and she correctly chose to protect the project from libel exposure. No objection to anyone creating a fresh, well-sourced, non-attack-page article about any of the three. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    Why does the project need protecting from libel exposure? (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 17:03, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    We literally have a policy about this. Owen× ☎ 17:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    Sure, but in that policy I think that reasoning is contradictory to NPOV. That policy assumes bias in favor of Wikipedia's existence. If we really followed NPOV we should be neutral about Wikipedia's existence. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 17:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    Come on, if you're going to troll at least do it more subtly... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    I'm not trolling, I actually do have concerns like this regarding Wikipedia and its treatment of both its readers and its editors. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 17:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you, @Spartaz: for the notification. Self endorse and I'd close it the same way again in a similar situation. When we have BLPs, honoring those policies is of core importance. Nothing was going to be gained by publicly discussing these individuals for a week especially when we knew at least one of the subjects was aware of the article about her. I explicitly noted that any experienced and uninvolved editor was welcome to start fresh, so I'm not sure why we needed a DRV but that's absolutely within your right @Fences and windows:. Star Mississippi 14:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    your only error was marking this as IAR as clearly deleting per BLP is either implicitly permitted by the policy or a valid extension of A10. The important thing is that you did the right thing. Bravo. Spartaz Humbug! 14:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. There's definitely some room in policy for summary BLP deletions, but it's not the right tool here. Even accepting for sake of argument that the well-sourced section on his termination is non-neutral and unsalvageable, the obvious solution (in line with WP:BLPDELETE) would be to just remove it, with maybe protection and/or a block as appropriate. (The rest of the article isn't negative at all—if anything quite the opposite.) That leaves the notability concerns, which certainly wouldn't warrant bypassing AfD on their own. It's important for summary BLP deletions to be available, but they're a last resort that we need to look at with a very critical eye, especially in situations where non-admins are going to be limited in their ability to assess what's going on. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, the situation was pretty similar at Chris Hernandez (about a journalist), which was created in 2008: any (post-2023) problematic additions should have just been reverted. The only one where that wasn't an option was Melissa Kozakiewicz, and even there I'm not convinced we're in BLPDELETE territory, basically per Cryptic below. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • I agree with Extraordinary Writ. In particular, I found the section about this person's firing to be considerably more neutrally-written than its sources, and they're sources we'd normally accept about a person like this (KCTV, KCUR, and The Kansas City Star). It possible, of course, that they were picked specifically because they were that negative, but that's not a problem that's solved by deletion. —Cryptic 01:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    • I've now reviewed every still-deleted revision of the article. I am unable to identify even one that could be reasonably construed as defamatory. (Some, in particular the early ones by ips and the first edit (only) by JonnyFyve, are unsourced, but are easily sourceable. That situation didn't last long, and the final version is quite well sourced.) What I do see is multiple reversions of material like "Platt worked hard to ensure the city was as inclusive as possible of all people. He hired the City’s first Chief Equity Officer, assembled the most diverse leadership team in the City’s history and helped the city reach perfect scores on the Human Rights Campaign’s Municipal Equality Index 4 years in a row.[ref to this entirely useless source]" When, hypothetically, an article subject complains about the removal of such content, our response should be "Thanks for letting us know, we're not going to let you put it back, please go away", not to summarily delete the page. So far as I can tell from the ANI discussion, even that much didn't happen; the subject of a related article complained about that other article. There were two short paragraphs about the other person here; I don't think it was unreasonable to add them, though on balance they're a bit off-subject, and I'd remove them. That's about it.
      It's possible we'll eventually delete this for notability reasons. That's ok. But it should be for genuine notability reasons. I do note that this was the best-sourced page in Category:City managers of Kansas City, Missouri; whether it was the best-sourceable, I don't care to investigate. —Cryptic 07:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Overturn and relist. The last available version of the article I can access at the Internet Archive from March 2025 has no BLP violations. There was no policy-based reason that the BLP violations (even if we provisionally accept that the content I cannot read) mandated immediate deletion rather than the removal of the allegedly offending content (Extraordinary Writ's point). Deleting, out of process, a longstanding article (2.5 years) because negative material was added to it is obviously erroneous. To claim that an article that originally had no negative content towards its subject is an "attack page" borders on absurdity. The relevant standard at WP:BLPDELETE is explicit; Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. This was manifestly not met here. Katzrockso (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn the speedy per Katz. There was a previous revision that could of been restored, so speedy deletion was inappropriate. I am very confused by comments saying the article was created purely for attack purposes, from what I can see in archive the article was created in 2023, and the problematic content was added in August 2025. Was there some secret deletion that was done between that made the previous revisions unusable? Jumpytoo Talk 04:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn and reopen the AFD. Please note this is primarily based on other votes since SmokeyJoe's reasonable request to temp-undelete was declined. There seem to be previous versions of this page that do not have the BLP/attack concerns which can be restored and the more recent versions can be rev-deled if desired. WP:BLPDELETE only allows for deletion on BLP grounds if there is not an acceptable previous version; this subject article has a previous version which can be considered acceptable (or at the very least warrant a full AFD discussion) Frank Anchor 13:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Deleting admin comment I have undeleted the pre March 2025 versions. I personally am unwilling to undelete the problematic content but if another admin feels it's OK, I have no objection to you doing so. As to whether an AfD should run off the early versions, I have no opinion. Star Mississippi 14:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. I maintain my “overturn” opinion above for the pre-March 2025, with no opinion on whether the problematic content should be rev-deleted (I’ll leave that to admins with full access). Star usually has great judgement as an AFD closer, I think the full deletion here was a slight overreach. Frank Anchor 15:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • AfD-nominating nonadmin comment I nominated the article at AfD because it appeared to me that, even (and even especially) with the UNDUE attack material removed, the subject appeared nonnotable -- the coverage consisting almost entirely of run-of-the-mill stuff like City manager hired and City manager revamps snow removal plan and City manager institutes bike lane initiative and City manager fired. Whether deletion in advance of the close of the AfD was precipitate, I'm unsure. EEng 17:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse attempt at IAR, but overturn speedy, and continue the AFD. Not being an admin, I can't see what was added post-March 2025, but reading the breadcrumbs I think Star's IAR speedy deletion was eminently defensible. However, reasonable people are unconvinced deletion is actually the right outcome and want to hash out notability, marginal-notablity-favouring-deletion, etc. So an AFD *discussion* is better suited than speedy deletion, and it has been established an attack-free version does exist so the speedy is unncessary from a BLP-compliance standpoint. No criticism of anyone implied; a pragmatic shortcut was reasonably taken but didn't stick, and since we can, we therefore should do it by the book. Based on a quick read I think notability is marginal at best, and so I expect a deletion outcome is quite likely. But that's a matter of discussion, opinions may vary, and facts (sourcing not in the article, marginal subject notability preference...) may change the outcome. Martinp (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    We should always do things "by the book", and when that's wrong, rewrite the "book". Time to get rid of IAR, or at least refine it to what it should be - a way to improve our policies/guidelines by allowing editors to attempt things outside of them that might be improvements. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 17:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    You've just described what the current version of WP:IAR says. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    Which is additional evidence to me that Wikipedia is a failure (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 19:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
    I would not go that far. I think IAR tends to work just fine, most of the time, and could be used more. But also that it should be noncontroversially undone when feedback says “wait a minute”. But this bigger picture goes beyond this DRV. Martinp (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    Yes, the bigger picture is that NPOV is a policy except regarding Wikipedia's own existence, where editors are expected to be biased in favor of Wikipedia's existence. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 23:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
    Just noting here that All In has been INDEFFed by @Rsjaffe. As the DRV is against my close, I'm not going to take any actions on the participation, but flagging so others don't waste time engaging with their arguments to which they'll be unable to respond. Star Mississippi 00:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn and let the AFD process play out. I would like to thank Star for their work and for trying to do the correct thing but IMO it was in error. What may have confused matters is that the AFD nom stated it was a hit piece but as the creator noted, it was quite the opposite....they said that the subject had them create the article. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment After reading about those three people whose articles have been IAR deleted, I suggest that the Chris Hernandez or Chris Hernandez (journalist) article should also be brought to DRV, because unlike the other two, the BLP violating content isn't negative against that person (as far as I know - as a nonadmin I don't see deleted content) (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 19:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
  • overturn Out of process: not speedy eligible, if there are BLP issues there were other ways to address them. I get the inclination to want to help, but this wasn't the way to do it. Given the discussion, I'm unsure that any admin action was needed. Was the text a true BLP violation or just well-sourced negative information? Hobit (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment in general, the action sequence (emergency BLP delete, identify non-problematic revisions, restore non-problematic revisions) could use a bit more process safeguards, but is fundamentally sound as long as we have a way to identify articles that need more admin eyes to make sure we get it "safe" fast and "right" soon thereafter. Jclemens (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I guess I got tagged at some point in this convo, and reading through all the things, I believe that overturn would probably be best. Put it back in AfD, let it be more scrutinized or whatever.
🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 Peep peep! 13:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn as the totality of the circumstances of the AfD didn't justify the close. This is exactly what DRV is for. Alansohn (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Mansoureh Khojasteh Bagherzadeh (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mansoureh Khojasteh Bagherzadeh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Non admin closure under incorrect interpretation of WP:SNOW. The discussion was closed prematurely as keep despite arguments to delete prior to the closure. This should run its course. The eventual outcome deserves the full discussion period. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:33, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Overturn and relist/reopen as appropriate. This is to clarify my opinion (as nominator for both the AfD and this review) that WP:SNOW was interpreted poorly and that the discussion should run its course. There was not a full consensus, and, whatever the outcome, a snow close was inappropriate. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Vacate non-admin close and relist for the full 7 days. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn. WP:NINI-type arguments, and there's like only 5 pages of Google News results in Farsi returning about her. google search --- n.h.huit 13:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    also yeah my bad for also making those arguments bye --- n.h.huit 13:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Solar eclipse of January 5, 1935 (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Solar eclipse of January 5, 1935 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In my opinion, the article should be restored as virtually all other solar eclipses between 1900 to 2100 have an article for consistency. The short duration and small area make it interesting, similar to the 2186 eclipse. (Above posted by User:Kepler-1229b) Spartaz Humbug! 19:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

have you discussed with the closing admin who is still active? Have you notified the closing admin you have raised this ? Spartaz Humbug! 20:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I have notified the admin. See User talk:Liz. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument at AFD, and an even worse one at DRV. There was clear consensus to not keep this as a standalone page. Frank Anchor 20:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

26 February 2026

Ripio

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

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

I’m uninvolved in the original keep discussion, which @Spartaz closed on 19/2 as keep. On 23/2 It was renominated by @PrudskaSofa on the grounds (paraphrasing) that there was too much socking at the prior AfD.
I asked for an explanation and encouraged DRV and, after 24 hours without a response (and to date no more edits) I voted to speedy keep, and again encouraged DRV or WP:6MONTHS. Two experienced editors voted, one speedy and procedural keep. Then it was closed by Spartaz| saying (among other things) it would be relisted as an admin action.
At this point, it seems the proper thing is for this to be overturned (undone) and allowed to run for the rest of the 7 days. If during that time @spartaz sheds light at that discussion what’s going on and why deletion is necessary then the votes (including, potentially, mine) will reflect that.
It would also be proper, I believe, to restore the original keep closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripio to keep as it was altered after the close. Oblivy (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
You left a message on my talk page at 8:46 this morning as I was driving to work. I am not obliged to check Wikipedia during my workday and instead of waiting for me to reply at the end of the work day you raised a ridiculous DRV 5 hours later which will delay us securing a safe consensus on this article by another week. Had you had the courtesy to wait for my response I have told you that an AFD with so much socking was unsafe and that the only solution is to call it void. I would also have told you that the second AFD was not the vehicle to get a safe consensus as it was basically a bad tempered unpleasant pile one. Nothing I have done is unreasonable or outside policy and is well within the expected norms that I have observed in the 20 years In have contributed today. Your conduct and impatience is entirely aligned with the unpleasant hectoring tone of AFD 2 Spartaz Humbug! 17:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
From my perspective, PrudskaSoda renominated an article which you had closed as keep just days earlier, and neither provided the kind of explanation well-aimed at making AfD2 a success, nor responded to a query about why it was needed. Whatever defects may have affected the first AfD were not called out by you until you decided to angrily close AfD2. Editors aren't omniscient, and the first step when someone fails to see something you think is obvious is not name-calling, it's communication. I tried to be as even-handed as possible in framing the DRV. Since you apparently believe calling my conduct ridiculous and impatient is appropriate I have little expectation you will agree, but my decision to bring this here, and to do so in a time convenient to my editing schedule, was not unreasonable considering what led up to it. Oblivy (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
So your convenience is more important than allowing me the opportunity to expand on my thinking and plans? I'm a massive believer in admin accountability but people need to be more patient and not try to force the pace. There is no deadline. Spartaz Humbug! 18:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Fair enough, as you "forced the pace" at AfD2 by commenting on my vote immediately before closing the discussion so nobody could respond. Patience and capacity for self-reflection are both virtues that benefit the project. Oblivy (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn to relist (uninvolved) I think that closing the original discussion because it was "destroyed by socking" was improper. The sock votes can just be hidden from view to allow normal users to participate. Thus people in the 2nd discussion were understandably confused. I don't know a valid solution to this trainwreck but my best guess is to relist the first nomination with the sock keep votes hidden or otherwise deleted, then close it on the merits. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I don’t quite follow. So the other discussion was closed purely for that reason, and nothing a bit more fitting or relevant? That feels rather abstract. There were quite detailed remarks over there. 𒁂 🇿 🇷 🇾 🇰 ࿐ 00:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
  • The first AFD was already closed. It would be pointless to reopen it as it already has participation bias from the state it was in when it was open. The solution, which has been exercised hundreds of times over the years into relist cleanly once the dust settles. Something I already stated I would do. Please do explain why it it "improper" to not allow socking to taint the consensus? Spartaz Humbug! 17:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    As I said, socking can be removed/hidden but there were legitimate !votes there, so it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    And people who might have voted deleted wouldn't even bother looking at the article because the outcome appears cut and dried. A fresh unsullied discussion is the only way to reach a clean consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn the 19 Feb close to no consensus, vacate the 26 Feb close per INVOLVED and relist it. For the first AfD, once you discard the socks, there is no consensus to keep. For the second AfD, Spartaz was involved, having closed the previous AfD only a week earlier. On merits, the close is incorrect, as there is no valid administrative reason to speedy close it. The nomination is evidently procedural, and therefore exempt from speedy keep per WP:CSK#1(1), relying on MightyRanger's original deletion rationale. All three speedy/procedural keep votes should be discarded, and the AfD allowed to run its course. Alternately, a new procedural AfD can be opened, and be closed by someone other than the admin who closed the previous two. Owen× ☎ 14:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    That all makes sense. Not quite convinced that the exception from CSK#1(1) should apply where it's not identified as procedural, but it's fair to say that was the intent of the 2nd listing. Oblivy (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    As I understand it, acting in an administrative capacity in disputes doesn't make an editor WP:INVOLVED. If it were true, each admin would be able to issue only one sanction in each WP:CTOP, because after that, they would become INVOLVED. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Kelob2678: I think closing a second AfD after you've closed the first can be uninvolved. This one wasn't. The closing statement does not come across as a calm, level-headed, passion-free ruling. On the contrary; it reads like an angry retort to what the admin felt--rightly or not--to be an attempt to circumvent his previous close a week earlier. Not looking at a case with fresh, dispassionate eyes means you are involved.
    Personally, I avoid closing any AfD on a page I previously adjudicated, no matter how long ago it was. I do that to avoid even the remote perception of a prejudice, although with the number of AfDs I close, I can't even remember those older ones, let alone be biased by how I closed them. I understand that other admins don't adhere to the same self-imposed standard. But if you're angry about a nom ignoring your previous close, step back and let someone else handle it. Owen× ☎ 19:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    No matter what admins do, they will look biased to some editors. It is ultimately up to their conscience to act properly. But WP:INVOLVED is a policy and I think editors who violate it should be stripped of administrative powers. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    Spartaz is a fine admin who has been serving the project dutifully for 19 years. I see absolutely no reason to question his administrative powers. We all lose our temper every once in a while, and sometimes it helps to have an outsider respectfully point it out to us. But involved or not, I see no policy basis for speedy closing AfD #2. The best thing to do with a pile-on is to discard those piling on, and let participants who stick to P&G have a chance to present their opinion. By speedy closing that discussion, those piling on basically got what they wanted. What we saw here was a knee-jerk reaction from all sides; understandable considering the circumstances, but unhelpful. Owen× ☎ 21:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    I am not involved in anyway. Please redact your vote to reflect the actual policy which that you are not involved when acting in an administrative capacity, which I am doing in both discussions. I am perfectly entitled to void an afd close if I believe it is no longer tenable - which is a perfectly reasonable conclusion when an AFD has been ruined by socking . That has been accepted practise for many years and has never made an admin involved. The second AFD was clearly an unsuitable vehicle to allow us to have a clean consensus so closing it was again a perfectly normal and reasonable admin action. I'd ask you to revisit your expressed opinion. Spartaz Humbug! 17:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    Your closing statement for the second AfD makes it clear that your declaration that the second AFD was clearly an unsuitable vehicle is coloured by your close of the first AfD a week earlier. Whether correct or not, that determination should have been made by someone who didn't close an AfD about the same page a week earlier. Owen× ☎ 18:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    Please don't substitute your beliefs for what I actually thought. Maybe assume good faith that my stated intention was to provide a clean consensus. I make no secret that I found the pile on during AFD 2 was distasteful and fueled my belief it was not the right vehicle for a clean consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 18:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    I'm sure you wanted a clean consensus, but you went at it the wrong way. Your intentions were good, but your premature close of the AfD was effectively a supervote that prevented anyone else from arguing on merits. You don't get to shut down a discussion just because it's not going your way. WP:CSK has no "pile on" clause that allows us to close a discussion prematurely. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    What do you mean my way? Are you routinely closing discussions where you have an opinion on the article or skin in the game? Why do you keep insinuating that I have a personal agenda? Are you projecting maybe? I already explained my reasoning? I don’t care if you disagree with my approach but its offensive for you to tell me what was in my mind. Bizarre. Spartaz Humbug! 21:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a correct reading of AfD psychology. Once the pile-on starts, it is very hard to deal with it. What the last two editors saw in the first AfD was four consecutive Keep votes (three were from socks), and this definitely influenced, if not their votes, then at least their decision to participate in the AfD. This makes their votes entangled with sock votes. The same applies to the second AfD where there are 3 Keep votes which would force every potential participant to think twice whether to voice their opinion to Delete, because they likely have no idea about the background. The solution is rather simple, just start a new AfD as if the previous two hadn't happened. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse both of Spartaz's closures. Ghastly mess and the best way to deal with this is take a break, have a cup of tea, and renominate in a little while once everyone has calmed down. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Vacate closure of first AFD due to sock puppetry, while I will note that the closure was correct based on information known at the time. No action on second AFD, which was correctly procedurally closed. I would recommend starting fresh with a new AFD, and not immediately. Give it some time (at least a couple weeks after the closure of this DRV), to allow for a better discussion less likely to be influenced by sock puppetry. Frank Anchor 17:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    That is precisely what I have done. The first AFD is void and I stayed in my close of the second that I would relist later once the dust has settled. Which will now be another 7 days down the road because eh process. Spartaz Humbug! 17:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
This is correct, though I will not go as far as endorsing this action because the close of "Process obsession at our worst" was a very nonsensical way to describe a procedural close. Frank Anchor 13:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
I make no secret that I found the pile on against the nominator in afd2 distasteful and it certainly fueled my belief that it wasn't the right vehicle to find a safe consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 18:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • So, I wrote a whole thing about how unnecessary this all was and how it could've been avoided if the socks' comments had been struck or possibly just removed as part of the first afd's close. The part I missed in my first read is that that reclose happened at the same time as the second afd, not immediately after the first afd's first close. I guess where I end up now is that, though a week is kind of pushing it, this falls into the afd closer's window of reconsideration, y'know, the whole thing we have in the instructions here at DRV to talk to the closer first instead of just opening a review. ("Hey, all the people voting 'keep' have been proven to be in the same sockfarm!" is one of the canonical examples justifying that instruction, after all.) So I'm endorsing the second nomination's close as wholly correct, and overturn the first one to "defer to whatever Spartaz thinks best". Whether that's a new procedural nomination, or reopening the first afd with the offending votes struck or removed, or wait a while first, or even reward the sockfarm by letting them use our procedures against us to immunize their ad from deletion, I'm ok with any of those. Would be least thrilled with the last, obviously. —Cryptic 02:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    my intent from the outset was to relist for a clean consensus once the dust has settled. I appreciate your analysis of the situation and willingness to assume good faith about my intentions. Spartaz Humbug! 18:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment - It isn't important what terminology is used to close the two AFDs (that is, how to change the wording of the close of the two AFDs) as long as the result is a new AFD, after this DRV has been open for seven days. When a new AFD is opened, it should be semi-protected to prevent the sockpuppetry that corrupted the first AFD.
    • Endorse the first AFD, not so much because it was the correct close, but because any other close would have wrong.
    • Void the second AFD. The closer's statement was an unfortunate mistake, but the closer was mostly correct.
    • Allow a third AFD when this DRV is closed, and semi-protect the AFD.
    • Comment - It is less important what we call what we do to the first two AFDs than that there be an honest third AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
      I appreciate your comments and generally agree. However, in light of all the discussion here about unsullied/untainted discussion, I think the wording on the prior closes does matter. When someone opens that 3rd discussion and then clicks through to the other two they need to see what happened earlier. The closes should (1) reflect that the first one was a keep, (2) show that the second one was procedural closed rather than the irregular close that exists at the moment. Oblivy (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
      now that is a fair point and I shall amend my close by unbolding and adding a procedural close Spartaz Humbug! 12:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Allow a third, semi'd afd and whatever that result is is what happens.the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 13:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Sheesh. If checkuser is not magic pixie dust, semiprotection isn't even mundane talcum powder. All three of the sockpuppet accounts were well over the semiprotection threshold. —Cryptic 17:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse the closes, both as procedural and not INVOLVED. Draftify as it is a terrible article WP:UPE product, declined at AfC before being accepted by a later proven SOCK. Forbid mainspacing by anyone not qualified as an AfC reviewer. In draftspace, allow time for discovery of reasons to resume improvement of the draft, which is not currently worthy of mainspace, including for the reason that it is reference bombed with a high proportion of unreliable sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

25 February 2026

Gigamon

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

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

  • Endorse The AFD was relisted once, so there was plenty of time for editors to contribute to the discussion. Three editors made substantive comments suggesting that the sourcing did not meet the requirements of NCORP (and after TechmanTom added several sources in the discussion). In terms of !votes, it as 5 editors advocating to delete the article and 2 in favor of keeping, so I do feel a consensus was reached. --Enos733 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    I have no concerns with using the refund process based on the sourcing provided in this discussion. - Enos733 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Question was there a policy reason this was not closed as a soft deletion with no opposition instead of being relisted the first time? Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    No policy reason, but the page has been around for over a decade, edited by dozens, and more importantly--has been accepted at AfC, which I consider to be at least as weighty as declining a PROD. I don't think the relister erred in this case. Owen× ☎ 19:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
There must be some additional sourcing for this page that we can find and help them out shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. What is your connection to them @TechmanTom78 and were you canvassed to this discussion? Star Mississippi 18:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi I put a lot of work into the page, and I think they're notable from a tech perspective. I worked in the industry for a long time; I am retired and enjoy using my knowledge to help out here on Wikipedia. Now, with that being said there is definitely some work to be done on the article itself, I just don't agree with it being deleted at this point in time. TechmanTom78 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse Endorse but restore per newly found sources The sources were adequately analyzed and refuted, the "major stakeholders" who didn't respond only performed routine maintenance on the article (not that it would matter if they were actually significant contributors), and the new source in this DRV only mentions the company in a single footnote. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse as the proper reading of consensus at the AFD, and as the right conclusion about an article that was written from the corporate perspective rather than than of third parties but would be interested in a Temporary Undelete. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
     Done Owen× ☎ 19:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse per Enos. the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 19:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC At least two of the deletion !votes are materially false. The Mercury News reference is clearly an appropriate source, even if the same article is cited as two separate references. That puts this squarely into NC territory, especially given the debates over NCORP. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    Participants had a chance to address that source. Looking at it myself , it is textbook WP:CORPTRIV of a headquarters relocation. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    (I was involved in the discussion.) This is the Mercury News reference. It doesn't address the company in depth. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 21:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    Look, I know there are plenty of editors who like to make up rules to be more anti-corporation. That'd be a fine GNG-contributing source in any other context, so I reject that prejudice and substitute my own impartiality in assessing the close. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    WP:NCORP is intentionally less flexible than WP:GNG. If you want to loosen the source requirements so that the strict current practice at AfD is discarded, that would at the very least require a discussion at Wikipedia talk:NCORP. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    No, I don't need to do any such thing. I can continue using Wikipedia's core policies and reject the anti-business NCORP as a violation of NPOV. NPOV is policy, NCORP is a notability guideline: if there's a conflict (and assessing sources differently based on article topic most assuredly is) NPOV trumps NCORP. The fact that other people don't agree with my interpretation of NPOV doesn't restrict me from holding it and advocating for it. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    NPOV doesn't "trump" NCORP. NPOV applies (only) to encyclopedic content. It does not apply to Wikipedia policies or guidelines. NCORP cannot be "a violation of NPOV". So yes, if you want to change the requirements of WP:NCORP, you need to gather a consensus to do so at WT:NCORP, as Helpful Raccoon suggests. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse Restore to Draft 5 Deletes and 2 Keeps, the sources provided by the Keep side were adequately addressed. At the same time, it is somewhat unfortunate that a 20-year-old company with 1,000 employees and $300M revenue in 2016 was found to be non-notable. Surely, some sources must exist somewhere. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    There are a few articles in WP:BLOOMBERG about the company that I would say qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. There are also probably 6 or 7 WP:WSJ articles here of varying depth;
    There were also several articles from WP:REUTERS around the sale to Elliott Investment Management that clearly go beyond mere trivial coverage and involve investigative reporting.
    This article about the company's layoffs is another . And there are a couple articles here on Law 360 about a lawsuit over the original sale to Elliott Investment Management.
    There are some The Motley Fool articles ( ), but I don't know if there is a consensus on the reliability of that publication per WP:RSN (plus these seem to be clear WP:CORPTRIV).
    I was unable to find any consensus on the reliability of this publication in the past (it clearly seems unreliable now), but there is clear analysis in this article from Investing.com (archived because it was blacklisted at one point because of some spam). Another article with good analysis is this article in Canton Rep .
    It also has an entry in International directory of company histories, volume 199 . This source, published by Gale, is described as This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location.Each three- to five-page entry is meticulously detailed with facts gathered from popular magazines, academic periodicals, books, annual reports and the archives of the companies themselves. I think Gale is an eminently reliable source. The coverage spans pages 209-212.
    I'd suggest that the discussion was of typical poor-quality discussions on corporations because the nomination failed to a proper WP:BEFORE and none of the editors in the discussion bothered to look for sources. Katzrockso (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    Hey @Katzrockso Thank you for sourcing and listing out all those articles. I'm happy to help contribute once it's in the draftspace. TechmanTom78 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse This was an accurate reading of the discussion and when weighed together the arguments presented by the deletion camp were stronger with the citing of guidelines pertaining to corporations. Let'srun (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Endorse but vacate close? Not sure the right way to describe it, but the article should be restored even if the close itself was a correct interpretation of the consensus as it existed in that discussion. The quality of the discussion is very poor and per WP:DRVPURPOSE#4, there is definitely "significant new information" that has come to light. Namely that the company in question is almost certainly notable and editors failed to do their due diligence and search for sources that were not difficult to locate at all. This DRV nomination fails to make a compelling case for overturning the result, however the facts do. Katzrockso (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
Good work @Katzrockso. I agree with restoring the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Although I am displeased by the terse nomination by User:Scope creep, and the terse close by User:OwenX, for a contested discussion, I do read it as within admin discretion. On reading the temp_undeleted article, I find it dominated by non-independent information that must have come from the company and reference bombed with 46 sources. Allow the deletion to be challenged by the standard method which is: Draftify, and follow the advice at WP:THREE. Cull the weak sources and highlight the independent coverage. If any. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
    I would be satisfied if the article is restored to draftspace so I can edit it. Katzrockso (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
  • As a way forward, draftify for interested parties to work on, and return to mainspace when they feel appropriate (subject to renomination) or go through AfC, as they wish. The article absolutely needs a rewrite. That said, we really have a problem with people jumping on the "no RS exists" bandwagon when all that has been demonstrated is "there are lots of non-RS". It becomes a self-perpetuating echo chamber that shouldn't be called consensus. I recognize it comes from the need to "protect the wiki" from an avalanche of spam but gets overused on stuff that really just needed fixing. Formally, we've had enough plausible new, i.e. thus far unevaluated, sources brought up here to warrant overturning/vacating the discussion and re-sending to AfD. However, clearly some of those new sources are also not RS; clearly the article needs a rewrite; and we have users who want to work on it. So pragmatically draftspace is the logical place to put it for that work to take place. Martinp (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Imtiaz Developments (closed)

  • Imtiaz_Developments – Procedural close Appellant/creator indeffed. Whether or not DE or COI is present, this is not going anywhere. (non-admin closure) Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Imtiaz Developments (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

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

  • Comment (involved): I believe the appellant got confused by their own title-gaming, and is actually referring to last week's AfD, not last year's. Their declaration of, I respect the views of the community rings hollow, as their behaviour suggests the only view they respect is that of their employer attempts to circumvent consensus suggest otherwise. Owen× ☎ 11:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Endorse the close at last week's AfD (with no s on Developments) and the earlier close at AfD with the s. I respect the nominator's feeling that we ought to be able to have an article on this company; in particular, the awarded Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Medal for Philanthropy is at least a plausible claim to notability. However, the repeated AfDs have all reached the same Delete conclusion based on sourcing issues, not notability. The problem is there just is not enough independent sourcing with significant coverage. The plethora of sources found are passing mentions, paid marketing, or if not paid marketing just uncritically repeat information directly from the company itself. The AfDs grappled with this and reached the same, reasonable conclusion: we just don't have enough material on which to base an article that would be sufficiently independent of the subject. To revisit this conclusion, we'd need new sources that aren't more of the same. (@OwenX's comment implies concerns on nominator COI, but I AGF in view of the nominator having explicitly said they do not have a COI on their user talk page in October 2025. Since the issue is absence of required sources, it is neither here nor there anyway.) Martinp (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    Point taken; I removed the COI accusation. Owen× ☎ 14:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

8 February 2026

Template:death date and age text

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

I'll try to keep this concise.

As for trying to address this prior to DRV,

The TFD should not have been closed and redirected to {{death date and age}}, when that template doesn't have the same MOS-compliant functionality, which was specifically raised in the TFD. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion discussion in October 2025, it sounds like the desired functionality has been implemented. But then looking at the talk page discussion in January 2026 it sounds like it has not. In that second discussion there is apparently a dispute over whether abbreviated output should be implemented. I suggest it would be more productive to have that discussion. If the answer is "no", no new template is needed. If the answer is "yes", the desired functionality can be implemented in the existing template as originally planned. It looks like Module:Date already supports abbreviated output with "%{monthabbr}". -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
My specific comment in the deletion discussion was that MOS:DATE allows for the abbreviation of months; I was even told in reply that {{death date and age}} overrides Oct with October. It still works just fine! It just overrides the display value. Thank you for pointing this out. It should be a very easy fix. […] I will fix it so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed However, that fix for abbreviating clearly wasn't implemented, but the redirection happened anyway.
As for whether months should be abbreviated in infoboxes or not, the MOS explicitly has allowed it for some thirteen years, and I began a new discussion at WT:DATE#confirmation of abbreviation allowances, but until consensus changes the MOS, it is allowed and the abbreviation functionality wasn't added as both promised and alleged in the TFD, which was redirected anyway. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
DR isn't the place to re-raise TfD arguments but to talk about the actual close. I'm also unclear why DR allows opening a discussion without pinging any of the editors from the previous discussion. Pinging @Zackmann08 @Frietjes. Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
DR isn't the place to re-raise TfD arguments That's why I'm arguing that the discussion was wrong to have been closed in favor of redirection when that outcome was predecated upon {{death date and age}} having the same functionality as {{death date and age text}}, which was claimed to have been done, but wasn't.
I'm also unclear why DR allows opening a discussion without… I just followed the directions at WP:DELREVD. Do you require me to notify those editors you've named? Is there an official template for doing so, of would something like this suffice: I've begun [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 February 8#Template:death date and age text|a deletion review of]] {{template link|death date and age text}}, a page for whose [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 23#Template:Death date and age text|original TFD]] you participated.? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
For the record I oppose reopening this. If the desire is to keep the ability to use an abbreviated month, that can be implemented in the current incarnation. I fail to see why that is such a vital case though... I would like to know what the use case is here where having an abbreviated month is of such important need as to have a second, far more complicated and difficult to maintain template. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
This discussion is about an improper close. At the original discussion, Zackmann08 (talk · contribs) said that It just overrides the display value. Thank you for pointing this out. It should be a very easy fix. […] I will fix it so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed. They later said, This can now safely be merged as the mf/df format is now preserved and the two templates do the same thing. The target template wasn't fixed so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed, and the two templates didn't and don't do the same thing, yet it was on that erroneous claim that the discussion was closed and the template was redirected. As such, the closure was in error, hence DRV. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Restore to the holding pen (WP:TFD/H) to avoid breakage until the discussion on if the abbreviation feature should be preserved concludes (and if preserved, until it is implemented). No fault on the closer; I would of believed the missing features were implemented as well. Jumpytoo Talk 02:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
  • seems like the simple thing to do would be to implement preservation of month abbreviations, similar to how it currently preserves dmy vs mdy. Frietjes (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Archive

More information Year, Jan ...
Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2026 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Close

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI