Wikipedia:Deletion review

Gezira State canal killings (2024–2025) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page was deleted because the main writer of the page was blocked because of using sockpupets. The page shouldn't have been deleted as it's important part of the ongoing Sudanese civil war as it's one of the most known cases of ethnic cleansing conducted by SAF. The page was approved by other users and other users had made edits on the page so only reason for the deletion was sockpuppetry. I highly doubt that the deleted page will be remade anytime soon as Sudanese Civil war pages aren't usually made that frequently. Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Significa liberdade, what block was ShoBDin evading? I'm not seeing anything conclusive in the SPI, but maybe I'm missing something. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I initially declined some G5s based on the same reasoning. However, after speaking with asilvering, I cleared their new page creations (see the discussion here). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ, I'm going to retreat to WP:BEANS on this one, but I can tell you that a) CUs have access to further evidence and b) this editor is really quite extremely banned, and has been for years. -- asilvering (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll add, also, that these accounts were using LLMs, both (I assume) to be able to generate more pov-push faster, and to make it harder to make a behavioural link. @Brown caterpillar12, if the topic is notable, by all means write an article here yourself, but I don't think we'd want the original in any case. -- asilvering (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

That's good enough for me, obviously (i.e., endorse). Brown caterpillar12, the Internet Archive saved a copy of the article here (attr. ShoBDin), so feel free to use the sources or whatever else is useful, but per Asilvering I'd discourage you from just copying it verbatim. You're welcome to recreate the article at any time, but you'll be responsible for any edits you make. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse G5 is G5, and ASilvering is a checkuser. If there is any complaint that a functionary is acting improperly, there is both a much higher bar and a different process involved. I'll note that the appellant is welcome to rewrite anything deleted as a G5 provided they are permitted to do so, and recommend we close this: we are not second guessing checkusers on what is or is not a G5. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse: I'll start by saying as the appellant has directly criticised an administrative action, regardless of the user page discussion linked by @SL above, @Asilvering should have been informed. That ping will alert them of this DRV. The deletion was done under a valid speedy deletion criteria. If there is an issue with the SPI action, that requires posting at a different venue entirely. (I can't remember which off the top of my head, but WP:XRV comes to mind.) 11WB (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  I realise now it was actually @SL who deleted the article. My comment regarding alerting admins who are being criticised for actions they've taken stands. 11WB (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  The appeal is against the deletion, not against the determination of sockpuppetry. Therefore DRV is the right venue, and there was no policy requirement to inform Asilvering about it, whose involvement in this deletion amounts to a reply on someone's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 07:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  Didn't see this until just now, @OwenX. Thank you for clarifying the distinction. Based on what I recall from this, G5 was applied correctly. The article and the SPI appear to be largely connected however, despite the latter not being up for discussion here. 11WB (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  My comment wasn't about the suitability of G5, but a response to two assertions you made, namely (1) that DRV is the wrong venue for this; and (2) that Asilvering should have been notified. I disagree with both assertions, as explained above. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't actually say 1. verbatim. I said if there is an issue with the SPI action, it should be taken to XRV or another admin review venue. DRV is correct for deletion of course. 11WB (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the G5 (assuming there were no substantial edits made by good-faith editors. Can an admin please confirm this?). While most deletion has some gray area, G5 is one of the few exceptions. Either the article was created by a blocked/banned person or it was not. G5 deletion explicitly allows recreation by any user in good standing. Frank Anchor 12:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
  • There were not. There was a copyedit by User:Phibeatrice that changed about a dozen words with no change of meaning, and an addition of three words of content by User:Brown caterpillar12. Everything else was solely formatting. —Cryptic 13:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)
• Regrettable endorse. I'm not a fan of punishing the project to WP:SPITE a sock, but I understand the impetus behind WP:DENY and G5. I will note, however, that the events described in the deleted article are notable, and the article was well sourced. The subject deserves, as a minimum, a section at 2024 eastern Gezira State massacres. I'll gladly provide a copy of the cited references (but not of the prose) to anyone willing to take this on. If these killings had happened in, say, Eastern Europe, we'd have a nav template to navigate between the multiple articles we'd have on the subject. But since this happened in a part of the world that suffers from a systematic bias by Western media, we've just (rightly!) deleted the only coverage we have of it, due to what I can only describe as an administrative technicality unrelated to content. Owen× ☎ 14:12, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse - I am not sure that I understand the appellant's case, but I think that one of the following is true:
  • The appellant is saying that the events described in the deleted article are so important that an exception should be made to G5. There isn't such an exception to G5.
  • The appellant is saying that G5 was wrongly applied. I think that we can rely on the judgment of the deleting checkuser.
  • The appellant is saying something else. If so, we should endorse because there isn't a case to overturn.
  • An editor in good faith and good standing may submit a draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think your first point was closest "The appellant is saying that the events described in the deleted article are so important that an exception should be made to G5. There isn't such an exception to G5." My main point was that while I understand that the article gets deleted for being made by a sockpuppet I think the deleted article is really notable and might take a long time before anyone else is willing to make that article. Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  G5 means you are free to restart. If you don't want to do that then I'm not sure what you expected to get from this review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Well honestly I complained about the deletion of the article and was told by @Significa liberdade to take the complaint here. I read the rules about these discussion like 10 times but still it seemed hard to understand and way too bureaucratic for me to care. I was not that sure about deletion rules I was just annoyed that a such article was being deleted and didn't really understand why. Although I don't seem to be the only one with the same issue Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  well sadly people do tend to misbehave and we have to have a sufficient deterrent for those editing while sitebanned. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Brown caterpillar12: I share your frustration, as I noted above, but these rules are here for a good reason. At this point, it's clear the article will not be restored. However, if you're up to doing the work, my offer to send you the cited references still stands. I recommend starting by adding a well-sourced section about the killings at the 2024 eastern Gezira State massacres page. Or you could start by creating Draft:Gezira State canal killings, if you prefer. Check with Borgenland, a very experienced editor, if they're willing to help you; they've done a lot of work here on the Sudan civil war. If you withdraw your nomination, we can close this DRV early, and move on to more productive work. Owen× ☎ 19:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm considering writing the article again and to be honest it's not that much of work. I've already written a small section on the killings as i mentioned it in the Sudan Shield Forces article I did before. I think this discussion was pretty important as it helped me grasp more the reasons behind the deletion. I can search the sources myself no problem, it's luckily such a recent event most of the sources can be found on newsites. Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah and the DRV can be closed i think this issue is resolved Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator I withdraw my nomination as I understood the deletion policy wrong and to be honest was a little annoyed for article of such importance being deleted. I've understood the reasons behind now so I'm withdrawing my DRV Brown caterpillar12 (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Deleted page: Eindhoven Meta-Science Center
• Deleting admin: User:Jimfbleak
• Deletion date: 7 April 2026
• Deletion reason: Speedy deletion (G11, G12)

Reason for review: The page was deleted under G11 (promotion) and G12 (copyright violation). However, the article content was was free of copyright. It was not plagirarized but written by the same person. Speedy deletion requires that issues be unambiguous; in this case, both criteria appear to require editorial judgment. The page may therefore have been more appropriately handled via PROD or AfD rather than speedy deletion.

Requesting review of whether speedy deletion criteria were correctly applied.

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

Deleted for lack of notability. Since 2022, a bunch of sources cropped up which, in my opinion, justify the article. If the article is poorly written, draftification may be done, after which I'll improve the article and remove unsourced information. Otherwise, undelete normally or explain the reason not to.

Reliable

• https://www.villagevoice.com/what-is-jerkmate-an-in-depth-jerkmate-review

Situational (probably usable, since they talk about the UK ban and not anything controversial)

• https://www.askmen.com/gear/tech/how-to-unblock-jerkmate-for-free.html
• https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/adult-content-ban-looms-uk-35454852

Other (mostly reviews)

• https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/758532/jerkmate-review-2
• https://www.laweekly.com/jerkmate-review
• https://johnsoncountypost.com/2025/05/19/olathe-porn-website-lawsuit-259763 Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 17:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Did you use AI to write the source analysis? Have you personally checked each source and personally considered it against RS and RSP? The Mirror is a tabloid and even a moments though would have thrown it out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:43, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  I literally searched up "Jerkmate" on Google News and picked sources that seem well written, while also checking them at WP:RSP. The Mirror is considered situational. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 08:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  The Mirror is not an article about this subject, it's literally mentioned with pornhub in another context. In what way does that source add to notability? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Procedural close. The appellant, who isn't contesting the 3.5-year-old AfD, doesn't need our permission to submit a new draft. However, if the sources cited above are the sole basis for recreation, I fear this would be a waste of everyone's time. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• Refund to userspace with appellant moving to draft space and going through AfC, or taking their chances and improving and moving to mainspace, as they see fit. Appellant has started 26 main space articles of which 25 have been retained. While not investigated in detail, the new sources they list above might well be adequate for notability. The AfD is 3.5 years old. There's no reason not to give the appellant access to the old deleted article as a starting point, and trust them enough to triage whether worth spending time on. Martinp (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Reading the further comments below: Several people are saying notability continues to be highly suspect even with the new sources, and/or it might be better to start from scratch. (Cryptic seems to have reviewed the earlier deleted version, the others maybe just speaking generically). And some implying we can only Endorse (or not) the deletion here, and appellant should go to WP:REFUND and try their chances there to get the old article userfied. I think that's all technically correct, but we're being too bureaucratic. Yes we can sit here for days and end up endorsing a deletion discussion that was, by all accounts, absolutely correct at the time. Or appellant can withdraw here. Either way, then they can go to WP:REFUND, and someone else can look at it there, and (probably) refund it. It would just be a lot more efficient all around if we could cut the bureaucracy, someone with the admin bit would say, "I userfied it for you, don't think it looks too promising. You might want to start from scratch and I'm not sure even the new sources are enough, but up to you to give it a try if you want. Oh, and next time in a situation like this, you could just go to WP:REFUND rather than DRV." Martinp (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  The 79-word stub is rather underwhelming, but if emailing it to the appellant would allow us to speedy-close this DRV, I'd be happy to do so. If the goal is to move it from userspace to draft, I'd rather skip userfication and go straight to draft, as the latter offers better visibility to other editors, and a well defined timeline. But again, considering the paucity of content in the deleted page, this all strikes me as a waste of time. The appellant is an experienced editor; it would have taken them less time to recreate a better stub than it took them to write this appeal. Owen× ☎ 22:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, I'll create a new draft scratch. If the original was a stub, preserving the previous contents is likely not needed. I withdraw my nomination Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 06:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse if this is an appeal of the September 2022 close as Delete (but it doesn't appear to be).

  This appears to be a request to restore the article to article space so that the appellant can work on it. If so, the appellant is making a mistaken request.

  No opinion as to whether a request for undeletion to user space or draft space should be allowed.

  The appellant or anyone may submit a draft for review. It is often better to start from scratch than to request refund of a deleted draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the 2022 close. Oppose the restoration of this article to the mainspace based on the sources provided - no evidence of notability has been provided. Katzrockso (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• If you're expecting to get back a reasonable-looking article that just needs some better sources so we don't delete it, you're going to be very disappointed. It was six short sentences long and would have been a (barely) defensible A7 speedy deletion candidate. Almost anything you could write would be better. —Cryptic 01:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse the AfD. The appellant is happy to try again at writing an article, however if I was presented these sources at an AfD I would vote !delete. Jumpytoo Talk 02:11, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse and DENY. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was deleted largely because it was felt that the content could be covered in the main article (e.g. from AusLondonder, @Bondegezou, and @Jonesey95). However, I made many additions to the page after people expressed these opinions, which enlarged the page substantially. Now, the (no-longer-extant) page's content cannot and should not be covered on the main page, as it would be undue. However, the deletion carried through anyway on the weight of the earlier (and, at the time, valid) discussion. I now think the article should be restored to reflect its new content and use. Scientelensia (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Overturn specifically to draft. I never saw the updated version and nobody voted based on it. If it's actually good enough for an article, it should pass AFC. If it's not, there might be added info that's worth merging into the base article. Tessaract2 (hello) 23:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough – this sounds sensible! Scientelensia (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I have made a draft (Draft:Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy) as per @Owenx, @Tessaract2 and @Frank Anchor. This is early and nobody needs to engage if they don't wish too, but just thought I'd make it known here. Scientelensia (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you probably shouldn't do that until a consensus emerges here. I personally Strongly oppose draftification of this WP:COATRACK. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, ok – should I delete the draft? me personally I dont think it does any harm in the draft space. Scientelensia (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

At this point, the best thing for you to do is to step back, not make any additional comments here, leave the draft as it is, and let this review run its course. Same applies to the Elizabeth Brontë discussion below, except that you should probably answer Spartaz's question to you there about whether you want the content merged or not. Owen× ☎ 14:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Likewise strongly oppose draftication of this WP:POVFORK, there wasn't any point point to so in AfD, never mind any consensus established to do so. Bejakyo (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I support this draft to allow for improvement. Anyone who opposes its existence can start a discussion on MFD at the conclusion of this discussion. Frank Anchor 14:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the clear consensus close. Had the appellant spent the first few days of the AfD adding the sources they did, instead of bludgeoning the discussion and waiting for the last day to add those sources, the result may have been different. However, the article isn't "deleted". It is all there in the page's history, available for the appellant to submit a new draft to AfC. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was busy and didn't have the clairvoyance to know that to would be the last day of discussion (!) – but I see what you mean nonetheless. Scientelensia (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  "Clairvoyance"? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says: A deletion or merging discussion is normally allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). Instead of arguing with each and every participant who disagrees with you, I suggest spending a few days familiarising yourself with our procedures and practices. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry – I apologise. Personal life getting in the way (!) Scientelensia (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Having been around for 2022 and having 5000+ edits your personal life must be very fulfilling, but you can't really at this point continue to edit like a clueless noob Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Not everyone knows everything about Wikipedia, please stop insulting me and mocking me – not nice. Scientelensia (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  like your sarcastic comment about not being clairvoyant? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  That was misinformed, but don't invoke my personal life (that's my prerogative) Scientelensia (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment as original nominator: the decision to redirect is not supported by the consensus in the AfD discussion, but I won't dispute it. However the arguments for this not being a standalone were clearly the best supported by policy including WP:POVFORK, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. I also notice that User:Scientelensia has only notified editors who were in favour of redirect or merge of this deletion review, which I'm sure is within their purview but does not seem in good faith. Orange sticker (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, only notifying your supporters is clear canvassing. @Scientelensia you need to rectify this immediately Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I've already notified all the other participants. Orange sticker (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, but you shouldn't have had to do that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you! Scientelensia (talk) 15:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete Like all decisions on Wikipedia, a decision to redirect at AfD must be supported by consensus, not a supervote by a closing admin. Several editors explicitly opposed a redirect of this title to the subject's BLP. The consensus was overwhelmingly to delete, based on policy. In contrast, some keep arguments were fundamentally flawed, such as suggesting this article should exist because an article like Elon Musk salute controversy exists. AusLondonder (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• I don't see a reason to overturn the AfD decision. Material on the now-deleted page can be accessed through the history and then added to the main article, or not: that can be discussed on the relevant Talk page. Bondegezou (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment As a participant im the AfD, I don't really have a preference between redirect and overturn to delete. The article was pretty clearly a WP:COATRACK to cast a BLP in a bad light. A redirect might discourage future attempts to create similar coatracks. But, if it's overturned to delete, nothing of value will be lost. Simonm223 (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't want to bludgeon, hence will keep this short, but your consistent line of inquiry seems to suggest that the article is some sort of hit piece. It's not (and for reference I didn't create it). It just covers material which would be undue in the main article. Scientelensia (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  You commented on the AfD 11 times, opened this deletion review and then commented on it 11 more times after doing so and created the article as a draft while the deletion review was in progress. You seriously need to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this one. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. They have additionally been lightly notified to be mindful of bludgeoning by both myself and another user. It's getting irritating. To Scientel, I recommend taking a step back and allowing you arguments to speak for themselves, and simply allow others to input too Bejakyo (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse clear consensus to not keep the article. There is not consensus to delete rather than redirect, therefore the closer was correct to select the WP:ATD. Only two delete !voters specifically opposed a redirect, and both were with baseless claims that [r]edirecting this title is highly inappropriate and unnecessary and the topic itself is crude in its wording and not worthy of a redirect. Anyone who believes the redirect was incorrect can go to RFD after the close of this discussion. Per others above, anyone who wishes to improve this page can move a version from the article history into draftspace. Frank Anchor 10:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete as consensus in the AfD indicated - Likewise was involved in the AfD. re-iterating as others have said that the article was a WP:POVFORK and providing WP:UNDUE focus. Due weight had already been afforded in the article Zack Polanski. Additionally this POVFORK also held the issue of gossip without names to attribute such claims to. "unnamed" or "anonymous" figures saying something is does not merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and the inclusion of any such material is a huge WP:BLP violation.
  
  Agree with the fact that AusLondoner points out that that the closing admin appears to have unintentionally acted with a WP:SUPERVOTE in a way contrary to the consensus that was built in the discussion. I had considered raising the issue of a supervote myself but was not aware of where would have been appropriate. I would also add that, for example, whether Musk's hitler salute has an article or not is entirely irrelevant on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFF, and any such arguements appealing to otherstuff are really quite weak and without basis in policy. This redirect should be deleted properly this time, as there was a clear consensus to properly delete, not to redirectBejakyo (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  There is a long standing expectation here that admins respect ATD in closes and if a redirect is available they are usually expected to allow that rather than straight deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Admins should respect the most important principle: consensus. A decision to redirect is not exempt from needing consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  if the outcome is going to be exactly the same, article redirected Vs deleted and directed, what benefit do we get from.makimg it harder to change course if sources appear. And being frank, I don't make the rule round here and this position develops from the regular consensus that appears at both DRVs and AFDs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  though I just checked and my first edit to DRV was in June 2006 so if want to blame anyone I'm the longest here.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  November 2005 for me. ;) Owen× ☎ 19:39, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  show off lol Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  The consensus at the AfD was to redirect. Katzrockso (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think you must have read a different AfD to me. Firstly, consensus is the most fundamental of all policies. Secondly, WP:ATD-R states "A page can be {can be, not must be} blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate. If the change is disputed, such as by reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again." This redirect is obviously inappropriate. AusLondonder (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  You'll note that I have not made any comment on whether consensus is required to enact an AtD, but I have explicitly noted that there is a consensus at the AfD to redirect.

  WP:DEL-REASON states subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page, meaning that all deletion reasons must be shown to be irreparable. WP:ATD-E states If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page (a redirect is a form of editing). A redirect addresses all relevant reasons for deletion in the discussion (the only two votes opposing a redirect made non-policy based arguments that were correctly discounted by the closer). Katzrockso (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree that there was a consensus to redirect at this AfD. I believe that you are grossly misrepresenting policy. ATD-E is clearly referring to editing a page to remove a section that is inappropriate - redirecting is separately addressed in the ATD policy. WP:DEL#REASON indeed does state that "subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page". But what's the relevance? What's your point? This is clearly referring again to editing a page to remove unsuitable content. It says offending section. Your argument is that "editing" the "offending section" is blanking the whole page and keeping this inappropriate and POV page title redirecting to a BLP. This is utterly illogical and ignores the consensus that this content is not suitable and should be deleted. As it stands, the page has not been deleted and remains publicly viewable in edit history, in direct violation of the AfD consensus. Yet again ATD is being misused as backdoor inclusionism. AusLondonder (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  As the closer correctly notes, non-neutral redirects are perfectly permissible and are commonly kept at RfD, which is why there is a template {{R from non-neutral title}}.

  Your argument remains circular - "in direct violation of the AfD consensus" is justified only by your bare assertion that the AfD consensus was to delete. Katzrockso (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  Given that their are precisely zero mainspace links to "Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy" and it is a highly implausible search term (we also have a search engine) and that one of our most critical policies, WP:BLP, states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages..." I think it's obvious this redirect is utterly pointless and clearly intended as an attack on the subject. It frankly debases us as an encyclopaedia. AusLondonder (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  You are more than welcome to nominate the redirect at RfD for deletion following this deletion review. Katzrockso (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with your statement. Closers have their personal tendencies. I believe that DRV leans toward endorsing, independent of original outcome, due to allowances for what we call "closer's discretion". I found two delete closes that weren't overturned to redirect or merge in the last several months: no consensus and endorsed. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse There was consensus to not keep the article in mainspace. While one editor two editors objected to the redirect, more editors expressed that a redirect was appropriate. If I were editing the main article, I would probably only replace and rewrite the previous careers section with the current introductory paragraph of the draft, because most of the draft is just reactions to the incident. --Enos733 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Enos733 There were two explicit objections to redirecting. There was also no positive consensus for a redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse: there was a clear consensus to remove the article on the basis that the incident was not notable and the article was a WP:POVFORK. That did not change when Scientelensia added more information that put WP:UNDUE emphasis on criticism of Polanski that clearly violated WP:BLPBALANCE, including a labelling of Polanski as a "misogynist" that is entirely unrelated to the article subject. I stand by my assessment in the original AfD discussion that at the moment this incident is not notable enough for anything beyond a paragraph in Polanski's article.

I have no preference between delete or redirect. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse and do not overturn to delete. The closer correctly discounted the delete votes that eschewed a redirect as not providing any policy based reason to not redirect.

Judging the discussion based on policy, the consensus is also to redirect. Katzrockso (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse and I want to specifically look at the BLP interface: The material is attributed to reliable sources, not contested. It's embarrassing and political at the same time, so it's controversial, but that doesn't make it contested. A non-neutral redirect is appropriate. A late influx of RS'ing to a discussion doesn't always sway it, and a NOPAGE outcome still feels appropriate given a 10 year perspective on the subject matter. This does not satisfy those who want a standalone article, nor those who want it deleted entirely, which means it's probably a good compromise. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
• The redirect is pretty obviously entirely worthless and also a borderline POV violation. It is not a plausible search term and it provides nothing of value or utility to our readers. Unfortunately, I missed out on the AfD where I could have made those points and I don't think they cut any ice here. I would have preferred it if the result was Delete but it was within the closer's discretion to make a redirect. I think an RfD might be a good idea. I am appalled to see that a new draft has been created to bypass the AfD result. I'll put that up for speedy deletion. Apart from that, I'm mostly just here to say that I don't support overturning this to Keep or Draftify and also that I don't think that Vanamonde93 did anything wrong here. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  The redirect is not technically required, but is the easiest way to satisfy the attribution requirements of WP:CWW. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see why you are 'appalled. The draft was made, although early, because many people (@Owenx, @Tessaract2, @Frank Anchor) suggested (or consented) that I make a draft with the improvements I added. This was the basis of my contesting deletion anyway. I'm quite shocked it has been deleted. Scientelensia (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant to type @OwenX Scientelensia (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  The user @SouthernNights deleted the page 'per a deletion discussion', but only @DanielRigal said it should be deleted. This result seems fraudulent to me. Does anyone with more experience, such as @Spartaz, know how I might recover all my work and new info? It was a well-written article, even if the title wasn't approved of by everybody. Scientelensia (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That's simply not true. There are nine Delete !votes on the AfD and I'm not even one of them because I missed the AfD. The AfD reached the conclusion that this should not be an article. Unless that decision is overturned here then it won't be. You are welcome to argue for an overturn to Keep but trying to bypass the AfD, and the deletion review process, with a draft was not legitimate and it had to go. It was not deleted on my unilateral and godlike say-so although I do appreciate the omnipotence being ascribed to me. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not taking about the original page – I'm taking about the new, improved – and now deleted – draft. One only wishes for omnipotence in such a situation haha Scientelensia (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Given that the draft is of better quality, I care much more about restoring it than overturning the original deletion of the old page. In the case I'm talking about, it was you who suggested (and filed) the request to delete the draft. I hope at least you read it before deleting the work. Scientelensia (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it's a valid g4, but this is clearly going to close with an endorsement and the community will have decided that a separate article on this is unwarranted. Frankly, you need to move on and find something uncontroversial to work on. Political BLPs require high level policy and consensus building skills and you don't have that right now. All that's going to happen is that you will get mired in controversy and eventually someone will decide you are the issue and remove you from the board. Better you focus on the uncontroversial stuff you have been editing until recently. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I've undeleted the draft per the request. However, the G4 absolutely applies here. Per WP:GCSD, general speedy delete criteria applies to "every type of page with exclusions listed for specific criteria, and so apply to articles, drafts, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc." SouthernNights (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussionG4 specifically excludes articles in draft space created to allow improvement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the close of Redirect. I see three issues:
  • Should the close be overturned to Keep, as requested by the appellant? No. The closer correctly assessed a consensus against keeping the article.
  • Should the close be overturned to Delete, as proposed by some participants in this DRV? No. Some editors supported Delete, and some editors supported Redirect, and the closer reasonably identified an alternative to deletion.
  • Should Draft:Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy have been deleted as G4? No, and it should be overturned. A page in draft space is not substantially identical to a deleted page in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm shocked to see it has been deleted. Scientelensia (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

  As I mentioned above, I've undeleted the page per the author request. However per WP:GCSD, general speedy delete criteria applies to "every type of page with exclusions listed for specific criteria, and so apply to articles, drafts, redirects, user pages, talk pages, files, etc." So yes, G4 absolutely applied in this case. SouthernNights (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  @SouthernNights. WP:G4 states It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy. It depends on whether or not we think that the move to draft was a good faith attempt at explicit improvement or a way to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy. Given that an editor explicitly suggested draftification here, it tilts away from the circumvention interpretation. Katzrockso (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Intent absolutely matters in a case like this. FYI that I pointed out what WP:GCSD said b/c some editors in the discussion were implying that G4 could never apply to draft articles. That said, I also undeleted the article per the author's request b/c it does seem like the editor is trying to improve it. SouthernNights (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree that the intent matters, which is why I emphasized that whether the G4 is valid turns on whether we think the draftification was done in good-faith. However, if there is an objection to a speedy deletion, then speedy deletion is not the proper method of deletion, since speedy deletion is reserved only for uncontroversial and uncontested deletions, since WP:CSDCONTEST states an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used. Given that the draftification was supported by at least one editor besides the creator of the page, I would think that the speedy deletion of the draft would have been opposed by one editor and would be controversial enough to warrant bringing the page to MfD. Katzrockso (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  No, intent does not matter in speedy deletions. If there's a question of intent where good editors could differ, a decision needs to go to a discussion process. So a G4 that turns on intent... should not be a G4 at all. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete or delete and redirect. There was overwhelming consensus against a standalone article, strong consensus against merging, and consensus against a redirect. Since Draft:Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy has been recreated, the delete outcome should be implemented by history merging the article history into the draft to consolidate them into one place. Also see #Proposal: Draftification with history merge below.
  1. Since there was consensus against using the content in either article, the article history should have been deleted.
     1. On top of the delete recommendations by Orange sticker, Oaktree b, Pretzel Quetzal, and Bejakyo noting that the paragraph in Zack Polanski did not need expansion, Orange sticker and Bejakyo reiterated that point when asked about merging. Tessaract2 opposed a merge specifically.
     2. Jonesey95 presented no reasoning. Bondegezou and Scientelensia wrote more, but none of them provided a specific answer to WP:Merge what? (essay).
     3. Controversy content added to Zack Polanski had been reverted or reduced by editors there, as mentioned by Orange sticker.
  2. Redirecting had sufficient opposition.
     1. AusLondonder and AML KING objected to a redirect. Simonm223 criticized the salacious naming scheme, which also applies to the redirect.
     2. Tessaract2 supported either redirect or delete.
     3. Jonesey95 did not include a rationale. lp0 on fire linked {{R from non-neutral title}} without citing a policy or guideline.
     4. WP:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects (guideline, shortcut WP:RNEUTRAL) is the relevant page. These excerpts support deletion:
        1. 2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect Bejakyo and Simonm223 described the article as a POV fork or potential one. Orange sticker, radioactOlive, AusLondonder, and AML KING called it the more general content fork.
        2. The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion Reading into KnowDeath's explanation of the title and Talk:Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy#The title, it was constructed, not a verifiable established term. "[E]stablished terms" links to WP:UNDUE (shortcut to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, policy), which was frequently cited throughout the AfD.

  Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Draftification with history merge

I propose draftification by moving the page history to Draft:Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversy and leaving the redirect to Zack Polanski#Previous careers at Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversyZack Polanski breast enlargement controversy.

1. The redirect remains in place and may be nominated at WP:Redirects for discussion per the AfD close and various comments above.
2. Scientelensia, KnowDeath, and others may edit the draft without having to work around the blanking in the redirect version or the possible RfD. These interested editors should be considered before any hypothetical ones who might find the history under the redirect.
   1. Someone may nominate it at WP:Miscellany for deletion, but they can continue to edit while it is tagged.
   2. WP:Copying within Wikipedia and the caution against copying during deletion discussions will not be relevant. See WP:Articles for deletion#Editing the article during the discussion (process page) and its previous version at WP:Guide to deletionWP:Guide to deletion (how-to guide, currently merged).
   3. WP:History merging will not be needed once after restoring Scientelensia's latest version. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
3. Delete supporters may be more accepting of the page history being removed from article space.

I created a subsection to be clear that this is not the usual DRV process and to see if Tessaract2's recommendation would receive more support when presented differently. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• The cross-page Special:Diff/1348859467/1349361532 shows the continuity. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
• I am fine with draftification, which does not require DRV approval. A draft was already created and erroneously G4ed (as the previous article was never deleted, an absolute requirement of G4, I plan to seek clarification with the deleting admin and potentially take to DRV upon the closure of this discussion). I am not aware of enough SIGCOV to allow this topic to be improved to article standards, but that is a matter for AFC (or a potential future AFD), not DRV. Frank Anchor 14:15, 20 April 2026 (UTC) Text stricken due to the draft having been restored Frank Anchor 20:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  Also the redirect must be maintained, and leave the history with the redirect not the draft (that way no attribution will be lost if a draft is abandoned and G13ed). Frank Anchor 14:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  I am not aware of any non-draft edits that need attribution. I skimmed Special:PageHistory/Zack Polanski, paying closer attention to additions and Scientelensia's edits. Excluding references (WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, guideline, shortcut WP:NOATT) and Scientelensia restoring their own previous edits, I found one edit that appears to include copying text from this version of Zack Polanski breast enlargement controversyZack Polanski breast enlargement controversy, and I provided the missing attribution. I posted to Scientelensia's talk page, in case I missed any. Regarding G13, I found a few WP:Miscellany for deletion nominations that redirected the draft to the article for attribution purposes and to avoid G13 deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment from what I recall in the AfD, the sourcing didn't seem to show the need for a fork from the main article, it could be covered in a few sentences in the person's main article. It appeared (to me) to be a failed attempt at a "character assassination" with no real merit. I'd be happy to review the draft if needed, but it didn't seem notable during AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  It's up to others to decide, but do you think the draft as it is now stands a good chance? I don't think its a character assassination article (now) – I try to give voice to Polanski and neutrality to the matter. Scientelensia (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the close as redirect, noting that it bordered on “delete”. Draftification is an option that I would not support and has no place being discussed at DRV when no deletion occurred. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• A belated comment as closer. I endorse what several admins have said above, which is that as AfD closers there is an implicit expectation that we respect WP:ATD. The basic question at AfD is whether to maintain a standalone article for a given topic. If editors wish to go beyond that to delete the title and the history, then arguments specifically against a merge/redirect must be made; arguments against notability alone do not preclude a redirect. In this AfD there was only one argument explicitly against redirecting, and it cited no policy basis. If the redirect is seen to be problematic for neutrality reasons then an RfD would be appropriate, but arguing to delete outright at DRV by citing arguments that weren't brought up at AfD is a misuse of process. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Elizabeth Brontë (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There is a lot of interest about her, and the article was well sourced. The reason for deletion at the time was that people considered her non-notable, but that may just have been from their perspective. As said by @Sweet6970 in the deletion discussion, "She is notable because she was a member of the immediate family of the Brontes. There is enough material to justify a separate article, and there is a significant number of page views." There are several other convincing arguments to keep the article. I would have thought that if people don't care for the subject of the article, they don't have to look at it. Scientelensia (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I also note that the redirect article, Brontë family, barely (if at all) covers the contents of the deleted article. Scientelensia (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. The arguments I see on the Keep side are of the ITSIMPORTANT, ITSINTERESTING and an INHERITED/there is a significant number of page views from a now-banned account. Those opining against retention base their arguments on P&G. Timotheus Canens was right to discount the Keeps and reach an ATD consensus to redirect. Owen× ☎ 00:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse, basically per Owen X. I can't see any reasonable close of the discussion that kept a standalone page. The one editor who is now blocked (not banned) wasn't blocked for anything related to the AfD, but her argument wasn't sufficiently policy-based so it doesn't matter either way.

Because the result was redirect, an editor in good standing can always reverse the redirect and recreate the article with new sourcing or anything that might overcome the objection to notability at the AfD, but going through AfC might be better at this junction due to the fact that the AfD was less than a year ago. Katzrockso (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The block log clearly says, Banned by the Arbitration Committee. Why are you saying she wasn't banned? Owen× ☎ 06:45, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

No, you're right and I was misremembering something - I apologize. Comment struck.Katzrockso (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I respectfully asked for a smerge. I'm not sure why some material from her article can't be used in the redirected place. Bearian (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with you. Scientelensia (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm confused are you arguing for the merge you can do right now or to undo the redirect? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  I am agreeing with Bearian's sentiment that the content from the article should have ben merged. I'm not sure though that the Bronte family article has a relevant space for such an improvement. Scientelensia (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  if it's merged you need to retain the redirect too allow attribution Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse per Owen X. Nothing stops editors from adding additional information into the main page (recognizing WP:DUE). --Enos733 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - The history of the Brontë family is deeply sad. Most of the Brontës died either in childhood or in young adulthood. That does not affect the biographical notability of individual members of the family. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse as the correct close, reflecting consensus. DRV is not AFD Round 2. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. Proper discussion and close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

File:John F. Kennedy receiving honorary doctorate from Lord Beaverbrook at University of New Brunswick, 1957.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I am requesting that this file be undeleted since (1) new highly reliable independent secondary sources describing the event as important were located in the meantime, including the JFK Library and a Downey book, and (2) a new article dedicated to the event was created for which the image is now essential.

The book is a dedicated scholarly treatment of the 1957 ceremony and its historical context, published in 2012 by former UNB President James Downey, O.C. The book reproduces Kennedy's 1957 convocation address in full and provides extended commentary on its historical significance. Downey is a Wikipedia-notable figure who served as president of three major Canadian universities (Carleton, UNB, and Waterloo), received the Order of Canada, the Association of Commonwealth Universities' Symons Medal, and the Council of Ontario Universities' David C. Smith Award. He is not a UNB partisan writing institutional promotion — he is an independently credentialed scholar whose papers are held at the University of Waterloo's Special Collections. This source directly and substantively addresses the gap identified by the closing discussion.

The JFK Presidential Library independently archives and publishes the full text of Kennedy's 1957 UNB speech. The Library's decision to preserve and publish this speech as part of Kennedy's documented record constitutes independent institutional recognition of the event's historical significance, entirely separate from UNB sources.

UNB's own institutional history page singles out the 1957 ceremony by name, describing the speech as Kennedy's "now famous" address "Good Fences Make Good Neighbours" — language indicating this is treated as a highlight of the university's history, not a routine footnote.

UNB's student newspaper (Canada's oldest) published a detailed retrospective in 2023 noting that UNB was the first and only Canadian institution to grant Kennedy an honorary degree, and that Beaverbrook publicly declared Kennedy "the next President of the United States" at the ceremony itself — a detail that gives the event retrospective historical resonance beyond the bare fact of a degree being conferred.

Note on NFCC#8: taken together, these sources and the new dedicated article demonstrate that the 1957 ceremony has received dedicated scholarly treatment by a Wikipedia-notable academic, independent archival recognition by a presidential library, and has been identified by multiple sources as uniquely significant in Kennedy's pre-presidential career. The image directly illustrates this sourced, cited content within the university article. Its omission removes the only visual record of a historically documented moment that a credentialed scholar considered significant enough to anchor an entire book around. This satisfies NFCC#8's requirement that non-free content contextually contribute to reader understanding of the specific content it illustrates.

Requested outcome: File undeletion, with restoration to the new article John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick rather than University of New Brunswick. Tinterest (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• restore Given the nature of the article and the sources listed, I believe a use of the image can be made in John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick that will meet WP:NFCC#8 (note, I'm assuming the image in the article is exactly what I'd expect it to be given the title). Hobit (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • To be clear, if the article stays, this should be restored. If it gets deleted, I don't think there will be a place where enough context about it to overcome NFCC#8 would be reasonable. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse (I was a participant in the FFD). The closure correctly reflects the consensus in the FFD. Note that the FFD was was about the usage of the image in the article about the University of New Brunswick, and this article did not even exist at that time. -- Whpq (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Restore. The rationale for the deletion of the file no longer applies - though obviously the closure reflects the consensus of the AfD. Katzrockso (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the article in question, though upon a quick review, the sourcing in the article didn't convince me of its notability. Follow the result of the AfD - if the article is deleted, keep the file deleted. If the article is kept, restore the file.

My comment was based on AGF on the part of the author of the article. Katzrockso (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse This article has clearly been created solely to force the undeletion of this image and the importance of the image and the subject is clearly overstated. I'm not convinced that this article needs an image other than as decoration. We rightly have strict conditionals for using nom-free media and this is something that we should applaud not look to find run arounds too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse. The appellant is being disingenuous by using the passive voice in, a new article dedicated to the event was created for which the image is now essential. It was the appellant who created this new article, one hour before filing this appeal. I'm not sure why the appellant went to the trouble of writing an article on this wholly insignificant visit of a then-junior Senator to Fredericton, just to force our hand to restore a non-free image. The new article is unlikely to survive an AfD anyway, which will land us right back at where we were two days ago. The appellant already added a mention of the event at University of New Brunswick, which is about as much coverage as it deserves without violating WP:UNDUE. I don't know if the appellant is related to Joe Stone, the photographer who took the 1957 picture, but this pointless crusade has got to stop.
  @Hobit and Katzrockso: I urge you to review the newly created article with a critical mindset, and tell us whether you believe the subject meets our notability criteria, rather than merely justify the existence of the photo. Owen× ☎ 12:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review evaluates whether the file’s use complies with policy under current conditions, not the motives of editors. WP:NFCC#8 is explicitly context-dependent, and the existence of a sourced standalone article materially changes that context. If there are specific policy-based concerns with the current use, please identify them; otherwise, speculation about intent does not address the NFCC criteria. Tinterest (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

the NFCC is clear that it requires a meaningful context to display a non free image. This is far short of that context. It's decoration and adds nothing to the text Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Tinterest, If you think you can game the system by slyly WP:WIKILAWYERING around our policies, you'll soon find out you are mistaken. The page you hastily created to save the image is not a good faith attempt to build an encyclopedia. It is an underhanded trick to get around our policies, and will be judged as such. Which is a shame, because you clearly have the skill to add valid content to the project, if it weren't for your obsession with this one photo. Owen× ☎ 15:50, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Independent sources characterize the 1957 ceremony as significant in Kennedy’s pre-presidential career, including coverage by the JFK Library, contemporaneous commentary by Beaverbrook, and later scholarly treatment. That level of sustained, independent coverage is the relevant consideration for contextual significance under WP:NFCC#8. A non-free image "adds to text" when it shows the actual subject/event being discussed, provides primary visual context for a sourced occurrence, or allows readers to recognize or visualize the exact referenced moment. That is sufficient under NFCC and does not require new facts, unique emotion, or extraordinary visual characteristics. This image depicts the specific encyclopedic event described in the article and provides direct visual context for that occurrence, consistent with NFCC#8. The question before this deletion review is whether the file’s current use complies with WP:NFCC#8, which is determined by contextual significance in the article, not by editor intent, assumptions about motivation, or characterizations such as “gaming” or “wikilawyering”. Such labels do not address the policy criteria under discussion. Tinterest (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review evaluates whether the file’s use complies with policy under current conditions No it does not. Deletion review determines if a deletion properly followed process. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

No. Deletion review is a review of whether a deletion was correctly executed under applicable policy, and that necessarily includes whether the underlying policy basis for deletion—here WP:NFCC#8—was correctly applied to the file’s use in context. Process and substance are not separable in non-free content decisions, because the “process” is the application of NFCC criteria. Tinterest (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I have sent the article in which this image is to be used to AfD. Sandstein 16:11, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

You forgot to link your bogus AfD. Tinterest (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Ha! I was in the midst of writing the nomination myself. I'll add it as a !vote there. Owen× ☎ 16:15, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Remain deleted, and delete new article. I was the editor who originally added the mention of JFK's convocation visit to the University of New Brunswick article almost three years ago (along with other significant portions of that article). I added it as a passing mention as an interesting historical footnote appropriate for the university's article, but not as a standalone topic because quite frankly it is not notable as such. I support @Sandstein's AfD nomination as per @OwenX and for my own reasons: The visit lacks standalone notability (WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS). I considered it worth mentioning in the parent article but it easily fails holding significant coverage for a standalone article, especially considering almost all sources used in the article are from the student newspaper or deprecated sources copied from when I had previously used them in the main UNB article for my passing mention (such as the Brunswickan source(s) and the Telegraph-Journal archival site which was deprecated almost two years ago and its newspapers transferred to Newspapers.com), just with extra AI-hallucinated fluff added to expand the text. The sources document the event but do not establish that this specific visit is independently notable from UNB's general history. The article appears to be AI-generated, which is behavior that has been attributed to this user multiple times in the past, not only by myself. Duplicate sources, deprecated sources clearly indicating they have been taken from already-existing writing, etc. I raise this concern under general quality standards because we should not endorse creating synthetic content forks simply to host non-free images. It's also clear that this article was created solely to provide a host for the deleted file, which raises heavy concerns about WP:GAME as mentioned above by @OwenX. We shouldn't endorse creating articles for the sole purpose of forcing the undeletion of non-free content under WP:NFCC#8 rather than actually building the encyclopedia. Tinterest's behavior of attempting to reshape the UNB article into how they want it to be is not isolated and I've already made complaints to the user about my concerns in the past. This includes wanting to manipulate historical details and remove text related to its first graduates (as per a historical book published by the university for its anniversary over 75 years ago) based on an abandoned RfC in which they attempted to get UNB included in List of oldest universities in continuous operation, despite opposition to UNB's inclusion. This also includes attempting multiple times to replace the fair-use coat of arms in UNB's infobox with an AI-generated version, apparently due to not being able to reuse the non-free coat of arms in the {{University of New Brunswick}} navigation template (as they had initially attempted months ago). I can appreciate some edits the user has made, such as creating the navigation template in the first place (though initially insisting on including every non-notable topic loosely related to the university for some reason), but based on this type of repeated behavior this seems more to be an instance of single-purpose account focused more on making promotional edits rather than valuing encyclopedic integrity. As a New Brunswicker who is an alumnus of UNB I recognize that not everything related to UNB will hold standalone notability, this is one example of that; I love UNB and hold it dear to my heart but it is not more remarkable than most other Canadian universities and I feel that attempting to game the system with this type of behavior puts more of a bad look than it does good. This is not the first and likely won't be the last time I raise these concerns. Cheers. B3251_(talk) 21:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Prior contributions or personal views of UNB are not relevant here; what matters is whether the 1957 JFK convocation has received sufficient independent coverage as a distinct historical event to satisfy WP:NFCC#8, which is the case here. Tinterest (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Which is what I'm discussing. Bringing up past behavior is relevant to bring home the point that you are solely using Wikipedia for the reason that I provided earlier: as an "instance of [a] single-purpose account focused more on making promotional edits rather than valuing encyclopedic integrity". It's not only disruptive behavior but it gives a bad look to editors and viewers interested in looking into UNB quite frankly. B3251_(talk) 23:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:GNG WP:NFCC#8, sourcing depth, independence, & non-triviality matter here.Tinterest (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse the FfD as correct at the time. The new article changes things. Wait, defer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Kennedy at the University of New Brunswick. If the new article is kept, undelete the image. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: The event is repeatedly documented across multiple independent contexts and meets the criteria of depth of coverage, independence, and non-trivial treatment under WP:GNG. Sources regard it as a distinct narrative episode in Kennedy’s pre-presidential life, with institutional archival preservation, scholarly contextual treatment, and retrospective framing in regional press, rather than as a coffee titbit. That level of sourcing amounts to contextual significance under WP:NFCC#8 too. Tinterest (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse It feels like we are talking to an LLM, and LLM's have no standing at DRV. Jumpytoo Talk 01:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Impressions of style are irrelevant to WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT; sourcing depth/independence are. Tinterest (talk) 01:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

lecturing actually experienced editors on how to interpret the evidence of their own eyes isn't the winning technique you think it is Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments on editor experience do not address the content question; notability depends on sourcing depth and independence under WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Tinterest (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm so grateful that you have drawn my attention to two policies I have been using for 20 years Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Policy matters as this is a question of WP:GNG WP:NFCC#8, not commentary on process/style. Tinterest (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Am I too involved to block this user for being disruptive and gaming the system? I have tagged his article as G15 as the very first source was 404 on publication meaning that he hadn’t reviewed the sources his LLM had produced, he has avoided addressing this on the three separate occasions I have asked about this at the AFD. At this point he is just disruptive and timewasting Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Written and checked manually; sources are verifiable via archive where needed. Link rot does not indicate automated generation or lack of human review. Tinterest (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse Having looked at the new "Article" it is clearly pretexual--whether that amounts to bad faith or not is not our baliwick. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

“Pretext” is not a policy criterion; the relevant question is whether the article’s sourcing provides sufficient independent, non-trivial coverage under WP:GNG and context under WP:NFCC#8. Tinterest (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not experienced with the guidelines on non-free images, but this seems to be a rabbit hole. It appears that we are being asked to restore an image in order to preserve an article from deletion, but it appears that the image depends on the article and the article depends on the image. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The article’s notability is established independently under WP:GNG through multiple reliable sources; the image is then evaluated for contextual significance under WP:NFCC#8 within that coverage. Tinterest (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse - I don't see anything wrong with the FFD closure, and this appeal is too complicated and seems "off". Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:GNG and WP:NFCC#8 apply; perceived complexity is not relevant. Tinterest (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - DRV is a content forum, but it looks as though the appellant has some agenda beyond being here to improve an encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - This is also being discussed at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse, there was nothing wrong with the closure over at FFD. This entire request should be thrown out since it was written by AI. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - The appellant has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Brad Skistimas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a deletion review because I believe the deletion may have overlooked notability since the page's first deletion on December 24th, 2021. I'm not able to see the deleted page, though I recall adding several new articles since 2021. I'll outline here for review.

Skistimas became more famous and notable after Covid, right around the page's first deletion. He has been a guest on several well-known podcasts since 2021. Most notably, on 07/13/24, Skistimas was a guest on nationally recognized Dr. Drew Pinsky on Ask Dr. Drew: https://metacast.app/podcast/ask-dr-drew/X7ZMhSgi/rock-music-vs-the-establishment-sellouts-w-brad-skistimas-five-times-august-and-update-from-howard/IlZQKvf3. On that link, it reports that Skistimas' songs related to Covid-era regulations hit #1 on Amazon and Apple music charts.

This link, which provides a summary of Skistimas' background before his interview, reports that his single, "Sad Little Man," "hit it big" by reaching #1 on several Amazon and Apple Music charts: https://v13.net/2022/12/five-times-august-brad-skistimas-interview-silent-war-activism-and-future-outlook/.

This link shows it was #13 on iTunes on 11/17/21, above well-known artists like Adele, Post Malone, Taylor Swift, etc.: https://kworb.net/pop/archive/20211117.html.

This link shows that Skistimas' album in 2007 was the first independent album to be distributed at Walmart stores nationwide: https://www.theadvocates.org/libertarian-celebrities/five-times-august/. That link also reports that Skistimas performed at RFK Jr.'s Defeat the Mandates rally in Washington DC on January 23rd, 2023, and also at the 2024 Libertarian National Convention. This link is another citation for the performances: https://lnc2024.com/product/presidential-gala/.

I respectfully request that the deletion be overturned and the article restored, or relisted for a community discussion. Lyricalliberty (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Can you provide sources that show that our inclusion guideline, WP:N, is met? Basically, we need sources that are independent of the subject, from reliable sources, and have more than in-passing coverage. Without those sources, it will be an uphill fight to get this article restored. Hobit (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Absolutely. These articles cover about 19 years, which shows the coverage isn't in passing.

  https://www.houstonpress.com/music/five-times-august-6543565/ (2007 - independent regional press describing Skistimas as "the hottest unsigned commodity" with significant MTV/media traction, and song played 5 million times on MySpace)

  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/second-cup-cafe-five-times-august-21-03-2008/ (2008 - national mainstream coverage profiling Skistimas' success as an unsigned artist and his TV licensing achievements)

  https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/five-times-august-1046687/ (2008 - substantive write-up stating Skistimas is the first unsigned act to be distributed at Walmart, and lists "major TV placements")

  https://www.teenvogue.com/story/five-times-august-tunes-in (2008 - lists TV placements and Skistimas' interview)

  https://www.dallasobserver.com/music/five-times-august-pops-up-on-the-real-world-which-is-far-less-of-a-big-deal-than-it-sounds-7078905/ (2009 - independent coverage of TV/music placement success)

  https://www.popmatters.com/five-times-august-brighter-side-2496171118.html (2008 - independent coverage of a Skistimas' release, states TV placements and 100,000+ downloads)

  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/second-cup-cafe-five-times-august-01-01-2010/ (2010 - follow-up coverage from CBS News demonstrating sustained national coverage beyond one-off mention)

  https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2089483/youtube-demonetizes-song-about-sad-little-man-fauci/ (2021 - independent news coverage from Washington Examiner regarding the release of Skistimas' song, "Sad Little Man," reflecting broader media attention and public controversy surrounding his music)

  https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/five-times-august-silent-war-interview/

  https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/baste-records-skistimas-free-music/ (2022 & 2024 - showing continued Skistimas coverage and career evolution)

  https://v13.net/2022/12/five-times-august-brad-skistimas-interview-silent-war-activism-and-future-outlook/ (2021 - reports Skistimas' single "Sad Little Man" reached #1 on multiple Amazon and Apple Music charts, reflecting notable commercial success and public traction for his Covid-era protest music)

  https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/dc/anti-covid-vaccine-march-dc-sunday-robert-f-kennedy-jr/65-a322944c-851a-4f81-a7a3-07457f360621 (DC local news showing Skistimas was a speaker at RFK Jr's anti-vaccine rally in 2022) Lyricalliberty (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• If these are the best sources, please do not proceed. If you have better sources, please work on a draft and go through AfC. Nothing in your request or these sources indicates an issue with the 2021 close, so endorse that one. I would argue the 2026 speedy should not have been a G4, so if technically & bureaucratically necessary restore and send to AfD. For anyone else confused, the 2021 history/AfD is Five Times August Star Mississippi 01:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
• (If this DRV was made in good faith and is not LLM-generated) Overturn G4 and restore to draftspace. The G4-deleting admin admitted that some references were neither included in the article nor mentioned at the AfD in a previous DRV which was procedurally closed. Therefore, the G4ed article is not sufficiently identical, which is a basic requirement of G4. I recommend restoring to draftspace to allow any interested user the time to improve the article to Wikipedia standards and add appropriate references. It should not be restored to mainspace because the references provided here are not very good and an article based on them wouldn't stand a chance at AFD. Frank Anchor 16:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I believe there's a misreading here. In the quoted section above I was referring to sources first presented at DRV, not sources which were included in the G4'd version. BusterD (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate your feedback. I still believe the G4 to be incorrect based on a low likelihood of sufficient similarity after several years with more references available, and maintain it should be restored to draftspace. Frank Anchor 12:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I have no dog in this hunt. I am glad to draftify if that's the consensus. Originally I was responding to the user's LLM behavior, not any case on the merits. BusterD (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  @BusterD: I see no objection to draftifying the page. Since you were the one who deleted it, you are welcome to do so and speedy close this DRV, or ask one of us to do so on your behalf. Owen× ☎ 20:52, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn the G4. The deleted article has already been restored to draft space as Draft:Brad Skistimas. It wasn't a good G4 because of the difference in titles and thus in article subjects. The AFD of Five Times August was never about whether the person was notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Alex Suarez (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Restore. Requesting review of redirect of Alex Suarez (musician) to Cobra Starship, closed by Sandstein on 21 May 2022 following AfD nominated by ScottishFinnishRadish on 13 May 2022 (only 4 participants, 8 days). Consensus rested on a single claim — that no significant independent coverage of Suarez existed outside Cobra Starship. This was incorrect at the time and is clearly incorrect now. (1) Cobra Starship notability alone is sufficient: two Billboard Hot 100 top-10 singles (both peaking at #7), four major label albums on Fueled by Ramen/Decaydance, MTV VMA nominations, international touring including opening for Justin Bieber. Suarez was a founding member 2005–2014. (2) Billboard coverage of LEFTI predates the AfD by 7 years: Billboard Dance exclusive feature published December 2015 https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/dance/6804611/lefti-new-single-on-on-prince-terrence-premiere-cobra-starship (3) Substantial independent press coverage since 2019: Dancing Astronaut (multiple features 2019–2024) https://dancingastronaut.com/2023/09/lefti-releases-groovy-house-heater-get-what-you-want/ ; Data Transmission (2023) https://datatransmission.co/music/lefti-releases-get-what-you-want-on-world-sound/ ; EDM.com (2023) https://edm.com/music-releases/underground-vibes-091 ; Magnetic Magazine (2023, 2024); Your EDM (2023); iHouseU (2024); Get It Shared (2023); CULTR (2024). (4) Radio/broadcast: repeated BBC Radio 1 airplay; hosts OCHO Radio Show on SiriusXM via Diplo's Revolution. (5) Industry notability: releases on Toolroom (×5), Nervous Records, Big Beat; official remixes for Atlantic, Warner, Universal, Ultra and Island. (6) Sync placements: Vox Lux (Natalie Portman film), Vanderpump Rules, MacGyver, ESPN, Showtime's Dice, Hulu/W Hotels/SoundCloud ad campaigns. (7) Major label remix commissions (2025): official remix of Lenny Kravitz "Let It Ride" (Atlantic Records, May 2025) https://music.apple.com/in/song/let-it-ride-lefti-remix-radio-edit/1812838825 ; official remix of Khalid "In Plain Sight" (RCA Records, August 2025). Subject clearly meets WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG on multiple independent grounds. Requesting restore to last substantive version (17 May 2022). Signalost (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse unanimous AfD. Four participants is quorum, and eight days is more than the required time for an uncontroversial AfD. I'm not convinced any of the sources cited here by the appellant provides SIGCOV, and listing the various remixes doesn't change things either way. That said, the appellant, who created their account to file this appeal, doesn't need our permission to submit a new draft to AfC, using the article's history as a starting point if desired. Owen× ☎ 23:17, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse close. No other way to close this. As OwenX notes, the appellant is able to copy the article to a draft and submit through AfC. Katzrockso (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse a quick trawl through the a couple of sources shows that they lack the depth required for GNG and since the bolded text suggests this is LLM generated pleadings, I'm really not minded to extend any benefit of the doubt. Maybe we should speedy close this Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  The appellant's statement, according to LLM detectors, is AI generated. I would have procedurally closed this per your comment and WP:AITALK. Based on the instructions at the top of this page however, I think I'm prohibited from doing so due to not being an administrator. 11WB (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Any redirect can be un-redirected at any time unless it's been protected due to past abuse. You don't need to go through the AfC process, but you DO need to address the AfD reasons in good faith. Since you're listing sources that are explicitly AFTER the redirect was made, that appears to be at least plausible. Again, this is why ATD-R is so beneficial: You don't need anyone's permission or admin tools to go off and un-redirect the article and improve it in the process. Just understand the issues, address them as best you can, and even if it's not good enough for standalone notability at this time, your efforts will still be in the history and the point from which someone else, including you, can improve it further in the future. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree that “Any redirect can be un-redirected at any time”. Reverting Sandstein’s edit right now would be WP:Disruption. It would be disrespecting the AfD consensus. How long does AfD consensus last? Barring something strongly convincing, by default, I submit that it lasts for six months. If WP:CCC, WP:AfC is the process to use to demonstrate it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe, checking you're aware that the AfD and Sandstein's redirect was nearly 4 years ago? While I am far from convinced the sources are adequate, and share your concern immediately below, I'm thinking this AFD is old enough that @Jclemens is right. Martinp (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  Whoops. I thought it was recent. 4 years is old. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. Properly run and closed. Respect the AfD consensus for a minimum of six months, preventing bold recreation or reversal of the redirect, unless drafted and submitted to AfC with a qualified AfC reviewer agreeing that the AfD reason for redirection are overcome. Follow advice at WP:THREE. Sorry, I decline to review the several sources listed here. Use AfC, and limit to three. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy close. Strong likelihood appeal was written by an LLM (by a new user where this is their only contribution), violating WP:LLMCOMM. Regardless, appellant has been advised of ways forward that do not require DRV, along with some frank commentary about the additional sourcing they (or an LLM) has come up with. Either way, there is nothing to discuss here at DRV. To the appellant: we of course have no idea what's the source of your interest in this topic, but a new account like yours will attract scrutiny in a situation like this, and prior to pursuing this further, I'd advise reviewing WP:COI, WP:LLM, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:REFBOMB. You may well be right on notability of this subject, but given the amount of promotional editing that Wikipedia fights with daily, your path forward will be very thorny unless you carefully navigate these pitfalls in particular. Welcome to Wikipedia! Martinp (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  Technically this is an endorse of the previous (4 year old) close, with no objections against the appellant or anyone else following acceptable policies to improve on the status quo (redirect). Martinp (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Criticism of C++ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On the grounds of procedural errors in deletion discussion, primarily that the deletion discussion was poorly formed. The user who proposed it (User:Birthay boy) made virtually minimal attempt to improve the page and no attempt to allow other users time to either fix the article or even request for help through the talk page. Various tags were added around the beginning of March (hardly sufficient time, especially as per WP:DINC: Maintenance tags may linger unaddressed for years, especially on low-traffic pages.) No attempt to request for specific groups, such as through WP:WikiProject (perhaps the most reasonable avenue to do so). The page was merely nominated shortly after I had pushed back on some of the tags that were added, while making an effort myself to improve the page, all while User:Birthay boy had apparently forsaken any attempt to fix the article themselves. Even during the process of discussion, User:Birthay boy seemed to express disapproval at efforts made by myself to improve the article's quality, describing them as "cosmetic surgery". It is definitely a failure to adhere to WP:BEFORE.

Additionally, I feel that the arguments made in favor of redirecting were justified only on the basis that the pages supposedly violated WP:SYNTH, which applied only to a select few parts of the article while parts of the article which lacked sources entirely were gradually removed. Meanwhile, very little was done to represent the side of the arguments in favor of preserving the article, only a remark about one response attempting to rebut 8-9 different things at once (with little analysis or consideration given to these rebuttals in the closing statement). ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I have assumed good faith up to this point, and will continue to do so, but your labelling on my summary of your argument as "snide" is unnecessary and is not true. You left a wall of text on my user page which mostly revolved around editor conduct relating to the nominator of the AfD, and claimed that the AfD closed before the article could be improved. AfDs are subject to closure after 7 days of being open. Some are relisted when it is appropriate to do so, but in this case, a consensus for redirecting the article had already formed.

I will add that both the nominator and the appellant bludgeoned the AfD. I chose not to mention this in the closing statement as that would violate WP:FOC. I believe my close was fair and represented the discussion that took place. 11WB (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for calling it "snide" and have suppressed that from my deletion review, but I will comment that my complaint was not that no time was given to improve the article before closure of AfD, but that no time was given by the nominator to allow gradual improvements to be made to the article before they nominated it for deletion. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

DRV will not be able to do anything about that. As I've already said, this is a matter for a conduct board. DRV is to assess the close. 11WB (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Overturn to no consensus. The keep vote's appeal to ATD-E, which is policy, went unrebutted and is a powerful argument against all of the redirect votes. No issue was presented that wouldn't have been resolved by stubification, which is what should be done.

WP:DEL-REASON even states that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page. Katzrockso (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I find this quite baffling in all honesty. Whilst it's well known we don't count !votes, closing as keep would mean multiple editors (including the nom) get vetoed. That would go against WP:CONSENSUS entirely. The chosen alternative was WP:ATD-R. 11WB (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

• endorse This couldn't be closed any other way. Possibly a relist might have helped but with the blugeoning and walls of oddly bolded text from the temp user I can't see how any sensible user would want to get involved. The ATD argument fails to address how awful an article this was. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:32, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  walls of oddly bolded text from the temp user

  What are you talking about? ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Usually it means AI has been used to generate the comments but you do you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  If these wild allegations of alleged LLM usage are based on the sole "evidence" that I left long comments and used Template:Talk quote inline to quote verbatim text, then I am the Emperor of China. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  your imperial majesty. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:LLM: The imposition of sanctions requires evidence beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications.

  If you think your wild allegations will bear any fruit, then as Emperor, we encourage you to find some more damning evidence, pal. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

  pal? That's an escalation Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Good heavens, not the p-word, anything but that! But casually accusing or implying others are writing their comments with LLMs? Not an escalation at all, right? ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  @~2026-21314-14, for the second time today. These sarcastic replies are not helpful to the DRV, and only serve to disrupt the process. Please stop. 11WB (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to oblige, but let the record show that I was not the first to make sarcastic comments in this back-and-forth. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  FWIW, I don't see any evidence of LLM usage in that discussion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly that. 11WB (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  The green highlighted text that is. I assume anyway. 11WB (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Which comes from Template:Talk quote inline, which in turn is used to, and I quote, to highlight a short excerpt of quoted material of other editors' comments or from an article or source. There it is again. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  These smart alec comments really aren't helpful @~2026-21314-14. 11WB (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm merely explaining myself. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse: There was no procedural error. There is no requirement to wait before nominating an article in the hopes that someone else will find the article and resolve the issues. Three participants agreed with the nominator that the article was unsalvageable even after the appellant tried to improve the page, while nobody else agreed with the appellant that the text could be fixed ("procedural keep" notwithstanding). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse There was a rough consensus that the article in such a state that attempting to WP:ATD-E would need a fundamental rewrite and thus redirection was a better choice of editor time. Jumpytoo Talk 19:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment as participant: since the decision was to redirect, rather than to delete, I don't see the need for this rigmarole. Anyone who wants to turn the redirect back into an article, with improved text, will be able to do so. First, if you don't yet have one, register an account, which will make lots of things more convenient. Second, write a new version of the article as a draft in your userspace. Third, paste the contents of that draft where the redirect is now. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that. (I would advise working on a few other, smaller tasks first, to soak up the vibes and get a feel for how to write in a more encyclopedic and less bloggy way. Instead of gathering criticisms directly yourself, find sources like books that have already done so, and use them to guide your hand. And, well, write happy, not angry.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Anyone who wants to turn the redirect back into an article, with improved text, will be able to do so. Only if the new writing is good enough that no one thinks it should be deleted. If someone thinks it's as bad as the previous article, it'll just get reverted, linking to the recent AFD close. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  I suppose I should have said "with sufficiently improved text". :-) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, this is the way forward: Write an article that doesn't suck, basing it off of the redirected text to the extent that it's helpful, and communicating with the other editors who thought the last version sucked to reach a consensus that the notional new version would be worth un-redirecting. This is why ATD-R is a thing: you don't need us or any admin whatsoever to do this. Oh, so Endorse the close as well. Jclemens (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I see a statement in the AFD that the nomination reads like the introduction to a WP:ANI thread. Yes, but it reads like the introduction to a WP:ANI thread where other, more experienced editors would say, "Content dispute - Take to AFD" Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Relist - Let other editors provide more of the discussion. I think that Redirect is probably the right result, but the discussion was overly dominated by two editors. If the nominator and the appellant continue bludgeoning the discussion in the relisting, they should be partially blocked from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak endorse. This was an inappropriate NAC, since the close did not appear to be non-controversial. I do see a very rough consensus to redirect once I go beyond all of the bludgeoning by multiple parties, so the end-result is probably correct. I am also okay with a relist to allow for further discussion. Frank Anchor 12:43, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Relist. A discussion with not many, but very verbose voices, bordering on bludgeoning. An NAC close bordering on being more of an !vote than a close. I'm not doubting anyone's good intentions and passion, and the ultimate conclusion may indeed be the Right Answer, but this would benefit from more voices, more concise communication, and an admin close. Martinp (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why do you think my closing statement was "more of a !vote than a close"? 11WB (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  I wrote "bordering on being more of a !vote" and I mean that: I am uncertain which it is. The 1st 3 sentences of your close would be an excellent !vote. So would the first half of the last sentence. Net-net, it sounds awfully close to you having an opinion what argument is right and what argument is wrong, rather than dispassionately judging consensus. Now, it is a grey zone, since we ask diviners of consensus to not count votes, but weigh consensus with attention to how closely opinions are grounded in policy. So I am not saying your close was wrong, or biased, or anything bad. But if that is the level of judgment required to effect a close, it is not a good candidate for an NAC close, since it is not going to be uncontroversial. As is indeed apparently the case here. Martinp (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  I was summarising the discussion, which is what a closer is supposed to do, especially in those such as this. I disagree with your view, as I didn't give my own opinion in the closing statement in any way. 11WB (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse, noting that I was a participant. I count 3 !votes to redirect, 1 to keep, and 1 procedural keep. I believe it was within the closer's discretion to discount the procedural keep, since those have force in circumstances where neither the nominator nor anyone else has raised a valid deletion rationale, or if the page has been kept at AfD recently already, or if the nomination is blatantly disruptive editing... generally, due to issues with the deletion nomination rather than the merits of the page itself, per Wikipedia:Deletion process. In this case, the merits of the page were discussed. I do not think an editor with 13k edits of experience should be required, or even encouraged, to avoid closing discussions just because they lack the admin bit. And, looking at the walls of text in the AfD, one would not be surprised to see it brought to DRV even if an admin had closed it. So, I find no fault with the procedure followed here. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Endorse. Correct close. This DRV retrospectively demonstrates that the discussion was contentious and the nonadmin closer should note this, and try not to let it happen frequently. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

This isn't so much contentious as simply subject to an argumentative participant Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

The only "argumentative" participant here is the one going around spreading unfounded rumors of LLM usage and then tried to play the victim after a word was used sarcastically (not before having made sarcastic comments of their own). ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Im guilty as charged but I wasn't a participant in the AFD. Maybe look for the beam in your eye rather than the speck in someone else's ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I do find it strange that you single me out as the singular "argumentative participant" in that AFD discussion. ~2026-21314-14 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-21314-14, they didn't actually name you as being argumentative. They could have meant the nominator, or even me. It would be a good idea for you to read WP:FOC, as arguing with an administrator is generally a very bad idea. 11WB (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to speedy keep. The nomination was almost entirely based on improper arguments including ad hominem attacks. It violates WP:SK#3. Perhaps one of the arguments may have been right, but certainly not on purpose, it was more like a grab bag of arguments seeing what would stick. The main error of the closer was treating it with as much validity as any other AfD; missing the forest for the trees.

The article is in a very poor state, most certainly, but AfD is about insurmountable issues, not fixable ones. It is not a cleanup tool. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:32, 21 April 2026 (UTC)