Wikipedia:Deletion review

Skip to:

Active discussions
Recent discussions
Archive
(purge cache)

WP:DRV

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

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

Purpose

Shortcut

WP:DRVPURPOSE

Deletion review may be used:

if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

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

Shortcut

WP:DELREVD

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review


1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in `page` with the name of the page, `xfd_page` with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and `reason` with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, `article` is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 \|page=File:Foo.png \|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png \|article=Foo \|reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRV notice\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev\|date=2024 May 7}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2024 May 7}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2024 May 7\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Active discussions

7 May 2024

6 May 2024

Woke Mind Virus

Communicated with the closer user:Ganesha811 prior to posting this comment here for deletion review. The closer respectfully disagrees, but has not posited any specific evidence or points to bolster their reason for interpreting the "consensus" as they did beyond stating, "I appreciated your reasoned arguments in favor of keep, but after re-reading the linked policies and considering the !votes for deletion as well as those explicitly for merge, I felt that a merger which retained large parts of the material reflected the overall consensus."

The page Woke mind virus in fact had dozens of sources that were reliable and clearly and unambiguously separated the word "Woke mind virus" out as distinct from woke. More importantly for this deletion review, I feel that the largest body of consensus, both in terms of !votes as well as most importantly in terms of WP policy arguments, all pretty clearly favored a Keep close of the AfD. This is my first time ever requesting a AfD that closed in a manner that I feel was inconsistent with the apparent consensus to be reviewed. It seemed that most recently too near the time of close even more Keep !votes had been emerging, and therefore the close was both premature and not representative of the actual consensus as I understood the varied arguments and commentary. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. Policy gives a closing admin a fair amount of discretion in picking a viable ATD over deletion, even when views for the Merge/Redirect option don't receive a rough consensus. Policy gives a closing admin no leeway in picking Merge as an alternative to Keep, when there's no consensus to do so. Even if we view all Delete !votes in this AfD as implicitly supporting a merger - a big stretch of interpretation - there still is no consensus for Merge as the preferred result. I'm on the fence as to whether the closing rationale expresses a supervote, but even if it doesn't, the reading of consensus was wrong, and the close was premature. Owen× ☎ 13:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on whether you believe merge is a separate option to keep or delete, though. AfD is a yes/no on whether an article qualifies for mainspace - !voting merge is a clear indication that it should not be in mainspace, not a separate category between keep/delete/merge. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but as I said, there was still no consensus against keeping the article in place. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse. Either of a "no consensus between keep or merge" or "keep" closure would have been justified, but that doesn't mean this merge closure was bad. That there is some evidence a subject has been discussed in RS does not perclude a merger; that is the point of WP:NOPAGE. With that being said I would have relisted in this case. Mach61 13:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep Those arguing for merge substantially present WP:JNN or WP:NOPAGE arguments without support, while those arguing for retaining the page as separate provided appropriate sources, including a WSJ. NOPAGE explains that we can choose not to cover a notable topic in its own page, and is among the weakest of p&g-based arguments, because there's no requirement or expectation that we do so. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (independent of my role as closer): the WSJ article notably conflates the terms "woke" and "woke mind virus" throughout the piece. Rhododendrites and buidhe made related comments during the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as closer): I've looked back at my close and subsequent comments to Iljhgtn; I do not think my close was a supervote (my words were intended to reflect the overall consensus), but I think it could plausibly be read that way. I'll have to be more careful to phrase my closes carefully in the future. I think that underlying the issue here is that AfD may not have been the best venue to begin a discussion about the article; a merge proposal on the talk page might have been more successful in getting a clear consensus on whether 'woke' and 'woke mind virus' should be separate articles, as consensus is clear that they are (a) notable term(s) that Wikipedia should be covering in some way. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, while I disagree with your close, I don't think it was unreasonable; I think you just gave too equal weight to some relatively weak merge/redirect rationales. It's far from a tragedy if it appears as part of Woke. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that I think the additional content that was added to the Woke page by user:Ganesha811 was well written and was a useful contribution to that article which fairly summarized the Woke mind virus article. I just believe that the sources and policy arguments indicate that that contribution should have been made in addition to a Keep of the Woke mind virus article, not instead of. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5 May 2024

Battle of Chenab

<The Nominator "Noorullah" has a strong personal bias and had placed my legitimate Wikipedia page for Articles for deletion in which this user "Noorullah" was the only person in discussion. He had mentioned the reasoning for the removal was that the article relied upon only Hari Ram Gupta source and had some copy past to it, however the account of this event is undeniable and is recorded in Sikh History from Persian Sources page 31 which is a contemporary source-https://archive.org/details/SikhHistoryFromPersianSources/page/n43/mode/1up?q=1764&view=theater> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed malformed nom Queen of ♡ | Speak 23:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly involved Endorse - The statement that the nominator was the only person in the discussion is incorrect. There were two other Delete statements, so that Delete was the correct closure, and the only possible closure. The appellant is entitled to submit a draft for review with additional sources, or to create a new article with additional sources subject to AFD.
- Slight Involvement - In December 2022, I reviewed Draft:Battle of Chenab, declined it as duplicated by Battle of Chenab, and redirected the draft to the article. Both the draft and the article were by the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are correct. It seems like there were two other individuals, Southasianhistorian and ImperialAficionado, who seem to be from the same background as “Noorullah” who attempted to dismiss the article as being GNG or having no historical background as simply pushing the delete procedure to help the nominator. Having already citied a contemporary source , there are other contemporary sources such as Nur Mohammad on folios 186-90 and Jang Namah 190-210 which have verified this event. This event is historically accurate without doubt, however the nominator does not seem neutral in his approach for pushing articles for deletion. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was no other way to close that discussion, and Festivalfalcon873's assertion that the AfD nom was the only participant is factually incorrect. Please AGF, Falcon. Star Mississippi 01:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also notified the closer which you neglected to do (mandatory), nor did you discuss it with them (suggested) Star Mississippi 01:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had emailed the closer but have not receive any response back just yet. Regardless thank you for letting him know. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Everything about this appeal smells fishy. From the now-retracted claim of there being only one delete !vote, and the dismissal of the other two as being from the same background, to the claimed email notification and the scare quotes around “Noorullah”. One problem with DRV is that it costs an unscrupulous appellant nothing to give their pet page another shot here at DRV, at which point multiple editors end up wasting time for a week responding to a meritless appeal that has zero chance of overturning the original result. In most legal systems, a court may refuse to hear an appeal if it is prima facie without merit. We need a similar mechanism to short-circuit or speedy such requests. "I'm not happy with the AfD result and am not above twisting the truth to get my way" should be met with a TROUTing, not a weeklong debate. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No valid reason for appeal. Stifle (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SEYCGA.png

Deleting administrator did not consider threshold of originality argument posed by me. There were two relicense votes and one delete vote, I do not think that's a consensus to delete.

For the benefit of this discussion, I will paste the argument here:

"The only part that could be above TOO is the flags on either side of the Seychelles flag (I can't tell which one it is), but there isn't much sufficient artistic detail to differentiate it from other drawings of flags. Addition of mere shading does not constitute copyright protection (see File:Arkansas map by Sean Pecor.png)." —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's hard to assess this without actually seeing the file, but it's not clear why you think that the deleting administrator didn't consider your argument. The one "delete" !vote specifically addressed the TOO issue, stating that they believed some elements of the image too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection. The other "relicense" !vote seems have been basically a WP:MEETOO !vote, but file discussions aren't necessary decided by simply counting !votes even if it wasn't. If the file that was deleted is the same one shown on this website, then the two bird elements on each side of the flag do seem (at least in my opinion) to maybe be too close to call, and borderline local files sometimes end up being deleted for reasons similar to c:COM:PCP in order to err on the side of caution if policy-compliant non-free isn't considered possible. Anyway, if you're really quite sure that the file is too simple per c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:Seychelles to need to be licensed as non-free, then one option would be to simply upload a higher resolution version of the file to Commons under an appropriate PD license because that's really where the file should be hosted if it's really PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: This probably isn't below Seychelles TOO since Seychelles was a British colony, so their copyright law is probably modeled under c:COM:TOO UK, which is low. I'm proposing a {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}} relicense if it's not clear. If you want to see the logo to assess yourself, it's similar to this. I think that this design is similar in creativity to File:JeetKuneDo.svg, which was declared by the US copyright office to be below TOO. The birds don't seem to be that creative of a design, and addition of mere shading does not constitute copyright protection. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you posted above was posted in the FFD; so, I don't think you can really claim the deleting administrator didn't consider any of that; therefore, I also don't think you can claim the close was improper based on the comments that were posted or based on what you've posted above. In addition, I don't think you can really compare the complexity of the two birds shown in the file linked to below by Extraordinary Writ to the Chinese characters used in the Jeet Kune Do file; letters (even some basic kanji scripts/fonts), in general, are typically considered ineligible for copyright protection and the birds are not letters per se even minus the shading. So, once again, I personally don't think they're clearly too simple and therefore PD elements, absent a specific court case stating as much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get my point across well; I was mainly stating that the mere arrangement of the designs itself does not grant copyright protection. As for the bird, it does not appear to be creative. I hate to link to more cases, but I think it is necessary. This fleur-de-lis contains a similar amount of curves, yet it was deemed to be ineligible for copyright protection. Yes, the symbol has existed for a while, but that doesn't mean a derivative work could have gotten copyright protection as it's own rendition. This, combined with the previous argument that addition of shading doesn't provide copyright protection, makes me think this is below TOO.

Your idea that "non of what you posted above was posted in the FFD" is incorrect, as I posted a summary of my argument here - if someone questioned it I would have been more than happy to elaborate. I think the close lacked a rationale, as the deleting admin should have considered both arguments and provided a justified rationale, or even better relist and see what other editors think, rather that "The result of this discussion was: delete". Hence I would advocate for a relist (since an overturn looks unlikely). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 15:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My None of what you posted above was posted in the FFD was in reference to what you posted in the post right above mine (i.e. "None of that you posted [in the post right] above [mine] was posted in the FFD"). My apologies if that was unclear. Anyway, someone did question your argument in the FFD: the "delete" !vote was posted a day after your comment and the other "keep" !vote were added. The FFD remained opened for three more days after the last comment in the discussion, yet you chose not to elaborate. Trying to do so here seems to be more of an attempt to re-argue the FFD, than argue the close was improper per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. As for examples of court cases, I'm sure you can provide examples of court cases of other logos/images; unless, however, you can provide one specifically related to these particular "birds" or really similar "bird" imagery, then it's going to be hard (at least in my opinion) to try and directly apply them to this case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse based on my not being familiar with the details of non-free copy rules, but knowing that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, so any deletion is probably at least a valid exercise of closer discretion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of non-admins, the deleted image is the same as this one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak relist. I don't think the flags/birds/planes/Supermans/whatevers on each side are simple, but I don't see a consensus to delete here and it should be relisted for more opinions. Queen of ♡ | Speak 04:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Queen of Hearts, your signature has inadequate contrast. See WP:SIGAPP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Comment from closer - FFDs involving the licensing status of an image is a little different from other types of deletion discussions. Instead of the application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it is the application of copyright rules to the image that determine the outcome. The claim that this image falls below the threshold of originality is based on all elements being too simple for copyright including " the flags on either side of the Seychelles flag" which was rebutted with "the birds in the logo are sufficiently complex to warrant the creation of copyright". The drawing of birds is not a simple shape so the rebuttal is in line with the guidance of what constitutes threshold of originality for the US. As such, the argument that this is copyrightable was stronger, and with no agument that there was a valid non-free usage, I closed accordingly. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this was a particularly good close. First of all, TOO is extremely subjective if you don't link to any case studies/other images, so saying "the birds are sufficiently complex to warrant the creation of copyright" is more or less meaningless. As stated above, as the deleting admin I think you should have considered both arguments and provided a justified rationale, or even better relist and see what other editors think, rather than just a boilerplate "The result of this discussion was: delete". —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 15:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're a Commons administrator, you're obviously experienced in file licensing related stuff and other administrator stuff. Did you try to informally discuss your concerns with the closing admin prior to starting a deletion review? You're not required to do per se, but it's generally considered courteous and sometimes can save time/effort as explained in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Wikipedia administrators can change the wording of their closes or even "revert" their closes if they deem it necessary to do so after the fact without requiring a DR. Perhaps it's a moot point now, but perhaps doing so might've ended up resolving things without needing to come here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse FFD is one of the areas of Wikipedia where consensus matters the least and factfinding matters the most. I haven't seen it so there's a chance I'm incorrect, but I'm convinced by the argument that it violates NFCC #8, especially given Whpq's analysis above. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And given the image was linked above, I absolutely agree with the delete arguments. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Surprised to see we're rehashing this FfD. This is a cut-and-dry case of an obvious non-free image being non-free. Also worth noting that isn't the first time I've observed Matrix taking a dangerously lax approach to TOO. -Fastily 00:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Failed WP:NFCC#8 as a non-free file and was too complex to qualify for {{PD-ineligible}}. ✗plicit 04:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even a close call. The image is possibly above the TOO even without the birds to either side of the Seychelles flag - there's at least three elements of creativity, maybe four, depending on whether the gradient is counted separately from the coloring of the triangles, and that's been ruled enough to be copyrightable in some cases - so we'd still have to treat it conservatively. The argument that this must be PD because the NFL stopped sending baseless cease-and-desists for the use of another symbol of lesser complexity which has been in use for millennia shouldn't need answering. —Cryptic 06:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC failure is very clear – it fails 10c as well as 8, as the rationale was a generic template which is not specific – so the only question the FFD needed to answer was whether TOO was met, and it's pretty clear that it is. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dispenza

G4 speedied on 6 January 2020, ten years after the original AfD in 2010. I find it hard to believe that someone would have held onto a substantially identical copy of the page for a decade. No opinion on the merits of the topic or whether other criteria apply. Deleting admin is no longer active. Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article deleted in 2020 was actually significantly poorer than the one deleted in 2010. The 2020 article had two references (1 2), neither of which were much good, and a link to his Youtube channel. I've temporarily undeleted for review of all, but for me this is endorse deletion as G4 is accurate considering it is actually a reduced version of the 2010 deleted article. Daniel (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G4 per the McClenon Criterion. You shouldn't be able to evade a G4 by merely removing content from the version deleted at AfD. Of course, any editor is welcome to create a new, properly-sourced article for the subject. Owen× ☎ 11:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "You shouldn't be able to evade a G4 by merely removing content from the version deleted at AfD." Fair enough, but I don't see how that should apply here, to a different stub created by a different person, ten years later. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Neither the identity of the author nor the date are relevant here. G4 is about content, and only content. It isn't a sanction against an editor, but enforcement of consensus. If consensus determined that a given subject doesn't meet our notability standards, I don't see how the same subject covered by less content will magically meet those standards, regardless of who penned the new, stripped-down version, or how long they've waited to do so. Owen× ☎ 12:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the G4 for either of two reasons. First, I have identical copies of a lot of things that are more than ten years old on my C: drive and my F: drive. That's what they're for. The idea that someone wouldn't have held onto a substantially identical copy is silly. Second, a substantially worse version of a deleted article should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The first point is irrelevant, as it's a totally different person creating a totally unrelated version; I should have phrased it differently. And while I see where you're coming from, I still do not believe it to be within the spirit of G4 to overextend the criterion to newly created, entirely different stubs. Identifying such version as "substantially worse" will always be a judgment call, and CSD is for undisputable cases. And G4 should hardly remain appropriate after ten years, as it's most likely that the reason for the deletion no longer applies, which in this case, is the lack of third-party coverage, which now WP:NEXIST.[1][2][3] --Paul_012 (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 as the re-created version is not sufficiently identical to the deleted version. There is at least one reference in the 2020 version that was not present in the 2010 version. That said, the version that was G4ed would stand zero chance at an AFD and I would strongly recommend a move to draft space if Paul_012 or another user has a genuine interest in developing an article. Frank Anchor 13:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, per Frank, and simply because there ought to be a statue of limitations on G4. I am not defending the content of the page in any way. Mach61 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted It depends on how you view "sufficiently identical." I'm not sure this was a copy and paste and significant removal of the old article, and it depends on how strict you want to be in that regard, but it's definitely not ready for mainspace and could easily have been PRODded or maybe even loosely A7'd. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious why you'd think an A7 would be loose - A7 was my immediate reaction on seeing this mentioned on the help desk and looking at the version WilyD deleted. What's the claim of significance here? Appearing in a movie? Heck, I've done that. —Cryptic 06:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how A7 would apply, as it does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (emphasis copied from policy). A person's appearance in a movie and subsequent gain in publicity is a claim to significance (albeit a weak one). Frank Anchor 12:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Yala Batik

Early in the discussion, four potential sources were identified (by me). Apart from the nominator, neither of the folowing two delete !votes made any comment on these sources' suitability or lack thereof. As such, I don't think it was accurate to conclude that "Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth." I understand that !votes by IP editors may be given less weight or none at all, and had the delete !voters addressed the potential sources directly, I would agree with the close. But as things stood after three relists I don't believe there was consensus on how to interpret the source coverage. Paul_012 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. One is not entitled to a rebuttal of their !vote by every participant in the discussion. The appellant's Keep view was duly rebutted by the AfD nom. Subsequent participants not addressing it suggests they had nothing further to add, not that they failed to parry a decisive argument. The final Delete view did, in fact, address the sources, contrary to the appellant's claim, and agreed with the AfD nom's analysis of the depth of the sources presented by the appellant. The sole supporting Keep view, by an IP, added nothing to the discussion. Saying they are "confident in the sources" is not an analysis of sources, and was correctly discarded by the closing admin. Nothing to do with them being an anon IP. Owen× ☎ 11:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The last delete !voter making an offhand "merely passing mentions" remark when the four presented sources were entirely about the subject lead me to doubt that they actually looked at any analysis. I would have called it out, but the page had slipped from my watchlist by then. I'll concede, though, that one can hardly expect the closing admin to cross-examine every such argument, so it seems there's not much that can be done now. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment. We discussed it at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sri_Yala_Batik, flagging since it's not at a glance obvious on my Talk since we both had some offline time. While I endorse my own close as I noted there, I have no issue with more eyes on this and support this DRV. Star Mississippi 13:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The question is whether the closer had reason to find a Delete consensus when there were three !votes to Delete including the nominator, and two !votes to Keep, one of which was a nothing by an IP. The question is not even whether another closer might have had reason to find No Consensus, but only whether Star Mississippi had reason to Delete. Delete was a reasonable close. I think it was the right close, but that is not even the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Delete was a reasonable interpretation of consensus, largely per Robert McClenon. No consensus would have been a reasonable close as well. Frank Anchor 17:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Rowley

The subject was a well known Australian theatre, radio and television announcer, broadcaster and voiceover man.

I have found the following references showing WP:GNG:

"Events". The Age. Melbourne: John Fairfax Holdings. 20 April 2001. p. 2. ProQuest 363467038. (confirming his birthday)
Cockington, James (8 August 1994). "Mad on Max". The Guide. The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: John Fairfax Holdings. p. 53. Retrieved 5 May 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Cockington, James (18 August 1994). "Max, Mulray's man with the milk-chocolate voice". Green Guide. The Age. Melbourne: John Fairfax Holdings. p. 64. Retrieved 5 May 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Marshall, Valda (9 December 1973). "Tony casts a line and catches Max". The Sun-Herald. Sydney: John Fairfax and Sons. p. 110. Retrieved 5 May 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
"Australia's most loved game shows EVER!". Woman's Day. Are Media. 26 September 2022. pp. 50–53. EBSCOhost 159124968.
Syderhelm, Jen (4 May 2024). "Vale Max Rowley". RadioInfo Australia. Retrieved 5 May 2024. (about his death)

References about his academy:

"Big year for Max Rowley Academy graduates". RadioInfo Australia. 27 December 2006. Retrieved 5 May 2024.
"Acting - Announcing". The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: John Fairfax and Sons. 12 June 1965. p. 27. Retrieved 5 May 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Ackland, Richard (4 October 1993). "Witching hour weirdies". The Guide. The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: John Fairfax Holdings. p. 43. Retrieved 5 May 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Levinson, Arlene (25 April 1985). "Focus is on looking good - at $60 an hour". The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: John Fairfax and Sons. p. 3. Retrieved 5 May 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Jahshan, Elias (20 July 2008). "You have to start early to be on top". The Sunday Telegraph. Sydney: News Limited. p. 7. EBSCOhost 20080720O007506410.

Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 04:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC) (edited 05:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

You don't need DRV's permission to recreate a page in such a way that it decisively beats the reasons given for deletion in its afd. In this case, it was for being entirely unreferenced, and that appears accurate - the latest deleted revision, and spot checks of previous versions every couple years back to its creation in 2004, showed zero explicit citations and not even any external links except for https://www.maxrowley.com/.
If you really, really want to write a new article backwards from the old version, I suppose we could userfy it for you. The usual advice is to do without. —Cryptic 06:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start a draft using AfC. Provide the references from the deleted article. It could be recreated directly in mainspace, but only by someone who is confident. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe, I agree with you, but the draft could be created by me. Can you please provide me with the source from the last revision before it was deleted, so I and other users can hopefully improve it? Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 08:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave the only source it ever had above. —Cryptic 06:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The original close was unanimous, but no reason to prohibit recreation. I don't support userfication. Draftspace is a better venue for structured collaborative work, with better visibility to other editors, and a definite timeline and mainspacing process. Owen× ☎ 12:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if the appellant is requesting that the original close be overturned. As is often the case, it isn't clear whether the appellant is asking to overturn the close, or is only asking for permission to create a new draft or new article, but permission isn't needed to create a new draft or new article. It also isn't clear why appellants want a deleted article restored if they have new sources. If they don't want to write a new draft or article from scratch, they can use the wizard. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation because permission isn't required for that. A new article is subject to AFD, and a new draft will be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 May 2024

Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions

Contested at Template_talk:AfC_submission/rejected#Template-protected_edit_request_on_3_May_2024 due to allegedly insufficient participation and failure to notify WP:AFC. Closure result was never carried out. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED but relist or renominate: I still believe that these categories should be merged together but we should relist to address the shortcomings, particularly the low participation of this CfD, and to allow for notification of WT:AFC about the nomination of this category. If the low participation is because this was uncontroversial, we will find this out. If not, then it will be deleted. BTW the decision was already partially carried out on the other {{AfC submission}} templates, just not this one. Awesome Aasim 23:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Close as not in scope~~. It’s unclear what User:LaundryPizza03 wants, but it appears to be neither an issue with the CfD close or a deletion matter. Maybe go to WT:CfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe Did you take a look at the linked discussion? An uninvolved admin raised a legitimate concern, hence the closure review. What is wanted here is the discussion being reopened and relisted to further discussion. Awesome Aasim 01:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Nah. Wait and renominate. Not worthy of DRV time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I’m confused. LaundryPizza03 has launched a DRV over a request for him to revert his close? Can User:Primefac clarify? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked LaundryPizza03 to re-open the discussion to allow for more participation from the WikiProject. I was expecting a yes or no response, the latter of which would see me opening a DRV. I suppose they figured out my nefarious plan and decided to skip a couple of steps. Primefac (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist per Primefac. Minimum notifications must be done. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there an objection to reopening/relisting? Given the low participation and the nominator's agreement with that, do we need a seven day discussion here, or can we close this and skip to the reopening with the additional notification? Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist; there are valid reasons for having this category, as it has been discussed multiple times at WT:AFC. If the consensus really is to get rid of the category that's fine, but the project should know that one of their maintenance/tracking categories is being nominated for deletion before that happens. Primefac (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Kudos to the closer for bringing this here, but a simple self-revert would have done the job just as well without wasting our time with a DRV. This should be the default, immediate response whenever a non-admin close is legitimately contested, which is clearly the case here. Owen× ☎ 12:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 May 2024

Enigma (animated TV series) – Procedural close. Any editor in good standing may create a new article under this title. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This show has the potential to be notable. 173.162.55.134 (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally close. The IP's nomination does not make an argument that, or why, the 2022 WP:G5 closure by Cyrius was incorrect. The article can be recreated by anyone who is not evading a ban or block. Sandstein 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 May 2024

Ian Carter (businessman) – Misunderstanding of redlink following draftification. Draft is accessible at Draft:Ian Carter (businessman). Star Mississippi 21:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would like to request a Deletion Review for the subject. It was moved to the Draftspace with the reason stating that It was not ready for the mainspace, and then it was deleted by another user. I contacted the concerned editor, however they have not responded yet. It is a notable subject and sources can be accessed at its draft. I appreciate everyone's time in this matter. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dosedsneer (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Dosedsneer! If you've read our notability guidelines, and still believe the article you wrote qualifies, please follow the instructions for submitting your draft for review, at the top of that page, with links on how to get help improving the article. Owen× ☎ 19:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dosedsneer - The article was not deleted after it was moved to draft space. It is still in draft space at Draft:Ian Carter (businessman). What was deleted was only a redirect from article space to draft space, which is a technical detail. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rydex64 - When you move an article from article space to draft space, please provide an explanation to the originator so that they will know what they should do next. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, Robert McClenon. I haven't been able to respond to his query since I was away for travelling. Just responded. Thank you.

Close as moot the only thing that appears to have been deleted is the cross-namespace redirect to draft. Dosedsneer, do you understand where things are and how to continue working on the draft? If not, hit any of us up for help. Jclemens (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 May 2024

Chloe Lewis (figure skater)

I think this is the right avenue for this. I saw this but never voted in it, I think it should be kept and I later noticed @Hameltion: bring this up somewhere. There's actually good sourcing from the Oregonian and also Colorado Gazeette. She is also a Youth Olympic silver medalist. So I think it should kept instead. Coop (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Frank Anchor 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Both sources are already included in the current draft being worked on. Nothing more to be done here; suggest a withdrawal and speedy close. Owen× ☎ 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse' - What OwenX said. -- Whpq (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~ per OwenX. I have no objection to the draft being spun out to an article in its current state, but that is not in the scope of the DRV discussion. Frank Anchor 14:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to relist. It has come to my attention that delete voter Big Money Threepwood was indef blocked. Striking that vote, there is not a WP:QUORUM, meaning it must be relisted or closed as no consensus (with no prejudice against immediate renomination) or soft delete (subject to immediate restoration upon any good faith request such as this DRV). Relisting is probably the best option here, citing added visibility from this DRV. I will add that the Sandstein closed the AFD correctly based on information known at the time. Frank Anchor 19:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as a valid close, but this isn't the right avenue. Some editors, including the current appellant, reasonably think that DRV is the right avenue to consider a new draft when an article was deleted, but DRV is not necessary in such cases. The article was deleted but not salted, and the draft will be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note for posterity how unsatisfying the AfD was: these adequate sources were already in the article, but none of the delete !voters addressed why they felt they were insufficient, and the nominator didn't understand the subordinate role of an SNG vs GNG. But no one was making those points at the time, so the closer went along with unsubstantiated claims of sourcing problems. The draft should just be moved back into mainspace at this point. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share your frustrations, but as an admin, I can tell you that it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. If you discard perfunctory !votes that constitute a numerical majority and close based on guidelines, you're accused of supervoting. And if you don't discard perfunctory !votes, you're accused of counting noses and ignoring guidelines. We love quoting WP:NOTAVOTE, but in practice, things aren't as simple. Owen× ☎ 17:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, hard to close a discussion when there are no good policy-backed !votes. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The right thing to do if you're looking at closing a discussion where you disagree with the participants' interpretation of guidelines is to comment instead of closing. —Cryptic 19:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Endorse" and "the draft can be turned into an article right now as it is" aren't compatible; the changes from the version deleted at AFD and now are almost entirely cosmetic. —Cryptic 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Substantial~~ content was added to the draft on 20 April. However, even if that was not the case, my opinion is akin to “I would have voted keep, but consensus disagreed with me, so I endorse the result.” DRV is not AFD part 2, but I’m sure you already know that. Frank Anchor 17:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would this "substantial content" be the changes to the infobox, the removal of the statement that she's a freshman in college, or the six new tables that give unreferenced statistics of the exact same competitions as the table that was already there? AFC isn't AFD part 2 either; if this is moved into mainspace I'll speedy it. —Cryptic 18:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I retract the "substantial" part, as I looked more at the quantity of the content than the quality. Thanks for finding my error. Frank Anchor 19:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I just noticed one of the delete voters are banned does their vote still count? Coop (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Frank Anchor 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not, which also causes there to not be a WP:QUORUM and "delete" to be an inappropriate close. Frank Anchor 19:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~In addition, the nominator even said she never should have been nominated for deletion.~~ ~~Can we just move this from draft now? Coop (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Frank Anchor 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh okay, I didn't know there was already another draft in progress. I'm fine with closing and withdrawing if someone knows how to do that. Coop (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Frank Anchor 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually closed this as withdrawn by nominator, but Cryptic's comment at 18:12 made me reconsider that approach. Leaving this open for the time being (despite your 'withdrawal') as we need a resolution on that statement. Daniel (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Deletion Review is not AFC, and does not move a draft into mainspace. But ...
Relist after discounting the sockpuppet !vote. The appellant is advised to improve the article while the deletion discussion is resuming, to try to get a Heymann result. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per everyone above. The delete closure was fine at the time it was made, but now that it's been reasonably challenged and one of the deleters was a sock a relist is reasonable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we needed a participant to later be blocked for socking to have overturned this - a deletion discussion that waves away those sources with no more than "fails WP:SIGCOV" is defective, not just an outcome being disagreed with. But, as I mentioned above, we do need to overturn it, not just wave it away as "the deletion discussion was correct, but you can go ahead and move some stuff around in the WP:REFUNDed article and just dump it back in mainspace". —Cryptic 03:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I also wouldn't move the draft into mainspace any time soon, to be honest. The DRV nom has just been blocked, and the two articles we're basing this on fail WP:YOUNGATH (one is from her home metro area and the other is from her dance partner's metro area), and there's no other clear sourcing available yet. SportingFlyer T·C 06:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "keep" !vote makes a policy-based argument for Redirect without deletion of the edit history, which is not refuted in the AfD. 2603:6011:8241:6E00:243F:DBC7:2745:2359 (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot. Nom is also a sock. The extant draft can go through AfC like any other and if substantially improved, it will not be a G4. Star Mississippi 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom is also a sock does not excuse the fact that the article was later found to be deleted without a quorum. In addition, there are multiple good-faith votes to not endorse the result, so the DRV must run its course. Frank Anchor 12:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. However five more days here to kick it back to AfD for ~ 7 or more seems silly when there's a path to mainspace in less time and there's no guarantee a relist will result in retention. To be clear though, my opinion not policy. Star Mississippi 01:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Star Mississippi writes: there's a path to mainspace in less time and there's no guarantee a relist will result in retention. Yes, but there's no guarantee that AFC will result in promotion back to mainspace either. I would decline the current draft because it does not speak for itself and does not describe significant coverage by reliable sources. The idea of moving the draft into article space in its current state is well-meaning but silly. So I also think that a relist will very likely repeat the deletion. There is no quick path to resolve this. The article isn't ready for mainspace; the draft isn't ready for mainspace. The proponents of an article need to work on the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist due to socking issues. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30 April 2024

Fathima Thahiliya

Who previously created this page and other editors who shared it in the deletion discussion did not have the quality pass to retain it, so this page has been removed, and as of today, this page is eligible for a new political position WP:NPOL or (officeholder), WP:GNG. category, which should be moved to draft to be edited and moved to the main page ~~ Spworld2 talk 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse AfD, which is three years old. Did you ask @Daniel: for a draft? It's unclear why we're here when there's no protection limiting a new article from being created. Star Mississippi 11:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi SM, thanks for the ping - this is the first time I'm aware of this DRV. It definitely was not discussed with me prior (noting that this is 'optional', although definitely encouraged by Wikipedia:Deletion review#Instructions). That being said, what isn't optional is the notification to the XfD closer, which is mandatory and required per step 2 of 'Steps to list a new deletion review'. Unfortunately, this wasn't done by the applicant. Daniel (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse original AfD as closed. I'm not sure what the appellant means by, should be moved to draft. Our policies have a long list of cases when an article should generally not be draftified, and some when it can, but no case where it should. If the subject's status has changed such that it now meets our notability guidelines, an article can be created, either in mainspace or in draft, and no one is stopping the appellant from doing so. If the subject's status has not changed since the AfD, draftifying is a waste of time. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the 3-year-old close. We get a number of requests to restore a deleted article to draft, possibly because the requester wants to start with something rather than from scratch. When the original article was found not to meet notability or not to be based on significant coverage, sometimes it really is better to start from scratch. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per the request, assuming that this person did just win the election - I have absolutely no idea of how to check. Otherwise endorse. SportingFlyer T·C 02:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historical American Documents

Consensus for splitting was clear and was initially given by closing editor here and in previous discussion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 12#Template:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, yet refusal to accept this consensus and consistent WP:BLUDGEONING by a certain editor at Template talk:Historical American Documents seems to have overturned and derailed the correct outcome --wooden superman 06:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nominator did not first discuss the closer's decision with the closer, which is listed as a required step before a review. Procedural close? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed pointless, as you'd already convinced them to change their close against consensus. Needed to be seen on a wider forum. --wooden superman 12:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse Keep~~ [see my comment below] While the discussion, on a quick glance, seems to be a consensus to split, in reading it carefully - as the closer eventually did before reversing their response - that falls apart quickly. Split arguments included 1) that the navbox is too large (incorrect, there are hundreds if not thousands of navboxes which are broken up into sections, and this one has four easily understood and distinct sections), 2) that the navbox includes duplication (incorrect, each of the four sections lists individuals who drafted a particular document. That some were active in two events is akin to sportspeople playing two seasons of a sport, a sport which formed a 250 year old nation), 3) that other navboxes exist (there are signatory navboxes for each document, which are used in place of adding the central navbox to each signer) and 4) that there is a basis for splitting because of a previous discussion (incorrect, the rational fails when realizing that although this navbox was used as an example in an earlier discussion there were no notification tag placed - not on the navbox, not on its talk page, not on the pages of its topic structure, and not on the talk page of its creator). This collapsed and typically sectioned navbox actually saves space, has an accurate visible title ("Founding documents of the United States") and has been carefully edited and maintained since 2010. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the two "keep" !votes, both converstaions were practically unanimously in favour of a split. --wooden superman 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You missed some editors, more than two. There was only one conversation involved in this request, the first only used the navbox as an example without notifying anybody that it was being scrutinized. I address the split above (please remember that these decisions are not made by counting heads). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, only yourself and Gwillhickers advocated for "keep". --wooden superman 12:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy vacate and leave for an admin, Toadette is not ready to be closing XFD's, especially contentious ones where there's clearly a split in opinion as is evident here. I'm not familiar enough with templates or I'd have done it myself. Star Mississippi 12:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi, the discussion may tend to confuse inexperienced closers, as it did initially for Toadette who, when asked, took another read and came to what I view as the correct conclusion. Hopefully an admin will take a good long look at this one, grab some coffee, view the "Founding documents of the United States" navbox, and create a solid mental map of the two "sides" before completing their analysis. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: @Woodensuperman and Randy Kryn: you have both commented verbosely and continuously at all venues related to this discussion. I would kindly ask that you cease commenting and let uninvolved editors discuss the matter. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy vacate and revert on sight any other BADNACs by this out-of-control editor. Every few days we have to undo another BADNAC from this one editor. Enough already. Owen× ☎ 14:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you accusing me that I am "out of control"? Toadette^Edit! 12:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I think any sensible editor, after seeing two of their XfD closes get vacated or overturned as BADNAC within a week, would step back and figure what they've been doing wrong. You, however, went right on to make your third BADNAC. It took a failed RfA to finally convince you to stop. I know your intentions were good, but this level of tone-deafness is incompatible with a crowdsourced, collaborative project. I've been closing AfDs for 18 years, and even now, when editors tell me I'm doing something wrong, I listen, learn, and adjust my actions accordingly. That's the only way things work. Owen× ☎ 13:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate per User:Star Mississippi. I don't see a guideline for Speedy Vacates. Should there be one, or do these editors just mean that it is obvious that the close should be vacated? The original close of Split was a valid close, and did not need to be changed, and changing it did not reflect consensus, so much as an argument from one of the two editors who has been bludgeoning this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "summarily" would have been a better term than "speedy". I (and, I'm guessing, Star Mississippi) believe this DRV can be closed by any uninvolved admin without waiting the statutory seven days. Owen× ☎ 15:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally speaking, Deletion-related closes may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity... or by consensus at deletion review, which is somewhat ambiguous about whether one can re-open as an individual admin action while a DRV is progressing, but does not expressly forbid it like some other wordings I've seen. Primefac (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I read prongs #2 and #3 of that policy to imply that if there's a rough consensus to summarily vacate, any uninvolved admin may close the DRV and revert the XfD closure, without waiting for the DRV to run its course. Leaving this here for seven days isn't a disaster, but I also see no benefit to doing so if there's a consensus to vacate. Owen× ☎ 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for confusion and delay @Robert McClenon. My proposed course of action was clause A as @Primefac noted. When a close is contentious (as this is), my POV is the action can be speedily undone by an uninvolved admin, as some of this editor's closes (and other bad NACs) have been. Personally believe seven days for the sake of process here only to likely kick it back to TFD seems like process wonkery,but that might be IAR. Star Mississippi 00:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As per User:Primefac, can User:Randy Kryn and User:Woodensuperman stop bludgeoning this discussion? I hope that we don't need to go to WP:ANI to ask for a one-comment-per-24-hours limit on these two editors (but we probably do, unless they will really back off voluntarily). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, Robert McClenon I was sort of shocked to find that after the closing at decision to keep, woodensuperman went to the Template:Historical American Documents and tagged the template for deletion. IMO, this was nothing more than a vindictive reaction from someone disgruntled over ToadetteEdit 's decision and closure. Because of the developments that occurred here the tag ~~has been~~ (was) reverted, just for the record.
Additional note: Initially there was indeed a clear consensus to split, and only split, the template, but once it became evident that one editor was not content with just splitting but wanted to further make edits to the would be separate templates, and kept making one point of contention after another, even many of the notified editors didn't bother to pursue a never ending discussion, so it's perfectly debatable as to whether all the involved editors still wish to split. IMO,Toadette.'s decision, all things considered, was certainly called for.
Latest: As I write, Woodensuperman has just restored the tag for deletion. Could someone please deal with this editor? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: the only tag I see there is the DELREV tag, linking to this review here, as required by policy. Am I missing something? Owen× ☎ 20:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a tag for deletion review. In any case, we can let the tag ride, because it seems this nomination, also, isn't going anywhere. I bowed out of the original and belabored discussion days ago. Opting to outright delete the entire template simply because a nomination to split didn't go as expected, is an overkill request and completely uncalled for. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is to notify people of this discussion, not to delete anything. Deletion review is simply where you go to appeal a closed decision. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gwillhickers, the tag is to direct editors here, as SportingFlyer said, not to "outright delete the entire template". Your removal of the tag, while well-intentioned, was wrong. In the heat of battle, you seem to be mistaking good-faith actions for combativeness. A deletion review is what we're doing here now: reviewing the closure of that TfD. No one here is suggesting we outright delete the template. Owen× ☎ 22:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I assumed that the purpose of the discussion was to delete the template. My mistake. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Owen× ☎ 22:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gwillhickers - The template that indicates that another template has been nominated for deletion looks like {{tfd}}. The template that is on the template under discussion is {{delrev}}. Click on them to view the difference. A deletion review is an appeal or reconsideration of a previous deletion discussion. This discussion is a deletion review. I can see that you were reasonably confused. 00:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Overturn to Split. There's only one way to close that discussion. It was also poorly closed, so I don't care if the BADNAC is simply undone and re-closed by an administrator. I think we're also close to handing out topic bans. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does User:SportingFlyer mean the Wikipedia community by "we"? DRV is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk)
Of course. Just an observation. SportingFlyer T·C 02:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy vacate BADNAC Jclemens (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does Speedy Vacate mean to open the nomination again for an administrator to closely study the discussion and make a new close?, then that's the one I'd pick. Have struck my keep comment above. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I mean by my !vote, yes. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to split. I knew this should be split, so I closed it, but anouther editor convinced me of the closure and demanded me of amending to so the template should be kept, and so I've amended the close. Since I've stopped closing discussions following complaints on my talk page and elsewhere, I looks like it should be overturned and not vacated. Toadette^Edit! 11:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant but clearly not an active one relative to the discussion, the clear consensus appears to be split. So overturn to that. I have no strong opinion on having an uninvolved editor (per TFD closing procedure) re-close. "BADNAC" is not pertinent to this case. Izno (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. BADNAC says nothing more than the discussion is contentious and should not have been closed by an inexperienced, non-admin editor. That is, in principle vacating the close is less an indictment of the closer than overturning the decision is. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BADNAC doesn't apply for two reasons: 1, it's an essay. 2, we're talking about TFD. That essay was written for AFD closes, and this isn't one. The actual policy on the point is at WP:NACD and the most interesting point it makes is Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. (emphasis mine), so BADNAC is also out of step with documented policy.

It's fair to say that a particular close was bad and that didn't document the consensus correctly in this case. It's not fair to say that that's because of "BADNAC". Izno (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Izno, out of curiosity, are you saying that the original close was bad, or that the re-close and self-overturn was bad? Primefac (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original close was fine (the clear consensus appears to be split). I am making a point about how BADNAC likes to creep into discussions in which it has no place. Izno (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, thanks. Primefac (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to split. I was going to close the discussion a day or two before Toadette got to it but got sidetracked; their original close matches what I was reading from the discussion. I don't really see a point in reopening just for myself (or I suppose, another admin now) to close in the same way. Primefac (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Shah Halim

The deletion discussion was taken without any proper discussion based on policy happening. The article had enough reliable sources with significant coverage over a wide period of time. I provided a wide list of sources. Two participants simply did not see anything and made vague comments, one of them was a brand new account and the other's only objection was that it was edited by sockpuppet. One more participant later came and after some discussion he accepted that the coverage was fine but he did not consider the topic notable because the topic didn't meet WP:NPOL ignoring WP:BASIC and also WP:GNG itself which the coverage meets. There was no other participation. Therefore it must have been no consensus or keep, not delete.

P.S, there was one more participant who concurred but didn't give a (vote) and wanted to see some more sources over a wider period of time which I showed but she didn't come back to it. It should be counted too. MrMkG (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I relisted per @Liz's request at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saira_Shah_Halim_(2nd_nomination) but haven't had time to look at new input since then as I've been offline. Regardless of how this DRV closes and despite questions about the legitimacy of Shuvomoyghosh reactivation, I think @Nyttend's A7 probably shouldn't have happened given long history of this article. My .02 though, not policy.Star Mississippi 02:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the original AfD, since everyone except the DRV nominator supported deletion so it couldn't have been closed any other way. Overturn the A7 since I think being a political candidate is a CCS even if it isn't evidence of notability, but re-delete that as a G4. And salt * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original AFD as Delete. As per Pppery, Overturn the A7. I haven't seen the reposted article, but having seen the history, I concur with salting. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of non-admins, the A7'd version stated in its entirety "Saira Shah Halim is the CPI(M) candidate of South Kolkata Lok Sabha." (No sources.) Arguably it's more of a G4 than an A7. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ I am confused. Did someone create the article again with that single sentence after the article was deleted in AfD recently and is that what all the admins are seeing?

I would request them to see the article that was created by me and deleted in the 2nd AfD nomination and see the conversations in the 2nd AfD nomination. It was a proper article, multiple paragraphs long divided into multiple sections with multiple sources.

This DRV is about that. It shouldn't be deleted just because some sockpuppet or whatever is active around it too. MrMkG (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what happened. I think everyone here is aware that you're talking about the second AfD (which people are calling "the original AfD"); they just have comments on the deletion of the single-sentence version too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the only thing they really have comments on and it's an absolutely minor frivolous thing about "A7" or "G4" of a later single sentence nonsense recreation, not the actual article or AfD.

7 of the 8 people who have said something here are like that. MrMkG (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD-deleted article was thousands of bytes, with multiple sections and eight references. The speedy-deleted article, as you see from Extraordinary Writ's comment, was one sentence. It's obviously not a repost, and obviously not a G4 candidate. Anyone can be a candidate for political office; it's not at all a claim of importance merely to be a candidate. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have A1'd it after my third failed attempt at finding an article at some subphrase of South Kolkata Lok Sabha, if I somehow didn't notice the previous version. I also disagree on G4 - the new substub was a proper subset of the version deleted at AFD. It's immaterial, anyway. No reasonable person is going to leave that in mainspace after we deleted the full article that was here. —Cryptic 03:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Presumably Kolkata Dakshin Lok Sabha constituency (aka Calcutta South (Lok Sabha constituency)). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not about the original AfD, that was in 2016. Its about the second AfD. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saira Shah Halim (2nd nomination)) MrMkG (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the conversation on User talk:OwenX#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saira Shah Halim (2nd nomination) too. Over there User:Amakuru is also making the point, I am making. MrMkG (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD was poorly argued. Even though numerical consensus was against the appellant, statements like Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. are not policy based, and demonstrate a bias against failed political candidates, as if that somehow eliminated their GNG compliance. Of course, that GNG compliance itself is challenged by the general unreliability of Indian news sources overall. Neither G4 nor A7 applied to the recreation. In short? This is a big mess, and I'm not sure deletion is a better outcome than no consensus, given the amount of uncertainty and poor policy argumentation in play. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indian news sources are not overall unreliable. How can we create any article if that is so? There are many bad sources but I did use the best sources. Two of them (Indian Express, The Wire) are green marked on the page WP:RSPS and none of the others are yellow or red marked. MrMkG (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - G4 should be clarified that it applies when the page in question is a subset of the deleted page, and, in the meantime, should be interpreted as applying when the page in question is a subset of the deleted page. The recreation after the AFD was a stupid subset of the deleted page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent discussions

29 April 2024

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses – This is pretty clearly a "close call [or] controversial decision", which "are better left to admins" (WP:NACD). This should definitely have been closed by an administrator given this, and may also benefit from an extra 7 days to continue to flesh out the arguments within the debate. I would note that strict vote-counting is not how consensus is evaluated, but there was no rationale provided here by the closer as to how they weighed the !votes which can be considered. I therefore vacate and overturn this BADNAC "by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning". I will relist on today's log for further discussion. Daniel (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed by a non-admin with a merge/redirect decision even though there was no outright or majority consensus to redirect/merge the article. There was a tie vote of keep and redirect/merge with eight each. A tie vote here would mean there is no consensus to remove the article. The article not only met notability requirements but also had enough reliable sources on an election that happened making all the information necessary to have its own article.

All those that voted to redirect/merge mainly opposed because they felt since there was only one candidate, that in itself didn't make it less notable and they provided no evidence to their arguments other than what they felt and said all the sources were routine coverage. Yet, the so-called routine coverage were from reliable sources. The nominator of the Afd even tried to pass off an unreliable source from a right-wing publication as evidence of "in-depth coverage". Routine coverage does not apply to those sources. Elections are not routine coverage even if there is only one candidate on the ballot. And none of these had passing mentions. Yet an election still occurred where votes were cast for the incumbent and were not immediately awarded to the sole candidate by his political party which unlike in previous years where the incumbent president is running for reelection, the primaries wouldn't be held and all the delegates would be awarded to them. The vote this year unlike in Delaware and Florida, was not canceled in Alaska despite there being one candidate.

If this article has to be redirected because there is only one candidate, then all the Republican primary articles for primaries happening in May and June will have to be redirected to the main 2024 presidential election articles for each state. As would contests that already happened such as the 2024 Wyoming Republican presidential caucuses, 2024 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses, and Democratic contests for Indiana, Nebraska, Montana, and the U.S. Virgin Islands that are happening in May and June. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacate and enjoin this editor from closing any more AfDs until they've shown they understand WP:BADNAC. This is the second improper closing we've seen from this editor in three days. Not exactly the best way to win the community's trust for their RfA. Owen× ☎ 23:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(involved) Leaning relist. I totally disagree with WikiCleanerMan's rationale, I nominated the article for deletion. I think this request for a deleion review stems mostly from WP:ILIKEIT. However, I agree that there is not a clear consensus in the discussion and a relist will hopefully allow more voices to be heard. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I provided sources to improve the article, and added information to add depth to the article. If I did, then it's not an I like it scenario. It's called improving the article which you hadn't done at all. You redirected it at first, then moved to Afd without starting a discussion on the talk page. You're now casting aspersions on an another editor who provided evidence to his argument. You didn't provide evidence of what made the article not notable and you were cherrypicking various guidlines without making a correct arguments. It is your I didn't like it because you felt some sources weren't up to your standard. Your personal view on sources is not how you should edit. It would appear you still stand by providing an unreliable far-right article to support your argument. A relist is not necessary as it has reached the one week point since the the last relist and it should be closed as no consensus. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 April 2024

Open Book Collective

This was admittedly a low-quorum discussion, but I don't think the arguments against redirection were any good at all. This article was created directly in mainspace by Flavoursofopen, a disclosed COI editor, against the WP:COIEDIT guideline (which I'm assuming they were unaware of). Of the two "keep" votes

Myotus blindly asserts that it appears notable enough without linking any sources
Flavoursofopen's argument for keeping the article is that the OBC is legally separate from the possible redirect target (true, but irrelevant, a redirect would be kept at redirects for discussion).

Mach61 22:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BoraVoro: Mach61 22:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. WP:BADNAC clearly states: A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: [...] The outcome is a close call [...] or likely to be controversial. Almost any No-consensus closure is bound to be a BADNAC. Whether the proposed redirect is a suitable ATD is something the re-closing admin should determine. Owen× ☎ 22:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate per above.—Alalch E. 23:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – As an editor who was citicized for closing AfDs, it should have been redirected rather than being closed as a no consensus. I do not see this as a "close call" and I do not understand what it is, but I do know that the closure was unjustified. It is better to wait for the closer to be online to question them about the reason for their closure. Toadette^Edit! 10:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is better to wait for the closer to be online to question them about the reason for their closure" - question, did you check to see the timeline here before making this statement? The applicant enquired at the closer's talk page at 02:16, 27 April 2024, then waited nearly 48 hours before initiating the DRV at 22:32, 28 April 2024. No issue with Shadow311 not being available (we are all NA for periods at times), but to suggest that Mach61 should have waited longer here before coming to DRV or done something different, as your comment points to, is not accurate or fair in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to (soft) redirect. This is a WP:BADNAC, as is just about any no consensus closure or any closure on a relisted discussion, as it is obviously a “close call.” In this particular discussion there is the nom and one redirect !vote based in policy against two keep !votes. One is a well-meaning COI account and the other is a baseless claim of notability. As there is not a quorum, this must be a soft redirect which can be spun back at any time for any good-faith reason without the prospect of re-redirecting without further discussion. I consider vacating for an admin to re-close an acceptable option as well per OwenX though that is my second preference. Frank Anchor 12:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw the request to revert the close today, sorry. It appears I can't revert the close anymore since the deletion review is happening. Shadow311 (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can still reverse your close. Per DRV rules, Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, [...]. Just revert the AFD close, re-add it to the AFD log, and close this DRV with language along the lines of "speedy overturn with consent of AFD closer." (or have an admin do so on your behalf). Frank Anchor 13:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert the BADNAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate the WP:BADNAC but endorse outcome per WP:NOQUORUM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts This should allow for speedy nomination, right? Mach61 19:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per WP:NPASR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate per WP:BADNAC. No other comment on how this should be closed, but considering this leaned not-keep it should be closed by someone who can implement the full range of closes. SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate - I would Endorse the close if it were closed by an admin, as a valid closure, but I concur with the previous statements that this should have been left for an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How "sticky" is a COI? Article creator declares a COI on COPIM, COPIM is directly related to this article... but is that sufficient connection to assume that the original article creator has a COI with respect to this article? It seems plausible, but not incontrovertible, so where do we draw a line? Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn to redirect. I mulled over this for a while, but I find Mach's source analysis convincing, and the keep arguments unconvincing. And, of course, the redirect's target can always be expanded with information. Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

25 April 2024

Candidates of the next Australian federal election – No consensus. Absent consensus to overturn the "draftify" closure, it remains in force until the next Australian federal election's date and candidates are more certain and there is more content for an article. Sandstein 20:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closer erred by draftifying an article about an upcoming event which already contains content about the event and which does not violate WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON, and selected an arbitrary time for the article to be moved back into mainspace. Draft space is not a place for currently notable articles, and I believe the keep !votes were disregarded. Asking for this to be overturned to no consensus or keep so the article can be moved back from draftspace. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea how I screwed the template up this badly and every attempt I make to fix it makes it worse. SportingFlyer T·C 05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to merge to next Australian federal election as a more sensible outcome all round. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While Merge may have been a reasonable proposal, it was clearly not supported by a consensus of discussion participants. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (and restore full article) as there were solid arguments made for keep, draftify, and merge. I strongly disagree with J2m5's comment that a no-consensus close should lead to re-draftifying. The April version of the article was substantially different than the version that was draftified in January, thus the draftify result on the January AFD has no bearing on the recent AFD. A merge discussion may be appropriate and can take place on the article talk page. Frank Anchor 12:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus (involved) - A neutral closer would find reasonable arguments on both sides (Draft and Keep), relatively similar popularity between the two sides, the contributions to the article during the discussion, and the trend towards Keep against Draft strengthening as the discussion progressed. The closer in this instance did not assess or attempt to assess these elements, and did not provide a reason to find there was a consensus for Draft despite all this; the closure comment looked more like a vote for one side than an assessment of the discussion. The article should therefore be restored, without prejudice to any further deletion or merger discussions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. Editors did not agree on whether WP:CRYSTAL applies. As the nominator notes, the closer appears to have selected an ad hoc criterion for the article to be moved back into mainspace, an invented criterion of inclusion that is not supported by policy and is contradicted by the nature of drafting being optional. The closer's idea about when the draft should be moved back is the closer's editorial idea, but other editors might have different ideas about when to move back. AfD closer can't prevent good-faith bold mainspacing other than through salting, and salting would have been clearly inappropriate. —Alalch E. 08:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) Being notable does not mean ready for mainspace which a number of editors made a convincing argument for. That the article continues to have predominantly blank spaces where the future candidates will be speaks volumes. If it is the case that consensus here finds overturn to no consensus then it should still be moved to draft because of the article creator moving it back to mainspace merely three months after the first deletion discussion when there was no substantive difference to the article. I could for all intents and purposes probably have slapped it with a CSD G4 rather than nominating it for the second deletion discussion and my speedy would have been in all likelyhood been accepted. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article is substantially different than the one discussed in January. Therefore a no consensus close MUST result in the article being restored (without prejudice to renomination), and not default to an outdated discussion involving five participants. Likewise, G4 would not have applied for the same reasons.Frank Anchor 11:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of taking it out of draft into mainspace, merely three months after the first AfD, the only substantial difference (refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ACandidates_of_the_next_Australian_federal_election&diff=1217634391&oldid=1199169820 for differences between being put into draft as consequence of the first AfD and being put back into mainspace) was the additional of a number of empty tables to be filled at a later date when candidates appeared. Notably those tables are almost completely empty. TarnishedPath^talk 12:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse good close. Wikipedia-notability does not guarantee the topic a page in mainspace, WP:Consensus May merge a notable topic. Merging may be done from draftspace. The draftified page is very drafty looking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus behind the WP:CRYSTAL rationale and if there's no consensus that there's a barrier to mainspace retention for policy-compliance reasons, there's no objective barrier to overcome to know when to mainspace, and, knowing this, the closer improvised a criterion upon which to allow returning to mainspace, but there's no force behind the improvised criterion, just creating tension, and that tension needs to be resolved by letting this harmless page harmlessly sit in mainspace where it will slowly be improved like any other article. —Alalch E. 23:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have an implied argument that it being in draft will result in it not being improved. That argument is simply not born out by experience. As it stands now we have a article which claims to be about the candidates for the next Australian federal election which has absolutely no idea who the vast majority of those candidates are. That is evidenced by the vast amount of empty space found in the tables contained in the article. TarnishedPath^talk 04:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, promote to mainspace as new information has been added since the AFD nomination This is a fair reading of the discussion, and I cannot find obvious error in the top line close. As SmokeyJoe says above, passing WP:N does not necessarily mean a stand-alone page is warranted. That said, looking at the draft page, there does seem to be multiple nominees already determined, so I believe that whatever the result here, this page will be in the mainspace soon. --Enos733 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the edits since the last move the draft have been small. The only substantial edit was one I preformed adding in archived links to existing references which is not what I would call a change to content. TarnishedPath^talk 04:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are referring to changes made since the article was nominated for deletion, not since the article was moved to draft. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the scope of the problem - because there are multiple reliably sourced nominees, the topic is no longer TOOSOON and is ready to be moved into mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 04:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) there is a premise here that this information is needed now. But looking at Next Australian federal election the election is very unlikely to be called before 3rd of August. Additionally, the redistribution will not be finalised to Q3 or Q4 of this year. So Sept/Oct is a more reasonable time to review draft status. The article is trying to publish too much. Looking at this alternate draft User:J2m5/draft6 we see only 34 potential candidates so far for 150 seats. But the tabular format of this article reserves space for approx 600 to 700 potential candidates, many who will never actually appear. Now senate potnetial candidates have been added, but these are the last to be pre-selected as they only represent a state and not a single electorate. Hence the unbalanced look of largely empty tables. It also has too much conjecture. The seat of North Sydney may well be abolished, so better to wait for the redistrubtion than list speculative pre-selected candidates. The issue of party pre-selection ballots were deemed as inappropriate and often unsourced in an earlier article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023–24 Liberal Party of Australia preselections, but they have appeared again in this article, contrary to an AfD decision. A entry is made for an attempt by 2 candidates to share a seat in Higgins in Victoria. But this is an impossibility as only a single name can appear on the candidate nomination form. This non-encylopedic approach should be cleared up before this article can be considered for mainspace. Teraplane (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the tabular format of this article reserves space for approx 600 to 700 potential candidates, many who will never actually appear. This is completely untrue, the tables contain spaces for parties which contest all the seats. Regardless, this discussion isn't to determine whether the article should be deleted, but whether the closure of the deletion discussion was adequately representative of the discussion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid close. The question at DRV is whether the close was a valid close, not whether another close would have been valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Version 1.0 Editorial Team Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates