Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recent

WP:DELREVD

Instructions[edit]

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[edit]


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 23}}</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 23}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2024 May 23\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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".

Recent discussions[edit]

15 May 2024[edit]

Mitslal Kifleyesus-Matschie (closed)[edit]

Mitslal Kifleyesus-Matschie – Deletion endorsed; recreation by a non-sockpuppet is of course allowed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like to request a deletion review for the subject. It is a notable subject and remained there for almost a year. I would really appreciate a constructive dialog on said matter. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.188.92.234 (talk • contribs)

Endorse the G5 but allow recreation by any editor in good standing. The article was created and substantially only edited by a confirmed sock of User:Wrathofyazdan, and deleted as such. A quick look didn't reveal any independent SIGCOV about the subject, but I might have missed something. I see no reason to forbid recreation, ideally as a draft, by a legitimate editor. Owen× ☎ 16:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G5 per OwenX. As the reason for this deletion is due to a blocked user being its only substantial author, and not due to content, recreation by any user in good standing is explicitly allowed. Frank Anchor 13:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the G5 per above, you are welcome to re-create the article if notable though. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 17 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.

14 May 2024[edit]

User talk:216.15.18.224 – Withdrawn ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 16:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was speedily deleted under G6 midway through an MfD discussion in which multiple editors had argued in favour of keeping it. The deletion was therefore not uncontroversial maintenance, and is (in my view) out of process. In my opinion, the page should be undeleted, and the MfD reopened to finish running its course. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 15:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy deletion, (a) because as most people said at the MFD, there is no rational need for it, and (b) there is possibly a privacy aspect here. But mostly per (c) process for process sake is an actively harmful attitude. WP:IAR is still a thing. That said, Bbb23 was pretty optimistic when he deleted this to save people from having to argue some more. Silly Bbb23, the entire purpose of Wikipedia is to argue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. G6 was wrong, but the page clearly qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:U2, with the same outcome. I have no problem moving Mandiace's month-old request for help to their own Talk page. But frankly, I can't believe a dozen editors wasted time on that MfD, and who knows how many more will waste time on this pointless DRV. Please withdraw and I'll move that help tag myself. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The help request was moved to Mandiace's Talk page. Still there although I think Mandiace is gone.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request to withdraw, I’m considering doing so, given the initial comments here. However, I don’t believe U2 would have been valid either, given that multiple editors in good faith had opposed the page’s deletion at all - it still would have short-circuited an ongoing deletion discussion in which such opposition had been expressed. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 15:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy deletion, already consensus for that in the MfD. The whole business is a mind-numbing waste of editor time and energy, resources that could have been spent on actually improving the encyclopaedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse U2 but not undeletion. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment which is the reality: And if the MFD was a waste of time, this is also a waste of time. Just let it stay deleted, no point in trying to reinstate it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 16:02, 14 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.

13 May 2024[edit]

janno Lieber – Speedy closed as a disruptive appeal for a disruptive AfD. Anon appellant blocked for one week, User:Railrider12 indef blocked as an account created specifically for this trolling AfD. Both were warring with the non-admin closer, who correctly speedy closed the disruptive AfD. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disputed closure of bio article. 170.167.196.16 (talk) 15:58, 13 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.

12 May 2024[edit]

'phone – The closure of the 2007 deletion discussion is endorsed, recreation is allowed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems like a flawed nomination. See wikt:'phone. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse regretfully Allow recreation. We need a good reason to delete a redirect, especially for a word that appears in the dictionary, and no such reason was provided by the Delete !voters on that RfD. But the closing admin correctly read the consensus. In a WP search for 'phone, the "Telephone" result doesn't even appear in the top 200 results. This was a correct, but unfortunate closure that should now be amended. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation for how long its been since the RfD Mach61 18:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to formally review a 17 year old XFD. Just recreate it and if someone has an issue, a new discussion can happen. Star Mississippi 00:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of this nomination is that it's per WP:DRVPURPOSE #3, as otherwise a recreation of this redirect would potentially be liable to be G4ed. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may very well be correct, but I've seen that applied to maybe 17 month old discussions. Nothing of this vintage. No sane patroller is going to scream G4 at a 2007-era discussion. Oh wait, don't we have a 20 year old one here now? Oops Star Mississippi 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~ [Send to RfD after Stifle's comment]. The participants made the wrong arguments based on a wrong understanding of the facts and the outcome is wrong. The RfD should be voided leading to undeletion. It doesn't matter how old it is.—Alalch E. 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sending a redlink to RfD is silly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They (obviously) mean to restore the redirect and procedurally nominate it at RFD. Like, y'know, it used to be standard practice for anything restored by DRV and VFU before it. —Cryptic 01:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation as a plausible redirect. The closer correctly interpreted consensus, but the nomination was flawed. Frank Anchor 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are we being asked to overturn a 17-year-old close, or to allow recreation? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation subject to a new RFD. There has to be a time limit on deletions of redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. It would be an unlikely/implausible redirect; nobody types that into search. Stifle (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. In my opinion, the existence of wikt:'phone demonstrates the plausibility of this as a redirect. No need to send directly to RfD from deletion review, as any editor who wishes to start an RfD may do so. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 10:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Waste of time nomination. Do not bring old things to DRV without a reason, such as an active disagreement, a warning, SALT, etc. Boldly create if you’re sure, anyone can RfD it, or if you’re not sure, find something else to do. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This recreated redirect would be liable to G4, and, for example, Stifle (who does not support its retention) could simply G4 it, uncontestably. —Alalch E. 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be the proper time to bring this to DRV. —Cryptic 11:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This preemptive DRV serves to waste volunteer time now because someone might hypothetically waste volunteer time.

Things should not be brought to DRV just because something was done wrong, there should be an actual problem to fix. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with that. —Alalch E. 15:21, 17 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.

Ami Dror – Was headed to an endorse close, and nom is OK with the close. Issues around AfD participation and best practices can be hashed out elsewhere Star Mississippi 12:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a extremely contentious Afd that was closed by the admin with a simple keep as though they were closing an Afd opened by mistake. None of the problem inherent in the Afd discussion were addresed. From the canvassing at the beginning, to the the whole course of the keep !votes being based on false premises, hand-waving and wilful (supposed) ignorance of policy, particularly ignorance of the WP:O Note d, i.e. the idea that interviews can prove a person notable. These arguments have been given false creedence that has lead to a false keep !vote. It should have been delete, or at the worst no consensus. Now we have been left with a group that thinks its ok to use interviews to prove notability. I think the whole thing feels staged. scope_creep^Talk 13:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I agree with the appellant that the closing statement could have benefited from at least a brief closing rationale. I also agree that there was plenty of obvious canvassing, a litany of meritless "Keep" votes (not "!votes"), and incorrect categorization of sources as independent. However, even when you discard all those votes, we're still left with no consensus to delete. Doczilla is an experienced admin, and I'm sure he gave those canvassed, ILIKEIT-type votes the weight they deserve, namely, zero. Had he added a terse explanation of his close, it would be obvious. In my read of that AfD, the Delete views indeed carry more weight than the Keeps, but not overwhelmingly so. Is it really worth our while here to overturn this to a "No consensus", with the only practical effect being an earlier potential renomination? Unlike the appellant, I don't believe this close sets a precedent about the use of interviews as proof of notability. Most of those Keeps have no interest in our P&G, and are merely citing whatever they believe will get their pet page kept. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate and relist or alternatively overturn to no consensus and allow immediate renomination (involved), as per my comment in the AfD I found the vast majority of the keep votes/!votes to be just about worthless with regards to our P&G's (with one or two exceptions). I believe that the current closes available would be 'no consensus' or 'delete', but I also believe an extra 7 days may have led to an actual consensus (given the delete !votes came late). Alternatively, explicitly allowing immediate renomination (with a 'clean' restart) may also be beneficial to finding a true P&G-based consensus either way. I don't think this should have been closed as 'keep', and in the absence of an extended closing statement, I cannot see how that conclusion was reached. Daniel (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support the nom, User:Scope creep, but really, he should be advocating a single outcome. Reading through the AfD, I cannot find two sources that meeting the GNG. It’s unfortunate that someone is saying interviews don’t meet WP:SECONDARY, because that is not true. The problem with whether the sources are independent. Content sourced from the subject via interview of the subject con at be independent of the subject.

I’m leaning to “Overturn (to no consensus) and allow standard WP:RENOM in two months”. I don’t see a case for unusual urgency in solving this one. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved, but I would have loved some sort of statement by Doczilla regarding the close, either in the close or on their talk page. I don't care what happens here, but the close does need a good explanation, which could have been provided with some talk page patience. SportingFlyer T·C 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I closed this after one week when there were no delete votes. This was undone on the basis that it was a controversial close and required an admin. All I see is the nom badgering and threatening people with ANI in a lost and hopeless cause. So we're supposed to overturn this to no consensus and give "super weight" to the few delete votes? I don't agree. The closer could have given a few words of explanation especially given the nom has fought too hard here. But the close is correct. Desertarun (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your close, and can find no good reason to criticize. scope_creep does not make himself look good on your user_talk page. I long observe that terse nominations often result in trainwrecks. scope_creep should follow advice at WP:RENOM. It's not enough to be right, you have to get people to agree with you. "A large number of references are terrible" is not convincing. For an article that looks good, the flipside of WP:THREE applies. The nominator should make the case that the best three sources are not good enough. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Endorse. This was by no means an extremely contentious Afd, and only gave the appearance of being contentious because Scope Creep forced their view on others by commenting 24(!) times (excluding the nom and stricken comments) throughout the discussion. Even discounting sock and WP:PERX votes, there is clearly not consensus to delete and little indication such consensus would form. ~~My endorse !vote is only "weak" due to~~ There was a late, well-reasoned delete !vote by Daniel (but not the other late delete vote, which is a glorified PERX). Relisting ~~would~~ could be viable option to allow time to discuss this !vote, but my first preference is to endorse the keep close. Frank Anchor 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: strengthened my endorse vote after review of Scope creep’s unjustified harassment of the first closer along with this user’s history of harassing other users. The first close was valid and should have stood. Frank Anchor 01:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. - From this vantage point, it is obvious that general notability has been met. The level of scrutiny exhibited towards this specific article both here and on the previous Afd discussions, the underlying motives behind the incessant WP:BADGERING, by members of this forum, which are transparent in previous discussions, and the obsessiveness in which actions are continually being taken, only make the importance of this article that much clearer to me. --Omer Toledano (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse, or Relist, as discussed below - My reading of the participation is that, until 24 hours before closing, there was one policy-based Delete !vote, by the nominator/appellant, two policy-based Keep !votes, by North8000 and Longhornsg, ~~and 8~~6 Keep !votes of uncertain quality that may have just been I Like It, and 2 Keep !votes from editors who were not Extended-Confirmed. At the end, there was one more policy-and-guideline based Delete and one more Delete that I consider of uncertain quality. So, at the close, there were two good-quality Keep !votes, two good-quality Delete !votes, 8 questionable Keeps, and one uncertain Delete. The closer was using reasonable judgment in giving some weight to the questionable Keeps and closing to Keep. Even if the closer had ignored all of the questionable Keeps, the result would have been No Consensus. There is no way that a closer could have twisted this to a Delete. Keep is a valid conclusion by the closer.
- - The closer should have made some statement concerning weighing the various comments, and addressing the nominator's concerns. DRV doesn't overturn a valid close simply because it was inadequately explained.
  - The arguments by the nominator/appellant are that the sources are garbage. Some of the sources are garbage. With 58 sources of varying quality, the burden should be on the nominator to provide a source analysis demonstrating that there are not three independent sources that provide significant coverage.
  - My own opinion, without having assessed the sources, is that it is in the interests of the readers for the English Wikipedia to have an article about the subject. The Ignore All Rules approach would be to say that it is in the interests of the reader for the encyclopedia to have an article on the subject. However, in my opinion, this is a situation where the rules can be applied carefully for the interests of the reader of the encyclopedia, by source assessment.
  - If the AFD is relisted, the purpose of the relist should be to give the nominator time to provide a source analysis showing that the sources are garbage. Other editors can provide source analyses showing that there are at least three independent sources that provide significant coverage.
  - It is true that assessing 58 sources will be work for the nominator/appellant. The burden of proving that all of the sources are garbage should be on the nominator. Most of the sources probably are garbage, and some of them probably are good sources.
  - Either leave the close standing, or give the appellant a week to show that all of the sources are garbage.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I'm not doing that. It is waste of time, like Afd. You seem to have taken a bullet list from somewhere without reading Afd. A source analysis was done. There is not 1 secondary source in that whole WP:BLP. Not one. scope_creep^Talk 08:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With so many Keep votes there is little incentive to give lengthy thoughtful keep votes. I believe some of those weak/PERX votes would convert into something stronger in another AFD. Desertarun (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Two of the Keep votes were from editors who were not Extended-Confirmed, and so should have been stricken as excluded under Palestine-Israel restrictions. The nominator would have presented a less bad case if they had raised this issue, which is clear, instead of or in addition to yelling "canvassing". That leaves 6 Keeps of arguable quality, and the close is still plausible. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse 1) Doczilla rarely if ever provides statements when closing AfDs; this is not a new phenomenon and heretofore not a particular problem. 2) The NAC should have been allowed to stand... "I wanted to add a vote" isn't a good reason to revert a close, and yes, a NAC closure after the initial relist was just fine in the absence of actual votes against the emerging consensus. 3) Interviews are not inherently non-independent. Good interviews from reputable journalists do their own fact checking, such that the subject's words aren't accepted uncritically and unrebutted. The policy summary that says "Interviews aren't independent" is a horrible and inappropriate oversimplification. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DRV doesn't overturn a valid close simply because it was inadequately explained

DRV has to be able to overturn due to inadequate explanation, or there is no requirement on closers to provide adequate explanation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reclose or relist Step by step:
- The discussion was bad. The keep !votes seemed to be canvased and the main delete contributor was way over the top (more than half of all the words in the AfD perhaps?).
- The close was bad. A discussion with all the issues that one had needs a clearly explained close. As Robert notes, some (2?) of the keep !votes shouldn't have been counted. Were they? No clue, the closer gave us no idea. Was canvasing relevant? No idea? Strength of arguments? Again, no idea.
- Keeping this is probably the right thing I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems very clear to me that this person is notable. Plenty of independent coverage. Is THREE met? Maybe not, but the weight of all the sources, many independent and reliable, is enough to get us well past WP:N. And that's the bar.

I lean toward a WP:FISH for Scope creep (at the least learn to be more concise, but if you find yourself that invested in an AfD you need to walk away) and Doczilla (don't close continuous AfDs if you aren't willing to put in the time to explain what you're doing) and either a reclose or relist. Hobit (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be doing that but your absolutely right. I was too close to it and shouldn't have been done it. Its impossible to get these trash article deleted now on Wikipedia. It cannot be done and everybody knows it and the reason Afd is failing. I'm tired of trying to fight battles that can't be won. The whole Afd system is broken and has been for a very long while and the whole thing feels like a group failure. No more Afd's for me. This can closed. I've no interest in it. scope_creep^Talk 08:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, this isn't a trash article. There is a ton of coverage and the article is written fairly well. Is it over our inclusion bar? I'd say yes, you'd say no. AfD isn't failing--it's doing it's job and mostly (mostly) doing it well. The drop in participation is painful. This particular AfD is broken. And the big problem was that enough folks outside of the PI conflict didn't get involved. That's how to address AfDs with the issues we have here--lots of dispassionate outside eyes. And the drop in participation does make that more difficult. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 14 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.

11 May 2024[edit]

Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion – I have reopened this per WP:NACD, as "an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning". I agree with the applicant here (and subsequent comments from uninvovled participants) that this was not a good NAC, both due to the discussion being closed citing "SNOW" despite not meeting the threshold for that, and for not having any additional justification provided as part of the close. I will relist for 7 days to get it on a new 'log' page and allow for continued discussion about SUSTAINED. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The argument that the article do not meet WP:SUSTAINED has not been attended by the closer. There are no reliable sources on the article subject other than within the last 2 months in 2023, and no such sources were presented during the deletion discussion. More on it at User talk:Cocobb8/Archives/2024/May#Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relist and let an admin close. The rush to close the AfD "per SNOW" eight hours before the seven days were up smacks of an attempt to prevent anyone else from closing it, rather than a bona fide reduction in pointless process. The concern of the nom in the AfD was not addressed by any of the Keep !votes, half of which were a variant of ILIKEIT, and the other half - little more than a VAGUEWAVE. Granted, there was clearly no consensus to delete at that point, but relisting it for another seven days (or even another six days and 16 hours) may have garnered more useful opinions, preferably P&G-based ones. Owen× ☎ 21:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I actually observe the pattern of just counting votes and deciding based on that, not on quality of argument, even among the admins.
What's P&G? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"P&G" stands for "policies and guidelines". When you see an acronym "XYZ" here, it's often shorthand for "WP:XYZ", in this case, WP:P&G. Owen× ☎ 21:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owen×, I've observed that many NAC closures are early closures. AGF, I think they want to gain experience with closures but with a current shortage of closers, it's usually unnecessary to do closures early. I don't want to single out this closure as it's just a trend I've noticed this year. I've seen "SNOW" closes with only 3 or 4 discussion participants which is not how I interpret SNOW to work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen I agree that a NAC SNOW--especially with only four opinions listed, as I've always understood the unwritten rule on SNOW to be 6 unanimous votes and 24 elapsed hours--is an unusual and possibly problematic occurrence. Let's let an admin handle this one. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate per above to allow an admin to close or relist. Too few opinions to be considered a NAC snow close. Frank Anchor 23:53, 11 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.

Moroccanoil – moot given RFDs don't apply to articles and now that an article has been created as the nom wishes. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meets notability guidelines for being an incredibly well-known cosmetics brand and considering the high level of controversy at this year's Eurovision Song Contest, the sponsorship of which by Moroccanoil is a major contributor of, an article is definitely both topical and necessary. Kapitan110295 (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the closure of the 2021 RFD, but the appellant does not appear to have an issue with the 2021 RFD. The appellant may either develop a draft on Draft:Moroccanoil for review via AFC or develop a new article subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. @Kapitan110295: overturning the three year old RfD would result in restoring Moroccanoil as a redirect to the Besiyata Dishmaya article, which is not what you want (and unlikely to happen anyway). Instead, I suggest you withdraw this appeal, and follow Robert McClenon's advice and start a new draft. Owen× ☎ 10:38, 11 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.

10 May 2024[edit]

Draft:Kashana Cauley – People have various qualms about how we got here, but the end result is clearly endorsed. Feel free to start an AfD if desired. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This draft was nominated under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, and - after the discussion had been open for over a week - it was procedurally closed by a non-admin after their moving of the draft to mainspace. As I mentioned on the closer's talk, I believe that this was a bad close for several reasons:

I don't believe that it was fair towards the nominator or the discussion's participants for the (reasonably well-attended) MfD to have been procedurally closed based on a move that occurred some time after the discussion had started (in addition, I would question whether it's appropriate to move a draft currently at MfD to mainspace at all, given that this could effectively short-circuit/nullify any discussion that had already taken place). I see this as especially true due to the fact that, in this situation, the same rationale - WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - applies regardless of the discussion venue.
Given the split of opinions expressed by editors in the MfD, I believe that this was a WP:BADNAC - i.e., that [t]he outcome [was] a close call...or likely to be controversial, and so the MfD should therefore have been closed by an administrator. (I'd also argue that closing this discussion as procedural close was likely to be controversial in and of itself.)
The closer was involved with regards to the page in question, having edited the draft and accepted it/moved it to mainspace. I disagree with the closer's assertion that their involvement does not matter...because the close is of a procedural type - there is nothing in WP:PROCEDURAL that excludes such closes from the requirement to be uninvolved, and I don't believe that this is an appropriate situation to IAR.

I therefore believe that the closure should be overturned, and the page moved back to draftspace pending the outcome of the MfD. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own procedural close. The close was a mere recording of an objective fact that the discussed page is no more from the standpoint of MfD. There had been a draft and then the draft was no more, so there's nothing to do in an MfD. That's not a close call or a non-close call, it's not a call. There is no dispute in which I might be involved. The AfC accept was not an outcome of the MfD discussion. The mainspacing comes fist in time and in the logic of things. The close is just a recording an objective fact that came first, indpendently from the MfD. I could, in my independent capacity, and I did, accept the submission because the submission is okay, and that is for an AfC reviewer to decide, not for MfD, as MfD is not a venue to review pending AfC submissions. A running MfD does not suspend AfC, and does not transform drafting from an optional to an obligatory apparatus. Once the move is performed WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies and the only recourse is AfD. I notified the concerned subject at User talk:Blacksun83#Article instructing her to start an AfD if they wish.—Alalch E. 11:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Following this logic, if there was an AfD open, and someone unilaterally moved it to draft during the discussion, would that mean that the AfD would need to be procedurally closed as "the discussed page is no more from the standpoint of [AfD]. There had been a[n article] and then the [article] was no more, so there's nothing to do in an [AfD]"? I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with unilateral page moves to render a discussion mid-way through moot. Daniel (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It isn't symmetrical. Drafting is an optional mechanism, subservient to the encyclopedia in the narrower sense (the article space). Article space takes precedence and is where the matter of what pages constitute the encyclopedia gets truly settled. It would not be appropriate to move to draftspace during a running AfD, but it is appropriate to mainspace during a running MfD. MfD discussions about deleting drafts quickly stop making sense when editors in good standing (multiple in this case) start believing that the page should not be a draft but an article. That's generally when MfD should stop and AfD should start. MfDs to delete drafts are for very problematic pages that exist as drafts for which no one thinks they are worthy of article space, and the issue is whether it's sufficiently important and purposeful to delete those drafts before G13 kicks in (often a pretty esoteric question and often useless to even contemplate). When a reasonable AfC submission is made and editors exist who believe that not only should the page not be deleted, but that it should be an article (entirely different from merely not deleting the draft which is independent from the issue of whether that page will ever become an article), that transforms the nature of the dispute: It's not about whether to delete quicker than the natural course of things dictates, it's about whether to have or not to have a particular article in the encyclopedia, which is an issue of article deletion/retention, and is no longer a topical matter in an MfD. —Alalch E. 12:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can sort-of accept that. I'll say endorse close of the MfD, while noting I'm still not 100% sold on the act of moving an article from Draft to mainspace halfway through an MfD. But that's a totally different conversation. Daniel (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close this and start a fresh AfD. WP:BADNAC is there to prevent adjudication by those who don't have the tools, the experience, or the trust of the community to close such discussions. However, in this case, no adjudication was required. The closer merely informed participants that the MfD was now moot, as the closer has already moved the article to mainspace. Yes, it was the same closer who moved the page from draft to mainspace, but they did so rigorously following our AfC guidelines. Since no adjudication was required in the procedural close of the MfD, the issue of WP:INVOLVED is also of no practical bearing. Had Alalch E. accepted the AfC and asked a fellow editor to close the MfD, the result couldn't have been any different. Such an extra step seems redundant, although it's fair to ask whether it should be followed for appearances' sake.

Should the AfC have been accepted while the MfD was open? A case could be made for withholding AfC acceptance until the MfD (which was already open for nine days!) was closed, although I don't see any such requirement in our policies. But what would be the benefit of such a delay? Deleting the draft would not create a G4 basis for deleting a subsequent mainspace article anyway. And with sourcing that meets our BLP policy, any editor, including the original author of the draft, would be rightly encouraged to recreate the article for an apparently notable person. Which brings me to my recommendation of withdrawing this DRV, and starting a fresh AfD for the article, ideally notifying all the participants of the MfD. Once deleted in mainspace, recreation will be restricted based on our policies, which is the remedy the appellant and the subject of the article are seeking. Owen× ☎ 12:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Hi, I am the subject of the article as well as the nominator, and I think this outcome was fair to me, the person who made the deletion request in the first place, for reasons I will explain below. I became aware that there was a draft about me when I started to be deluged by scammers who wanted me to pay them to rewrite it and get it accepted. It got so bad that I took my publicly available email off the internet, but they still kept coming. I figured I had two options to try and get them to stop contacting me: I could try to get the article deleted, or I could try to get it accepted. Acceptance seemed complicated and less favorable, since I honestly thought the draft should have been accepted in the first place, since my novel was selected for two things: indies introduce and indie next, that are an enormous deal in the book world. So when it was declined, I realized I didn’t know what qualified for wiki acceptance, or even how to go about trying to get acceptance without running afoul of the conflict of interest guidelines. Requesting a deletion seemed like the more straightforward option, so I tried that. I was well aware that I might be deemed notable over the course of the review, since my novel has enjoyed even more of the non-interview, secondary coverage you all prefer here since the first version of the article was submitted. I have looked over the accepted article and think it is accurate, and a fine article to have on Wikipedia. Having an accepted article will also make the scammers who want me to pay to get an article accepted lose interest in emailing me all the time, so it is also, in my opinion, an ok option, and an outcome that fulfills my original goal of defeating the scammers. I obviously cannot speak for all the people involved in the other discussion, and for all I know, if the article is kept an entirely new type of scammer may fall out of the sky, but the outcome of all of this is an article I approve of. Thank you, User talk:Alalch E.. Blacksun83 (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. You're also welcome to suggest changes to the article on its talk page, especially as new independent reliable sources emerge in the future, enabling more comprehensive coverage. I'm sorry about your experience with the scammers. The best way to protect Wikipedia from disruption from the scammers is to keep our processes sane and clean and keep priorities straight at all times. —Alalch E. 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Thanks again! Blacksun83 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~IAR Delete~~ which I am fully aware isn't an answer here. When you have a draft that the subject does not want, for myriad reasons, moving it to mainspace because you can is not what should be done especially when consensus at MfD is trending toward deletion. This is not what is intended by draftspace being optional. ~~So within policy, move back to draft space where there are fewer eyes on it, and let the MfD run. If consensus changes, AfC can be determined. Star Mississippi 13:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)~~ Leaving the first part, which was less about this situation and more in general of procedure. But in light of the subject's comment (thanks both for the heads up) I guess my BLP comment is moot. To closer: please don't let my comment stand in the way. Star Mississippi 14:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the comment by the user who says they are the subject and who had originated the BLPREQUESTDELETE left in this DRV: Special:Diff/1223182504/1223192509 —Alalch E. 14:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as appellant: Following the comment here by the article's subject, I no longer seek this page's deletion/moving back to draftspace. I'm not closing this review as withdrawn, as I still believe that the closure was procedurally erroneous given the information available at the time (and so stand by my request for its review), as other editors have commented on the issue of moving the draft to mainspace mid-MfD, and as I can't speak for all of the participants who !voted delete in that discussion. That being said, I'd like to apologise to Blacksun83 for the somewhat drawn-out process that this has become, and for any part I've played in that - and I hope that this puts an end to you being contacted by the scammers. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 14:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and thank you. Blacksun83 (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Procedural MfD close. Whether moving something from draft to mainspace while an MfD is in process is procedurally appropriate is a separate question, but an MfD can't delete a mainspace article, full stop, so the close was proper. Separately, the article subject appears notable based on the coverage in the article at the time I write this, so regardless of what it looked like before, it almost certainly should not be deleted on the basis of subject request, because LPI/NPF is for edge cases and does not apply to someone who unequivocally meets notability criteria. We should explore other ways besides deletion to help the article subject minimize disruption brought on by becoming "notable" in Wikipedia's eyes. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse procedural MFD close per above. Anyone can start an AFD on the newly mainspaced article if they so choose. Frank Anchor 16:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse procedural MfD close given Blacksun83's comments here and their withdrawal of their nomination in the MfD. If people wish to take it to AfD I'm sure they can work it out. TarnishedPath^talk 06:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as moot per Blacksun83. For the record the procedural close was clearly wrong at the time it was made, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Involved Endorse - I originally !voted to Delete, based on the request of the subject, and now support retention of the article based on the changed opinion of the subject, as well as the marginal notability of the subject. The closer was right in closing the MFD based on the changed circumstances. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're currently at a good outcome where the deletion rationale no longer applies, so this is basically moot. However, I have a big problem with a procedural close of an MfD after the user procedurally closed it had accepted it at AfC, therefore being involved, and while quite rare, would have !voted to overturn on those grounds if the deletion rationale still existed. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important point, but I didn't belabor this point as DRV is not a user conduct review forum. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome any comments on my talk page. —Alalch E. 10:30, 14 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.

9 May 2024[edit]

French ship Gapeau (B284) – Overturned * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A contentious AfD closed by a non-admin as a "no consensus / leaning keep", four days after it being relisted. Closing rationale makes it clear the closer was aware of the contentiousness, yet chose to ignore it. I reverted the close as an obvious BADNAC, with a polite notice on the closer's Talk page. The closer chose to lash back at me and re-close. I believe this one is best left for an admin to close, once the seven days since the last relist are up. Owen× ☎ 11:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, OwenX, for misrepresenting me. See my close for full detail. To clarify their points:
It was not a particularly contentious topic or discussion, the latter being, while small, always calm. My closing rationale does not indicate otherwise.
OwenX may not have refreshed themselves with WP:RELIST, but they are repeating the same error here as they made at my talk: it is explicitly allowed to close before a seven-day period after a relist is up, if a determination can be made. And since that determination can include a determination that no consensus can be reached, there was no early close.
More generally, can OwenX dial back the bad faith? I did not "ignore" anything; I did not "lash back" (indeed, I had already reclosed when I saw his message, as I had added a corollary); this language is merely an attempt to present the NAC as knee-jerk, hotheaded action performed in ignorance. It was none of those things; I was not uncivil (unless being wrong is no longer grounds for being told one is wrong. of course).
Since their submission here is based solely on the grounds of a non-contentious discussion/topic being a bad nac when there was no such contention, and secondly on a misreading of our relist procedure, I suggest the submission falls. ——Serial Number 54129 11:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that this was an uncontentious AfD is, on its face, wrong. The nom from Fram was well-reasoned, there was a strong argument for Delete from Oaktree b, and a valid ATD suggested by The ed17. WP:BADNAC clearly tells us: A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations: [...] The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.. The fact that you closed it as "no consensus" tells us that this was a close call, making it a BADNAC. The issue of early closure is just the icing on this cake. Owen× ☎ 11:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Per WP:NACD, deletion-related closes by a non-admin can be reopened by an uninvolved administrator acting in their individual capacity giving their reasoning; which is what seems to have happened here. While OwenX’s reopening can of course be challenged, my impression is that Serial Number 54129 should not have reclosed the discussion after OwenX took an administrative action to revert his previous close. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and allow for closure by an admin. The DRV should have happened in lieu of Serial's re-close if Serial believed Owen's re-close was wrong. Owen's re-opening was fine per an unsettled discussion. Star Mississippi 13:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I'm not as big on the NAC essay as some of the other people at DRV, but this close is effectively Serial overturning the decision of an administrator unilaterially. Mach61 13:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn obvious WP:BADNAC and allow an admin to close. NACs are limited to discussions that are non-controversial, and a thrice-relisted discussion generally implies there is back-and-forth discussion and reasonable votes on either side. I do think NC is a reasonable outcome here, but should be left to an admin after the recent relist period is completed. Frank Anchor 16:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to allow for an admin closure.
- - This close raises the same issue about bad non-administrative closure as other similar closes to come here to Deletion Review, which is when or whether a non-admin may close a deletion discussion as No Consensus. The language in question is
    A non-admin closure is not appropriate in any of the following situations:… The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial.
    It seems clear to the appellant and to the editors here who are saying to Overturn that a No Consensus call is almost always a close call, because there are almost always at least two valid outcomes. It therefore seems clear to some editors that a non-administrative close of No Consensus is almost always wrong. However, this closer is not the first non-admin to disagree with the overturning of their No Consensus call. Clearly there is disagreement about this information page and the guideline that it interprets. This disagreement should be discussed further at the Village Pump.
  - In the meantime, this closure was a close call, and the fact that it is here at Deletion Review is a controversy.
  - The closer was in particular wrong in reclosing, which is a form of wheel warring.
  - This close should be overturned. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. A reasonable finding of a lack of consensus in a close by a non-admin is self-defeating because it translates to a reasonable estimation of the situation as a close call... so that editor, a non-admin, should not have closed. It could be argued that an "obvious" 'no consensus' close is not a close call, and in DRV we often see comments of the "obvious 'no consensus' close, no other way to close" type, but administrators can close even "/purportedly/ obvious 'no consensus'" discussions in a particular non-'no-consensus' way, by spotting a rough consensus after all, after weighing the arguments, using perhaps a non-obvious, but valid and acceptable reasoning, and while many such closes are less obvious or may be quite non-obvious, they can still be reasonable (and sometimes quite excellent and illuminating), and these closes would, in the alternative scenario involving the same discussion, also be endorsed—this time not as "obvious, no other way etc etc", but as "could also have been X, but Y is reasonable" or similar. And the latter type of truly contentious closes, that hinge on reasonableness, are obviously totally reserved for administrators. And when a non-administrator closes as no-consensus, even if it's an "obvious" 'no consensus', they eliminate this possibility, and that's not a net positive, because the possibility to get some other outcome should be left available to be exploited by an admin. It's for administrators to explore the realm of possibility and decide whether to make a "safer" or a more "risky" close; the latter is sometimes necessary to move things forward.—Alalch E. 23:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Any action that would constitute wheel warring if taken by an admin, should, if taken by a non-admin, result in a block and topic ban from the affected process of an appropriate duration. Since DRV isn't the forum to decide that, the non-admin closer should carefully take this under advisement. Revert wars in admin areas or functions are just not appropriate. Oh, and yes, it shouldn't have been non-admin closed in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn, an uninvolved administrator reopened a debate per DELPRO#NAC in their individual capacity. To then see it re-closed by the same non-administrator is very unusual, and is a non-tools-used form of wheel warring (as Robert M and Jclemens put it above). Daniel (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as a WP:BADNAC, since an administrative closer could have found for delete, i.e. the close was contentious. Re-closing after the close was vacated was more than just a trout-worthy error of judgment. SportingFlyer T·C 22:40, 12 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.