Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard

For bot-related matters:
Bots noticeboard

Evaluating consensus before closing:
Discussions for discussion

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

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

Purpose

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. 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);
  2. (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.)
  3. 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);
  4. 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);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. 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.)
  10. 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, and 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.

Instructions

Shortcut

Before listing a review request, please:

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

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=2025 September 19}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 September 19}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 September 19|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

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 or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".

Active discussions

19 September 2025

18 September 2025

Nicola Paparusso

Nicola Paparusso (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletion underestimated the availability of significant independent sources. Paparusso is verifiably notable as a cultural organizer and producer with sustained coverage in reliable media, institutional endorsements, and international impact. With improved sourcing and a neutral rewrite, the article should be restored. Afí-afeti (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn – The article on Nicola Paparusso meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. The AfD resulted in deletion due to perceived lack of in-depth sourcing, but substantial, reliable coverage is available in national and international media documenting his career as a cultural organizer and communications producer.

1. - Significant Independent Coverage

  • ANSA (Italy’s national news agency) covered Naomi Campbell receiving the La Moda Veste la Pace award, conceived by Paparusso, confirming the award’s cultural importance and Paparusso’s role in it.
  • Milano Finanza reported Paparusso’s involvement with the presentation of the documentary Anime di coraggio at the Venice Film Festival in 2025, demonstrating his contributions to internationally recognized cultural productions.
  • Il Messaggero has covered African Fashion Gate (AFG), the cultural association founded by Paparusso, linking him to international cultural initiatives.
  • Il Messaggero also highlighted Paparusso’s cultural programming in television and events, further confirming sustained coverage.

2. - Institutional Backing

  • La Moda Veste la Pace is presented under the patronage of Italy’s National Anti-Discrimination Office (UNAR) and the Camera Nazionale della Moda Italiana, both authoritative cultural institutions.
  • The 2023 edition was held at the Spazio Europa venue in Rome, with support from European and Italian institutions, underlining official recognition of Paparusso’s initiatives.

3. - International Scope

  • Through African Fashion Gate, Paparusso has connected international fashion leaders (including Naomi Campbell) with anti-racism initiatives, expanding the reach of his work beyond Italy.
  • Multiple outlets across Europe have documented his projects, demonstrating cross-border cultural significance.

--Afí-afeti (talk) 11:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Afí-afeti please limit your participation here to necessary input and let all participants have their voices heard. You were bludgeoning the AfD and that will not be helpful again here. Star Mississippi 12:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks for the reminder. Afí-afeti (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is the filing editor alleging an error by the closer, or is the filing editor requesting to consider additional sources? The instructions at the top of this noticeboard state:

    Deletion review should not 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, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted

    • If this filing is based on some error by the closer, 'Endorse or Speedy Endorse because no such error has been stated.
    • If this filing is a request to consider other sources, Procedural Close because the filer should submit a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete and salt PROMO/COI, bludgeoning process, and what even looks like a LLM or LLM-like second statement from the appellant. Being required to work in draft and use AfC process before mainspacing is an appropriate consequence for this conduct. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already been deleted, so it's not an overturn. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Correct interpretation of consensus. I can appreciate the frustration above but I agree with the closer that there was no need to salt. One, I don't think a purpose of DRV is to salt articles as punishment. Two, if anything, it's better they went the 'proper' route to challenge instead of recreating it again. Local Variable (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The evidence of gaming the system, combined with the relatively low importance of this topic, make me suggest salting as an appropriate remedy: the encyclopedia is only perhaps trivially poorer, at best, for not having this as a topic. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse accurate reading of consensus and good closure. Nominating statement looks like it was written on Chatgpt which is strongly deprecated. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: here we go again with ChatGPT. The nominator is most likely a paid contributor that engages in canvassing. Conceited effort for paid promotional placements in unreliable Nigerian sources. m a MANÍ1990(talk | contribs) 12:01, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party (Italy)

Revolutionary Communist Party (Italy) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to ask a review of this deletion. The article (now a redirect to For a Revolutionary Left) covered an organisation that has been active since 1986 as a faction and a journal within the Italian Communist Party and the Communist Refoundation Party, and later as an independent party. While its latest name, since 2024, has been "Revolutionary Communist Party (Italy)" (Partito Comunista Rivoluzionario), the organisation was previously known as "HammerSickle" (FalceMartello) and "Left Class Revolution" (Sinistra Classe Rivoluzione). There are tons of sources on the 39-year-old organisation, especially under its previous names, as exemplified by the corresponding article in it.Wikipedia, which by the way has stricter notability conditions for political parties. This said, I would be more than happy to see the deleted article's history rescued and restored, while "Revolutionary Communist Party (Italy)" could well stay as a simple redirect to For a Revolutionary Left (the most recent electoral list Left Class Revolution participated in) or the Communist Refoundation Party (the main party to which HammerSickle / Left Class Revolution was long affiliated, representing big chunks of it, especially of its youth section). -- Checco (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's usual to discuss with, and mandatory to notify, the closing admin when a deletion review is countenanced. That doesn't seem to have happened here. Can the nominator please explain why (or link if I've missed it)? Stifle (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this user is new to the process. SportingFlyer T·C 10:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(closer here) In the appellant's defence, he did contact me about this, but mistakenly did so on the already-closed AfD page. I replied to him on his Talk page with what I believe to be the best way forward. Owen× ☎ 11:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! I did it here, without pinging User:OwenX. As I was advised to do, there are now redirects and a small sub-section on the previous incarnations of the party at For a Revolutionary Left. However, what I am asking is at least to rescue the deleted history and make it visible to users. --Checco (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Checco. I have no objection to restoring the history behind the current redirect. If SportingFlyer agrees, I can do this now and close this DRV as resolved. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, User:OwenX. I hope you can go forward for that. --Checco (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the result - the consensus was to delete. However, I see 87 different sources on the Italian wikipedia page, and these were not really discussed in the AfD. Most are from only one or two websites though. Still, if several of those pass GNG, this could have been deleted by mistake. If these sources are presented, I'd be happy to draftify this to the user. SportingFlyer T·C 10:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the organisation, especially under its previous names, has been active since 1986 and is mentioned in several third-party sources. --Checco (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is the filing editor alleging an error by the closer, or is the filing editor requesting to consider additional sources? The instructions at the top of this noticeboard state:

    Deletion review should not 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, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted

    • If this filing is based on some error by the closer, 'Endorse because the close of Delete was the right conclusion by the closer.
    • If this filing is a request to consider other sources, Procedural Close because the filer should submit a new article.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, while I would not have deleted the article and, probably, under a different name ("HammerSickle" or "Left Class Revolution"), the result would have been different as the two are quite well sourced, I would be OK with restoring the history behind the current redirect. --Checco (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17 September 2025

KP Energy

KP Energy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This topic seems notable and apart from various Keep votes result cant's be 'Delete'. 223.228.213.243 (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13 September 2025

Sam Brock

Sam Brock (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This soft-deleted article has since been recreated only 12 hours after it was deleted. However, the recreated article has since also been tagged for notability. Rather than starting another AfD a week after the first one, I am bringing this article to deletion review, which could result in the possibility of reopening and relisting the original AfD. GTrang (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. It's procedurally correct in this situation to start a new AfD; you can use the identical rationale and ping prior participants. Would reopening and relisting create confusion w/r/t the page logs? It's a new page (despite the short time since deletion), and it was soft-deleted, so it needs a new AfD. Moot for DRV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this wasn't relisted, but yes, just start a new AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist with such little time elapsed since soft deletion and re-creation, the re-creation is obviously a challenge to the soft deletion, and should be construed as a good reason to reopen and continue the discussion which had not previously been maximally relisted--or relisted at all. We might even want to automatically allow a challenge--say, within one week of a soft delete closure--to result in a reopening. But that's just me thinking aloud: not sure if the upsides would justify potential abuses, but my first thought is that this is only applicable to marginal participation discussions anyways. Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist per above. The re-creation was not in any way incorrect as it is explicitly allowed after a soft deletion. With very little time having passed, this would not require a brand new discussion. No need to leave this DRV open for a full week as this is not a DRV matter . Frank Anchor 17:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It could have been closed “delete” but the closers choice of “soft delete” is well within scope, and it is the closer’s responsibility to review strengths of arguments. They were not strong, as none addressed the sources.
Do not relist. Follow WP:RENOM. A better nomination is needed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Recent discussions

11 September 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Japan national under-23 football team results (2020–present) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I contacted administrator Sandstein asking for the content to be made available for a draft, as I believe that with more in-depth research in Japanese sources it would be possible to establish notability. He informed me that he is usually unable to undelete it, so I'm following the request here. It is not a challenge to the decision, just a request for a draft. Svartner (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I initially thought this might merit a procedural close to send the appellant to WP:REFUND as instructed by Sandstein. However, at REFUND, an admin declined the undeletion request as apparently out-of-scope for that venue based on the circumstances. So this seems like the only place left to reach some sort of community/administrative decision on the merits of the request. Courtesy ping to other REFUND participants @UtherSRG and Graeme Bartlett: Left guide (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These instructions at the top of that page are confusing: This means that content deleted after discussion – through deletion processes – may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process but through deletion review instead.. So will they or won't they be refunded? Local Variable (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that you were getting sent in circles, talk referring you to REFUND, and REFUND referring you to talk. Personally I would check the delete discussion, who the requestor is, what the requestor said, and what is the content of the deleted page before restoring and draftifying, (if deleting admin is gone, unable or unwilling). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. I was wary of WP:Requests for undeletion turning into a venue for administrators to unilaterally veto closed afds when it was first created, but that's never come to pass, and the pendulum's swung too far in the other direction. Declining requests to restore afd-deleted articles directly to mainspace is entirely proper. Declining requests to userfy or draftify them, especially when requested by users who neither participated in the deletion discussion nor previously edited the article, is counterproductive. Even if you're some sort of mustache-twirling deletionist caricature, since if you're proven right in your assumption of bad faith and it's just moved back to mainspace, anyone can immediately see the G4 for what it is. —Cryptic 02:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 September 2025

TX2 (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
TX2 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Procedural nomination on behalf of BeAwareX1 who says "I request review of the deletion of the article on TX2. The AfD was closed “delete” because the available references were mostly primary or promotional. Since that discussion, a number of independent, reliable sources have been published that provide significant coverage and critical commentary." Star Mississippi 01:43, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeAwareX1 misfiled this. Simply relaying on their behalf. No opinion on merits. BeAwareX1, please respond to editors here and not where you originally filed. Star Mississippi 01:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. There's nothing wrong with the close, but with only two !votes to delete including the nom, we can treat this as a soft-delete. Rather than REFUND and renominate, we can skip a step and simply relist. Owen× ☎ 02:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any objection to me just reverting the deletion and close at this point? Brandon (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an option you have, since the afd was very recent. I'm not sure it'd be entirely wise, though - at this point, I think the result is inevitable, and will just make it harder for us to eventually have a high-quality article on this group no matter how notable they may become in the future (per this essay, long one of my favorites). The new sources are iffy at best, the proponent is at minimum plainly LLM-assisted, and repeated short-term recreations and afds tend to make the admins patrolling the G4 queue frustrated and apt to salt. —Cryptic 22:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we see the new sources that have emerged in the 26 days since this was nominated? I'm loath to waste resources without any indication there is something to actually discuss.
Spartaz Humbug! 04:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action - The instructions at the top of this noticeboard for the purpose of Deletion Review include:

    Deletion review should not 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, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted

    . Don't show us the sources. Put the sources in the revised article and submit it for review, or move it to article space subject to a new AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - good faith effort was made to find sources, the few offered were evaluated and found insufficient. If there are new - rather than unconsidered - sources (which is unlikely given the short time since the AfD) the page can be rewritten. JMWt (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the feedback. Please bear with me as I'm still learning the process here. My post and sources were directed towards the original request for deletion and addressing the concerns they mentioned (Notability, insufficient coverage). The newly submitted press sources are all within the past 2 weeks and more importantly were never mentioned in the original article or posted in the deletion request. Coverage includes some of the top press outlets in rock music (Kerrang, Revolver) and many independent outlets. They cover the new song and touring (USA and Europe) because that's what bands do - release music and then go play it. Independent coverage from Revolver and Kerrang shows notability per WP:GNG/WP:NBAND.
    I believe the original article should be restored because new sources directly address the notability concerns raised at deletion. BeAwareX1 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please link the sources, if you can’t provide them, you can’t expect other users to go looking for them. Spartaz Humbug! 21:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The strongest new sources that came out after the deletion are
    - Revolver – “6 Best New Songs Right Now” (song review) https://www.revolvermag.com/feature/6-best-new-songs-right-now-8-29-25/
    - Kerrang – article on their new single and European headline tour https://www.kerrang.com/tx2-new-single-feed-featuring-deathbyromy-uk-european-tour
    - Noise11 – article on TX2 collab with DeathbyRomy, touring with Beartooth
    https://www.noise11.com/news/tx2-teams-with-deathbyromy-on-dark-new-anthem-feed-20250828
    There are also earlier news articles (Metal Injection, The PRP, Amnplify) that came out before the AfD but weren’t brought up in that discussion. I understand that the new sources are what matter most here but these also help demonstrate notability as a touring band and international notability for their music.
    - The PRP - TX2 announces tour with The Word Alive https://www.theprp.com/2025/05/27/news/the-word-alive-announce-summer-u-s-tour-with-tx2-unwell/
    - Metal Injection - TX2 announces tour with Ice Nine Kills, In This Moment
    https://metalinjection.net/tour-dates/ice-nine-kills-in-this-moment-avatar-tx2-announce-summer-north-american-tour
    - Amnplify - TX2 collab song with Ice Nine Kills
    https://amnplify.com.au/tx2-unleashes-monstrous-new-collab-ft-ice-nine-kills/ BeAwareX1 (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Insubstantial to meet RS
    2. reads like a reheated press release and is mostly quotes.
    3. This is better and contains details but no byline and I’m not clear if it meets RS.
    4. Press release reflecting tour announcement and no discussion of subject.
    5. Ditto and no discussion of subject
    6. Not extensive but there is discussion. Is this a RS? based on the sources provided, I would support a relist if anyone agrees that 3 and 6 could be RS
    Spartaz Humbug! 23:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify on two of the sources:
    - Revolver: this isn’t a press release or interview, it’s an editor’s own review of the song. It includes commentary and editorial analysis rather than a standard news announcement.
    - Kerrang: even if the article includes a quote from Caleb of Beartooth, it’s still staff-written coverage in a major independent publication, highlighting TX2’s single and European tour. It shows recognition in top-tier music press.
    Revolver and Kerrang alone show major new coverage that wasn’t cited at the AfD. BeAwareX1 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Revolver article is a capsule review, which editors generally do not consider a strong case of notability. If you take out the quotes & tour calendar from the Kerrang article, you don't even hit 50 words of content, there's nowhere near enough coverage here. Jumpytoo Talk 02:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 3 seems AI generated so I wouldn't call it RS. Source 6 is a press release, if you copy snippets into Google you get matching articles on other sites word for word. Jumpytoo Talk 02:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline recreation The appellants new sources are not suitable/very weak and don't make me believe the subject meets notability criteria. Jumpytoo Talk 02:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: reviewing sources is something that should take place at AfD, not at DRV. DRVPURPOSE#3 talks about significant new information. This is distinctly different from the "significant" used in SIGCOV. The question before us is not whether the new information is significant enough to establish notability, but whether it is new and significant enough to justify another discussion. If we wish to adjudicate this as AfD round #2, we should treat it as such, and add the DRV to the relevant deletion-sorting categories and notify the relevant portals or wikiprojects. Relisting the AfD seems a more practical way of doing all this, especially since the original AfD was so poorly attended. Owen× ☎ 08:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that this approach encourages the reopening of AfD debates on flimsy "new information". It's one thing if there were things that were not found and considered. It's another thing if there are new sources.
    In my view it's reasonable to reopen if there were existing sources that were not considered. It's a bit silly if there are newly published sources, particularly if they're weak.
    Either we determine quickly that the new sources wouldn't make any difference or the applicant should rewrite the page and see what happens. JMWt (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AfDs with fewer than three participants are normally closed as soft-deletions, and are REFUNDed at any request to do so, even with no new information at all. This article was deleted based on two Delete !votes. The closer didn't mark it as a soft-deletion, but we shouldn't set the bar any higher than we would at WP:REFUND. This is a legitimate request for undeletion for a minimally-attended AfD. Policy supports relitigating AfDs that closed without quorum or with minimal attendance, even without any new information. If this now fails a well-attended AfD, I agree with you that we shouldn't encourage relitigation. Owen× ☎ 08:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Why are we arguing over whether to add some new sources at DRV? That is using DRV as AFD round 1.5. We should let the filer create a new article with added sources, subject to a real second AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I guess (involved as the sole "delete" !voter in the discussion); this is not a notable topic based on the sources available and I concur with Jumpytoo and Spartaz on the sources above. We could treat it as a soft delete, relist it, and with the attention from DRV get a more resounding "delete" result (a very appropriate outcome suggested by OwenX) or per WP:NOTBURO we could recognize that experienced editors at DRV aren't buying the new sources and just endorse the original decision. Either path is OK by me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While participation was low at this AfD, I am not convinced there is a realistic possibility these new sources could have made a difference to the outcome. Local Variable (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clear consensus to delete. The nomination was strong. The final delete !vote was strong. Other contributions were off point or weak.
    Do not relist. AfDs get closed when consensus is clear, they do not get left open to waste time for as long as anyone wants to keep talking.
    Respect the consensus to delete for six months. In the meantime, you can prepare for recreation using draftspace. Note that there was a consensus to delete. Follow WP:THREE when demonstrating that the new sources change everything. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 September 2025

Palestinian cause (closed)

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

As the 'creator' of the page from the redirect, I should have been notified of the proposed deletion, but I was not. I therefore I did not have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion, which was scant and inconclusive, especially for a topic falling within Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. In addition, by not receiving notification of the deletion discussion, I was also not able to address the concerns raised concerning the content of the article, which could have easily been improved. إيان (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The appellant makes three assertions. All three are false:
    1. The page was created in 2011, 14 years before the appellant's first edit on it two weeks ago. The page went back and forh between an article and a redirect several times during those years. The last iteration was indeed done by the appellant, but no policy requires inviting every editor who did so to an AfD for the page. I should also point out that the AfD ran for seven days, during which the {{AfDM}} header was clearly displayed. The appellant was online and busy editing other pages here during that week, and would have seen the notification on his watchlist had he bothered to look.
    2. The AfD discussion was not "scant and inconclusive". Six participants, most of whom are highly experienced, took part in it, and five of them argued against retaining the page as a standalone article. Having the appellant chime in would not have changed the outcome, regardless of what his argument there would have been.
    3. The primary concern at the AfD was that the page was a POV fork. The only way the appellant could "address the concerns" would be to redirect the page back to one of the non-POV-pushing pages. The claim that the page could have "easily been improved" by changing its content is false on its face.
This vexatious litigation fails the unclean hands doctrine, and should be declined as such, not to mention failing on merits. Owen× ☎ 19:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Owenx's spurious, erroneous conclusions and opinions above do not demonstrate a good faith reading of my appeal.
1. The page was created in 2011, 14 years before the appellant's first edit on it two weeks ago. is a clear misreading of what I wrote, in which I specify that I created a page where a redirect had existed. It had nothing to do with whatever was created in 2011 as that had been long since deleted. I obviously should have been notified and afforded the opportunity to participate.
The argument that I was online and busy editing other pages here during that week and therefore shouldn't have been notified of this AfD, another assertion lacking good faith, is absurd. It would be ridiculous to assume that an editor would be sitting around disposed to catch this one change to one article out of the infinite number of articles they might have on their watchlist.
2. Six participants? Do six individuals satisfy a quorum for a discussion of this importance in WP:CT/AIC? It's insufficient, particularly when there were votes! that included argumentation no more sophisticated than "Palestiniancruft, of which there is far too much on WP," and when the five of them who you say argued against retaining the page were in fact split between deleting the page and redirecting it. It was inconclusive.
Having the appellant chime in would not have changed the outcome, regardless of what his argument there would have been This claim is completely meritless. What crystal ball do you possess that assures you of what unreal alternate timelines would have held in store?
3. The primary concern at the AfD was that the page was a POV fork. Based on what? Only two of the six mentioned mentioned POV fork.
The only way the appellant could "address the concerns" would be to redirect the page back to one of the non-POV-pushing pages. Again, based on what? Even among the mere six participants, there was discussion regarding the content of the article, which can very well be addressed with quality WP:RS.
This vexatious litigation fails the unclean hands doctrine, and should be declined as such—this is meritless and there is no such Wikipedia policy by the name of an unclean hands doctrine anyway.
Clearly, the discussion should be reopened so that the matters raised in the appeal can be fairly and appropriately addressed and resolved. إيان (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The instructions for nominating a page at AFD say to "consider letting the authors know on their talk page". Since Twinkle only autonotifies the first revision's editor, like so, people who use Twinkle consider that sufficient. (And anything less insufficient.) The only reasonable solution is to keep an eye on pages you consider important yourself.
    But, hey, we're mostly reasonable people here. You say you have arguments that would have swayed that afd if you'd known it was taking place? Tell us what they are - not just that you weren't notified - and if they're persuasive enough we'll reopen the discussion. —Cryptic 21:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus, on a first reading of the afd without looking at the deleted content, I'm very dubious it was closed correctly anyway. There's a redirect in the nomination, a delete, a persuasive delete-or-redirect, a persuasive keep, a redirect, and a vote that shouldn't have been accorded any weight whatsoever. Closing that as "delete" needs some explanation. —Cryptic 21:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yup. إيان (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with Owen×'s assertion that my participation in the discussion would be futile, but my contribution would consist less of arguing in the deletion discussion and more of improving the page with respect to any valid concerns raised in the deletion discussion. The topic is certainly notable and there is no dearth of reliable sources on the topic. إيان (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per @Extraordinary Writ and @Cryptic Rap no Davinci (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that the original author did not participate, but even more surprised that they did not immediately go and build out the article. Now I understand.

In simple terms, the article was deleted because it wasn’t built out enough to ensure the scope was clear. A few hours work on the article would have solved that.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I see a consensus to delete, albeit a weak one. The final delete !vote was entirely inappropriate and should have been given no weight. The sole keep !vote was marginally better but failed to grapple with the POV fork concerns. I'm not so concerned about the failure to notify. It's open to you to request it be restored to your userspace so you can work on it. Local Variable (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you address the main point of this deletion review, that the author of the text, who was also active in discussion on the article's talk page, was not notified of the deletion discussion? The article could have been built out to address concerns raised in the discussion. إيان (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you edited conflicted me right as I figured I needed to edit and address that. I'm not so concerned about that. The original creator is notified, but there's no obligation to notify everyone in the revision history. That adds unnecessary bureaucracy. It's open to you to request restoration your userspace. Local Variable (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I think we should generally give out first-time relists fairly freely when a good-faith editor wants to participate in the discussion, and in this case there's the added element that "[i]f the major stakeholders have not been notified of the deletion nomination or given time to respond, reliable consensus determinations will rarely be possible". Cryptic's comment at 21:15 also raises a good point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist per EW. I also think a better discussion can be had. No clear reason why a redirect shouldn't be here and that wasn't really discussed. This is a hot topic area, I'd prefer we err on the side of being too fair. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not appear you discussed this with Liz beyond templating her, did I miss that? Surprising given one of your main concerns is you weren't aware. 6 can be a quorum and I think this will ultimately end up not being retained, but the re's no harm in a relist. Star Mississippi 02:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not appear you discussed this with Liz beyond templating her Did you bother to look? Although I was never notified of anything, I brought the matter to her attention in a note on her talk page. Without receiving any response or acknowledgement of my note (which is understandable—she seems to get an insane number of messages on her talk page), and unsure if or when I might get a response, I started the appeal process the following day. إيان (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. That isn't a discussion. You just stated that you weren't pinged which doesn't indicate you're looking for a response. You didn't raise any of the questions you did here. Star Mississippi 11:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse 5 to 1 to NOT retain as a standalone article. The admin discretion I would have seen is to restore to a redirect, since both the nom and one other !voter favored it, but in the context of a consensus that it is essentially a POV fork, deleting the prior content but not salting the redirect so anyone could recreate it if desired is a reasonable alternative. The primary reason I want content retained behind redirects when an ATD is warranted is when a non-notable article could conceivably be spun out again with identified RS'ing. That's not this. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The last !vote didn't count for anything. Local Variable (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the number of times pop culture and speculative fiction has been called 'cruft' and the !votes not discounted, I'm not sympathetic. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist on the principle that relisting once when there isn't a consensus is better than trying to tease out a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can we clarify what has happened, because looking at the xfd it isn't clear. It seems that there was a longstanding redirect which was deleted. Subsequently someone wrote a page. Is that correct? It was determined that the contents of the page were not notable/encyclopedic and therefore deleted. Which doesn't appear to say anything about the redirect, which could be reinstated. Is the subject SALTed? Are there restrictions on who can and what can be redirected in this subject area? JMWt (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The title in question is not salted, no. Any editor should be able to create a redirect, but per the topic restrictions it should be a WP:XC editor, I believe. Is that correct? Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per OwenX. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clear consensus against retaining the article. No clear reason why nominator should be given a second bite at the cherry. No objection to reinstating the redirect that sat around for 14 years. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When was I afforded a first bite at the cherry? إيان (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the AFD. It's expected that editors use their watchlists to monitor articles they have an interest in. There is no positive obligation on those listing articles for deletion to notify everyone who might have edited an article. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (assuming we are talking about deleting the page rather than the redirect). It seems like the nom failed to write a notable page which failed to persuade participants that it was sufficiently different to all the others in the subject area. Fwiw, I don't think there's a good reason to delete the redirect, but I'm not sure DRV can reinstate it directly. JMWt (talk) 08:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How was I supposed to persuade participants that it was sufficiently different to all the others in the subject area if I was never pinged or notified of the discussion. This is absurd. إيان (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really absurd, we are all busy. If you have been editing on en.wiki and were watching the page, you would have seen the notification. It isn't anybody's job to specifically tell you things.
    If you feel that strongly then try writing a better page and see if it survives. Personally I think you'd be better to work on pages like Palestinian nationalism or one of the pages describing the factions or other relevant pages. I'm not sure what it is that you want to focus on that isn't already covered in 20+ pages. JMWt (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, if you start the page now then you'll get notified if it is nominated at AfD. Problem solved. JMWt (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that you saying he should have done a better job arguing for it to be kept when the whole point of the DRV is that he wasn't aware of the AfD, is, in fact, absurd. Hobit (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure where you get that from. If the nom had done a better job of writing a clearly notable and different page within the context of many pages on similar topics, maybe it wouldn't have got deleted.
    Given that we are now here, the best suggestion as far as I'm concerned is that the nom rewrites a page and if it goes to AfD makes whatever case they think there is to be made. JMWt (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It is clearly a POV fork. I probably should have specified a redirect to Palestinianism or Palestinian nationalism. Its not even clear what the point of the article is that cant be discussed elsewhere. Altho there may be a case for documenting the cause as it is taken internationally. A lot of pro-pal people (eg. Kneecap, Bob Vylan) have their support linked to Palestinian nationalism, which I dont think is correct. It would be like saying supporting Ukraine in the Russia Ukraine war means you are a Ukrainian nationalist. As for the apparent maligning of my !vote, there is an issue of cruftiness related to Palestine, where a lot of niche articles are created to amplify the issue. And this isnt just limited to this topic. We also have WP:TRUMPCRUFT and of course WP:CRUFT. And for reference, the last internet archive save is here. I had to look at that to remember this article. Metallurgist (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the second half of your comment here, it seems to me to be a bit unfair to Palestinians to say that articles on relevant political ideas are cruft. They're a group of millions of people, it's entirely reasonable to reflect a variety of ideas and political positions providing there are sources.
    On the first half, I think one can be a supporter of Palestinian nationhood without being an actual nationalist - many people, including leaders of nations, support the idea of self-determination. They're not actually Palestinians or Palestinian nationalists. JMWt (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are if every little thing is duplicated and overlapping. There is a lot of POV forking with PIA on both sides that gets crufty. I should really revise it to say Palestinecruft rather than Palestiniancruft. The latter usage is inaccurate.
    And thats essentially what I am saying. The article as it was written was a POV fork, but I do think there is a case to be made for a review of the movement for Palestine and Palestinians broadly, which could use that article name perhaps. It is absolutely a notable topic. Metallurgist (talk) 17:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    People are not cruft. The comment was inappropriate. Local Variable (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont think topics on a people can be ruled out as not subject to crufting, but I should revise what I said to Palestinecruft, not Palestiniancruft. Metallurgist (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect I'm certainly leaning against keep - but I don't know how this can be considered without temporarily undeleting the article. Surely this issue discussed in many other articles relating to that country (which does raise the question of why it's not a redirect). Relisting seems a reasonable outcome too. I am perplexed on why User:Mccapra didn't notify (or at least ping) the person(s) who'd recently recreated the article from scratch. If they weren't aware ... okay; but they literally discussed these in the nomination statement! I also am concerned that User:OwenX support the non-notification - before starting to talk about other non-policies we have. Nfitz (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as an accurate reading of consensus and I further agree with Owen's comment above regarding the suggested procedural issues. Daniel (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - can an admin temp undelete the page so we can see the content the article had? I agree with the requestor that they should have been notified with a courtesy ping if they made significant contributions to the page before it was deleted. Saying "you should rely on your watchlist, too bad" is not a very friendly or great conclusion. If the DRV results in endorsing the close, then it should be refunded as draft if the nominator wants to continue working on it and try again through AFC. - Indefensible (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indefensible and SmokeyJoe: Temporarily undeleted for history review. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 03:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks SilverLocust, appreciate the temp undelete for review. - Indefensible (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support request Temp Undeletion, but am already leaning to “Endorse, try recreating in draftspace.” In general, I think that recreations of controversial topics from behind a redirect should be strongly discourage, without going through AfC or establishing a consensus for a spinout, on the talk page of the redirect target. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus was that we don’t want these POVFORKS. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article was really just a stub, it did not really have as much content as expected. Closing as delete is defensible. However, it was previously a redirect and the AFD nominator also wanted to restore the redirect, so I think ultimately a redirect with edit protection also makes sense. The article updater who requested this DRV should be free to work on improving the article in their draft space and can try getting the article published again through AFC, but more content and referencing is going to be needed than in that stub. - Indefensible (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 September 2025

Dian Rana (closed)

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

The article meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, with significant independent sources; prior COI does not affect the subject's notability.

I request a Deletion Review for the article Dian Rana. While the AfD discussion resulted in a delete decision, I believe the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV) based on multiple independent, reliable sources providing substantial coverage.

The subject has received multiple independent profiles from national and international media documenting significant public activity. Senior AfD editor user:4meter4 confirmed the article meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG standards, noting multiple bylined publications in mainstream Indonesian media. COI concerns do not affect the subject’s notability.

The subject is consistently covered by major media outlets: Liputan6 (4 Aug 2025): Highlights Dian Rana’s IKN documentation, including exclusive interviews with former IKN Authority Head Bambang Susantono. Portrayed as a bridge between local communities and policymakers. Liputan6 Article Rest of World (19 Apr 2024): Notes his role among influencers documenting Nusantara, including public videos and vlogs. Rest of World Article Media Indonesia (11 Jun 2025): Reports on Dian’s YouTube channel (329k subscribers, 71M views) and participation in national and international forums, plus recognition from Balai Bahasa Kaltim. Media Indonesia Article Merdeka.com (16 Jun 2025): Confirms his field reporting, coverage of key events, and recognition as a social media practitioner promoting Bahasa Indonesia. Merdeka.com Article Coverage shows substantial contribution to public knowledge about IKN. Dian Rana’s work documents key developments, engages communities, and is recognized by media and institutions. Given the substantial coverage in multiple independent sources, the article meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The AfD deletion appears to overemphasize COI concerns and past deletion history from idwiki, which should not outweigh documented independent notability. I respectfully request that this DRV considers keeping the article. Nusantarakita (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rossiyane (closed)

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

I believe that the discussion was not finished. Initially, it was a proposal to rename the article and the discussion was about renaming. At some point, contrary to the consensus, the article was merged with another one. That is, in fact, the article was deleted. Other users do not allow me to restore and expand the article. Contrary to what was said in the discussion, the first known mention of the word is in 1524. There are also a number of research papers in English that can be found on Google Scholar. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] There are much more research papers in other languages. I can indeed expand the article based on reliable sources. ruASG+1  09:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
International Investment Agreements of the European Union (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is not an unambiguous case at all. Does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Country names, numbers and abbreviations sorted chronologically are not protected by copyright and are in the public domain. A website does not have the right to claim copyright on numbers and facts. Only creative work above the threshold of originality can be copyrighted and copyright claims on public domain material do not comply copyright laws. Sorting in chronological order is not creative work at all. In any case, it is below the threshold of originality. ruASG+1  08:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RuASG: The header says "and other articles". Besides International Investment Agreements of the European Union, what "other articles" are you challenging the deletion of using this same rationale? Left guide (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at your talk page, there are a series of speedy deletion notices around the same time for the same reason, which I suspect are the "other articles":
Left guide (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - whilst it might be true that the contents of the list itself are in the public domain, it's also true that the OP has made no actual effort in writing the page beyond cutting and pasting the information. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMIRROR and - whether or not there is an actual copyright infringement or not - we don't just copy text and paste it into Wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The determinative question in this DRV is whether this is unambiguous copyright infringement so as to justify speedy deletion under G12 without a deletion discussion. A NOTMIRROR concern would need to be raised at AfD - it shouldn't be grounds for endorsing if the speedy criteria wasn't met. Without seeing the subject article, it's hard to make that assessment, but I assume the table has been copied and pasted, and if so, it seems a clear enough G12, unless there is something to suggest the material is in the public domain. Local Variable (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. Under G12 the point is that the material has been copied from another source not that a legal opinion has been sort as it being or not being in the public domain. It's quick and dirty, the material wasn't originating from Wikipedia or a source which obviously has a license which allows reuse and recreation. We don't allow cut-and-paste of material in the public domain, so it doesn't really make any difference.
    The topic may or may not be notable, either way it can't just contain material pasted from elsewhere. JMWt (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This just really highlights the conflation between the two in your initial endorsement. G12 applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content [...] Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion. G12 and not mirror are entirely different. The former is about capturing pages that entirely consist of copyrighted material, the other is a policy about not including slabs of public domain material into articles. It does make a difference, because the speedy deletion was improper if it wasn't unambiguous copyright infringement, and a deletion discussion would be needed if the only concern was the latter. Local Variable (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok well I disagree for reasons already given. JMWt (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per the second opinion of User:CactusWriter: formatting and arrangement of facts is copyrightable Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend this be closed by an admin who can confirm the table is indeed copied and pasted from here. If it is, endorse. That page has a copyright link at the bottom. All rights are reserved. Even if the source material in the table is public domain, ordering them into a table is sufficient intellectual effort for copyright to subsist. It is therefore unambiguous copyright infringement and G12 is appropriate. Local Variable (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to WP:CP. Lists of data aren't copyrightable in the US, which is the only requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, so a proper discussion is necessary. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Stifle. It's not a speedy case, so it shouldn't have been speedied. WP:CP or just WP:AfD are both reasonable next steps. I'd go with WP:AfD because I suspect this isn't a CP problem, but I don't think this will make it here (sourcing, just data, etc.). Hobit (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to WP:CP. Copyright in arrangements is hard, and having viewed the source data, I'm not convinced it's an arrangement which meets the standard, at least unambiguously. I'm with CP because it is a CP problem, just not an unambiguous one, then we can AfD afterwards. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per the above. G12 does not apply as possible CP problems are far from blatant and no other concerns neccessitate speedy deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 September 2025

Affan Kurniawan (closed)

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

A call to move the page to a different title amounts to a call to keep it, without providing a guideline-based reason to do so, therefore falling under WP:JUSTAVOTE. Among those who based their view on policy and guidelines, I see consensus against retaining this as a standalone article, with the section at the target providing the coverage deemed encyclopedically appropriate.

This is not correct, the policy supports keeping and moving this page:

1. Per WP:NEVENT, meets on both WP:EFFECT and WP:GEOSCOPE. The death of this subject helped trigger the August 2025 Indonesian protests, leading to lasting effects. Indonesia is the 4th most populated country in the world and the subject resulted in a large geoscope.

2. Per WP:CRIME, meets on both historical significance (per above), notability of the perpetrator (Indonesian state), and unusual execution of the crime.

3. Per WP:TOOLONG, the article is currently at 13927 words per https://prosesize.toolforge.org/?title=August+2025+Indonesian+protests&domain=en.wikipedia.org and needs to be split anyway. Having this standalone article is a sensible way to do so.

Therefore the closer was incorrect to say the consensus was for deletion and that keep/move votes were not based on policy.

Side note: furthermore, as pointed out, a good comparison might be the Murder of George Floyd case. - Indefensible (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Essentially the only delete/redirect argument was WP:BLP1E, which would not apply to an event-based article like Killing of Affan Kurniawan. The "move and keep" !voters kind of shot themselves in the foot by not making this point more explicitly, though. I would have called it no consensus, but I understand why the closer did what he did and can't really say it was wrong. Maybe the easiest way forward would just be to withdraw this DRV, create a new article at the "killing" title, and let someone take it back to AfD (hopefully with a better argument than BLP1E). Otherwise, count me as a !vote to allow recreation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the easiest solution is simply undo the close, reopen and send to relist. This was only active for a single week, and the consensus significantly changed midweek.
    The understanding should be this is not a person article, this is an event article. Let the article be moved and content updated, then discuss whether the merits for deletion are still valid. - Indefensible (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse For my procedure here, I actually !vote counted, since this was a very well attended AfD and I wanted to get a sense of the breakdown. It was slightly more to not keep, but more people !voted to keep later in the AfD. I then read the keep/move votes, but didn't see any votes clearly grounded in any sort of source-based policy - most just said it was important, whereas those deleting/redirecting cited reasons why we shouldn't have the page - BLP1E does apply to the recently deceased. Furthermore, the article can currently be covered on a different page. Good close. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to reply to this point: the discussion was overwhelmingly delete/redirect at the beginning, let's say until August 30. There was a clear consensus to delete/redirect.
    But after August 30, the consensus was overwhelmingly to keep/move. This is a highly active subject and discussion based on time-dependent events playing out.
    There was also no relist despite the change in consensus. At the very least, this should have been relisted to continue the discussion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because an AfD changes in tone halfway through does not mean that the outcome will change. Looking just at votes, there was still more consensus not to have a stand-alone page, and the keep !votes were surprisingly weak considering their number. Relisting is generally for AfDs with far lower participation rates. I also looked at the redirected article, and don't see any clear error made by redirecting it. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will simply agree to disagree with you on that point, I was literally the last vote and expected it to go to relist, otherwise I could have dumped the above into my comment. Also the parent article needs to be split per WP:TOOLONG, closing the AFD here exacerbates that problem instead of helping it. - Indefensible (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those reasons are grounds to overturn a well attended AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, these discussions aren't really based on votes. The closing admin weights on the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you were expecting a relist, that just postpones an eventual decision for a week. – The Grid (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is closing here is an entirely subjective decision to focus on the BLP1E-based deletion and ignore the policies-based keep argument that I outlined above. To say the keep argument is not based on policy is wrong.
    A relist would have allowed for more discussion and potentially a better consensus.
    As Extraordinary Writ said, they would have closed as no consensus. The comment that I was piggybacking on in the AFD was by an admin to keep. So at least 2 admins would not have closed to delete. There was no objective consensus for deletion, and pretending like there was is just cherrypicking.
    Like Extraordinary Writ said, the problem is deletion based on BLP1E is not even valid if the page is moved per the keep argument. We are stuck on treating it like a bio article when really it should be an event article. - Indefensible (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your WP:TOOLONG argument holds little value because the bigger question was does the article stand on its own with notability? Splitting an article also requires the content to stand on its own as well. – The Grid (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well TOOLONG is only the 3rd issue... - Indefensible (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good close. The volume of votes didn't matter. The keeps failed to address substantive BLP1E concerns, or sought to distinguish the notability of the individual person from the notability of the event. I have some sympathies for the TOOLONG point but it's insufficient to overcome that issue, and redirecting was the best viable ATD in the circumstances. Local Variable (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not to WP:LAWYER, but if AFD/DRV both close based on BLP1E, then it should be clear the conclusion applies only to Affan Kurniawan in the context of a BIO article, not to Killing of Affan Kurniawan in the context of an event article. There should be no prejudice against the latter, and this AFD/DRV cannot be used to WP:PROD or WP:SD such an article if created. - Indefensible (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, this article was brought to AfD because it is a BIO article. If it had been an event article, I think the result would likely have been different. Ckfasdf (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I understand all of the delete votes were based on BLP1E, as Extraordinary Writ noted above. The keep argument was largely (although not entirely) to move the article from a bio article to an event article (i.e. "Killing of Affan Kurniawan"). However, this move generally could not be done in the AFD itself because of the confusion and difference in targeting it would have created per AFD guidelines. So there is a fundamental mismatch between the delete/keep sides and bio/event article formats.
    The point of this DRV is to push back on the conclusion the delete/bio stance was correct in the AFD. Procedurally at least in order to ensure there is no prejudice against the potential event article in the future based on the deleted bio article. My opinion is the AFD should have just been relisted and it would have become obvious that moving the article would have been the right outcome. - Indefensible (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

31 August 2025

Rob Palmer (commentator) (closed)

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

I found the nomination somewhat bizarre and the out come. I questioned it should have been relisted to the closing admin as I felt not enough people had taken part. Firstly I know Robert Palmer very well through seeing him on TV and his work. I am so very confused as I don't feel the nomination did any WP:BEFORE, there are thousands of articles online associated with Rob Palmer, he has written a hell of a lot, loads of articles on [8], he has been interviewed a number of times like this one, this is a list of loads of matches he has commentated on [9]. You really can find so much, snippets by other news agencies like this on YouTube, lots of it. He has interviewed people like Andy Cole, Ronaldo, so forgive me if I feel totally confused by this nomination and deletion as from my perspective he passes WP:NAUTHOR for the amount of works he has published. He is on a similar level to Jonathan Pearce (commentator) I truly hope this can be rescued. Govvy (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Which arm of WP:NAUTHOR are you asserting he meets? "The amount of works he has published" isn't enough by itself. —Cryptic 17:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. The request for review appears to be based on (1) a belief a WP:BEFORE was not done by the nom. But that is speculation, and sub optimal as it may be not to do a BEFORE, they are not compulsory. It is not a reason to overturn the close, since there were three other delete !votes. (2) that there are thousands of articles because "he has written a hell of a lot". But this is wrongheaded, unfortunately. A journalist's writings are not independent of the journalist. What comes out of the horse's mouth is not independent of the horse. Their own writings cannot be used for notability purposes. The subject would be notable only when others, independent of the journalist, are writing about them. That was pointed out by one of the AfD participants and it is correct. The closer has correctly assessed the consensus and there was no reason to relist this one. If independent reliable secondary sources can be found in the future, we could allow recreation, but none have been found and the close was correct. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Good close; if the appellant provided a plausible rebuttal to 4meter4 either here or in the AfD, I'd advocate for a relist. But they're instead repeating the same refuted argument that non-independent sources establish notability; their arguments at the closer's talk page are equally unpersuasive for the same reasons. Left guide (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clear misinterpretation of NAUTHOR and misunderstanding of how interviews are treated for notability. Even though @4meter4's !vote is the only delete argument worth considering, it more than suffices in the absence of a valid keep argument. JoelleJay (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The nominator still has not grasped what constitutes evidence of notability per WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Govy is putting forward more primary source examples of the subject's work (ie their writings, interviews, etc.) which is not the sort of evidence we need to establish notability. We are looking for independent secondary sources which evaluate Palmer as a commentator and author external to his publications and in person interviews. I was unable to locate secondary sources of this type, and absence those kinds of materials we cannot sustain an article under our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that 4meter4 is involved having opined in the AfD debate. @4meter4: in the future, please remember to add "involved" in parentheses after your boldfaced !vote if you participated in the AfD, thanks. Left guide (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, please do no such thing. There is no such requirement, and if other participants at DRV are unable to read the deletion discussion they're reviewing, they have no one to blame but their own incompetence. —Cryptic 18:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up. In this case, my name has cropped up so many times that I don't think anyone could have missed that I was a participant at the AFD. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there is no such requirement, but it still seems like a best practice. Regards, Left guide (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This has never even been considered 'best practice' at DRV, and isn't common at all. The only person who has generally disclosed their involvement at DRV is the closer (ie. "Comment (as closer)" or "Endorse (as closer)"). This isn't written down but has been pretty consistently followed by colleagues over the last few years, at least. Daniel (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't common even during the period after it was edit-warred into the instructions. There's occasionally some benefit at afds of articles with long histories, and more rarely in reviews of (very) long and complex rfcs, but it's not helpful here, and it's condescending. We trust discussants and closers here to be able to tell the difference between genuine analysis and self-serving rationalization of a position already held. —Cryptic 23:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A relist would have also been within the discretion of the closer, but would be odd, considering the clear consensus, with participation above our WP:QUORUM requirement. The appellant would have been better off providing three independent SIGCOV refs, rather than exulting superlatives about the subject, or making WP:OSE arguments. Owen× ☎ 18:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am so confused, so he has created so many articles, other people quote them on TV shows and talk about his works, they talk about him on Sky Sports and other analyse shows on radio and on TV. He clearly passes all the bulletin points marked out on WP:NAUTHOR. So I don't understand why all the endorse and as far as I am aware passing NAUTHOR professional writer normally qualifies you for an article. Also, I there are secondary sources I've posted and not everything is primary! For instance there are lots of articles just like this one, [10] Talking to Rob Palmer! That is not a primary source. :/ Govvy (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy: I can understand your frustration. Interviews in general are often discredited at AFD as lacking sufficient independence to count towards notability and are treated as primary sources. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Interviews (especially section 5 about notability) to get a better understanding as to why the source you just showed lacks sufficient independent to meet our sourcing requirement under notability policy at WP:SIGCOV. In this case the LaLiga journalist essentially reported what Govvy said but did not provide any of their own original coverage to any great detail. It wasn't sufficiently transformative to demonstrate independence, and for that reason it doesn't count towards notability. The journalist also did not demonstrate a "depth of preparation" and the article reads like puffery. 4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All four? Really? What evidence is there that he's widely cited by his peers? What new concept, theory or technique did he introduce? What periodicals and reviews, or independently-notable work, have analyzed his collective body of work? Which galleries and museums include his... sportcasts?!... in their permanent collections? And which are the independent, secondary sources verifying any of these? —Cryptic 23:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm not going to pile on about the merits of the sole delete !vote. What I will add is that the quip the nomination was 'terrible' was unnecessary, and tended to undermine the credibility of the comment. Local Variable (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some nominations are terrible, though. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that dismissing a nomination as terrible' without explanation doesn't strengthen the argument; it weakens it by coming across as disparaging, rather than substantive. It says absolutely nothing. And as the outcome of the nomination shows, endorsed by DRV, it was patently incorrect. Local Variable (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's necessarily patently incorrect, it's just that the grounds to overturn this would be source based and no clear ones have been presented yet. The article at AfD isn't exactly about an unknown individual. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If an article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, a nomination to delete it is unlikely to be terrible (unless the nomination statement fails to properly articulate the problem). Even then, stating those problems makes for a more convincing response than bald assertion of "terrible". Local Variable (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I am curious if any of these endorsers like football or live in the UK. Govvy (talk) 10:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am curious if your votes at AfDs are based on our policy and guidelines, or are driven by your love of football and your place of residence, with P&G only used to excuse your predetermined, reflexive "Keep" vote for anything related to UK football. Your question here sheds new light on what was, until now, only a well-supported suspicion. Owen× ☎ 11:09, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also an implication that people don't like football so they vote delete anyway regardless notability which I believe is often the case. That's my opinion. Govvy (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure it is your opinion, but it is not supported by evidence. Both GiantSnowman and 4meter4 have a track record spanning years of basing their views on actual policy and guidelines. You, on the other hand, have a history of trying--often unsuccessfully--to use guidelines to justify your clear bias in favour of keeping anything related to UK football, whether it meets our notability guidelines or not. We have never, in the history of Wikipedia, given different weights to !votes based on where the !voter resides or what sports they follow. You dismissing people's valid views, solidly anchored in P&G, because it is your "opinion" that they hate football is anathema to everything the project stands for. Owen× ☎ 16:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, GS often acts like a robot, post the exact same comment at AfD. It's rare for him to tailer his comments and I heard a lot of other admins actually ignore delete votes like that. I truly find this whole process sad, to me Rob Palmer is on TV all the time when I watch the footy, writes loads, does so much analysis work. so I am still myth'ed by the deletionists here. In fact I find it shocking and sad. Wikipedia doesn't deserve to have me help them out. So much disrespect around here, always posting policies thinking I haven't read them. Sad, pathetic and so disrespectful. Govvy (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I love football, I grew up playing and watching it, and half my family are from the Blackburn area and are huge Rovers or Man City fans. I don't let that have any influence on how I assess footballer notability, just as I don't let my profession as a molecular biology postdoc or my efforts to identify notable women scientists influence how I approach notability of academics. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I like football, and endorsed above. Even in a topic dear to my heart, I'd still vote to delete an article that I know fails notability guidelines, and endorse a deletion properly judged by the closer. I recently voted to redirect a song from one of my favorite bands, who is from the UK to boot. Left guide (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Only keep vote misinterpreted WP:NAUTHOR and the delete voters cited P&G's accurately. Let'srun (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If everything in the AfD is taken as true, it's clearly correct. However, if he does meet our notability guidelines, which is not yet clear to me, I see absolutely no reason to deny a draftification. SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also note the problem here is finding secondary coverage based on my search. Simply being in the news a lot doesn't necessarily make you notable. I can't easily find any sourcing that would cause me to believe the AfD was incorrectly decided. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close of Delete. Relist would also have been a valid close. The appellant should be cautioned that personalizing the deletion review (by asking whether the reviewers like association football and by insulting a contributor) is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On rereading NAUTHOR, I can see why someone who does not regularly participate in NAUTHOR AfDs might be misled by its statement Such a person is notable if: 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. This criterion is useless and is ignored by AfD regulars as it is simply a redundant, vaguer, more subjective, and non-P&G-supported version of NAUTHOR criteria 3 and 4. I've brought this up on the talk page. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed; if an SNG hinges on something like "important" or "significant", it's pretty much toothless since it's too subjective to be meaningfully and consistently enforced. Left guide (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Can we undelete the article for review. The claim in the AFD nomination that the article in entirely unsourced appears to be in conflict with the state of the article [in January 2025. Nfitz (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to relist. I don't there was enough debate for consensus to be clarified. The only delete vote with any in-depth substance came in only a couple of hours before it closed, with no time for anyone to consider. Of the two other delete votes, I don't think User:Herinalian ever reviewed the keep argument, as they haven't edited at all since their delete vote. Also, I don't think the remaining delete vote (User:GiantSnowman) was pinged as requested, to consider the sources. Further I'm surprised the nomination statement doesn't mention any BEFORE. Quickly looking for sources, I'm seeing numerous brief 1995 articles about his charity work and national newspaper coverage of in 1988 after his first Grandstand appearance. I know we no longer accept Daily Star references, but the 500-word article] in 2024 about his commentary is surprisingly in-depth. And there's many books that retrospectively reference Harry Redknapp's attack on Palmer (briefly documented at the time in the London Standard). Nfitz (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I wasn't pinged - but even if I had been, it wouldn't have changed my !vote. Non-notable, so endorse deletion. GiantSnowman 20:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 August 2025

John Fraser (Canadian soccer)

John Fraser (Canadian soccer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion had 6 deletes, 2 merges, 2 redirects, and 4 keeps. In my opinion, even if all arguments were equally strong, it should have been closed in a way that reflected the strong consensus against retaining the article as a standalone (10 !votes to 4). See the similar DRV here. However, arguments were definitely not equal, as the sole justification offered by 3/4 keep !votes was the subject's "meeting NOLY", which is objectively false. The subject is explicitly excluded from qualifying for NOLY by the text unless the athlete competed in an event with fewer than four competitors or teams (i.e., when all participants received a medal; as noted by FOARP, the 1904 Olympics only had three football teams, two from the US and one from Canada. The fourth keep was also based entirely on assuming that the subject's Olympic achievements satisfied ANYBIO, despite those precise achievements having been deemed by NSPORT2022 to be insufficient. On that note, even if the subject did meet NOLY, he would still be barred from remaining in mainspace in the absence of an IRS SIGCOV source being cited in the article. The incredible weakness of the keep !votes should have led to their being discounted. Regarding merge, as noted in the AfD, the article has 4 sentences, all of which already appear in the merge target apart from his birthplace/date...at least three delete !voters noted that neither merging nor redirecting was suitable. The best outcome would have been to delete. JoelleJay (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse – I can understand grouping redirect !votes with delete !votes, but not merge !votes, which often very different in terms of proposed outcome than deletion !votes. Those arguing for deletion made slightly stronger P&G based arguments here, although those advocating to keep had some interpretations of relevant policies and guidelines that were not unreasonable. This, coupled with disagreement over whether redirect would be an appropriate ATD, makes no consensus a valid close. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is "keep, meets NOLY" a reasonable argument when the subject explicitly does not meet NOLY?! JoelleJay (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not claim that that particular argument was reasonable, just that reasonable arguments for keep were made. I dislike that implication. It is also important to remember that participation goes beyond "!votes". – Ike Lek (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what other keep arguments were made? JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One other argument was that 50 words of coverage were found in Special:Diff/1305535949. An argument doesn't need to include the specific word "keep" for it to be a keep argument. --Habst (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I (and apparently everyone else) did not consider Fraser was considered a utility man, and while his regular place was as a half back, he could play any field position with credit. Later moved to Hamilton to live. in an SPS to be compelling enough to address, nor was it ever put forth as GNG-contributing. Every keep !vote was ILIKEIT. JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's only 30 words of the linked coverage, not 50. I don't see any evidence that the source is an non-expert SPS. It's beyond the plainly trivial mention example in WP:SIGCOV, meaning it's fair to assess and would require a response addressing it if you think it's not GNG-contributing. When closing an AfD, all arguments need to be considered, even those that weren't explicit !votes. --Habst (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Born: Ontario, December 15, 1881. Galt F.C. Half Back. Occupation: clerk. This type of coverage has never been considered contributory, as should be evident by the fact that stats databases do not count. The prose statement is plainly insubstantial and not worth addressing. I said the source is an SPS, I did not evaluate expertise because the coverage is so trivial; but by default SPS are considered unreliable. Commentary that does not put forth a P&G-based opinion on notability should not be interpreted as if it does. JoelleJay (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all fair, but it wasn't brought up in the AfD. Presenting coverage is a P&G-based rationale for keeping in itself in cases where the overarching concern is notability. --Habst (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Presenting coverage without any claim as to its being sufficiently significant to count toward notability is not a "rationale for keeping". JoelleJay (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree. When coverage is presented and the primary concern is notability, it should be challenged in the AfD in some way. --Habst (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why merge and redirect !votes should be treated differently in terms of weighing arguments and assessing consensus. They both oppose article retention and they're functionally the same; a redirect result allows for subsequent merging, and a merge result ultimately becomes a redirect. Left guide (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect or delete (involved) – As JoelleJay noted, the majority of the keep voters claimed that the subject met WP:OLY, when the subject does not due to all participants receiving metals, and the votes to not retain this article as a standalone cited multiple P&G's in their reasoning while also refuting the OLY notability claim. Let'srun (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete the keep !votes proceeded on two fundamental misunderstandings as identified and should have been discounted. That being so, there was consensus to delete. I'm not convinced the ATDs were well explained either. There's basically nothing to merge, and those calling for a merge don't identify what it is that should be merged that isn't already listed at the target. Local Variable (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you reason there is consensus to delete rather than redirect? Ike Lek (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's inherent in the conclusion the subject is not notable, and so it's an implausible redirect - matters raised in the AfD with no convincing response except a reference to a hit counter. But that may have been an open outcome to the closer as an ATD, and I wouldn't stand in the way of a DRV close as a redirect, if that's consensus here. Local Variable (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was litigated recently at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 11#Ajit Singh (race walker), where it was determined that non-notable subjects should still have redirects even if the disambiguated title is implausible. --Habst (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD/RFD decisions don't set precedents that way, otherwise Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Morgan (cyclist) would have to be explained. FOARP (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be explained because that's an AfD, not an RfD. AfDs are only intended to decide whether or not to delete an article; they're not the appropriate venue to decide whether or not a redirect should be created. --Habst (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete (involved) - Keep arguments based on NOLY shouldn’t have been weighted, since NOLY explicitly excludes medals that were granted automatically simply for participating.
Also: How on earth is any closer saying that ”As is noted at the top of the page and in my talk page edit notice, I carefully consider all deletion decisions before closing and do not reconsider them based on talk page requests”? To force every discussion about an AFD close, regardless of merit, in to DELREV is simply unreasonable. FOARP (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that saying 'delete' rather than 'redirect' here would be going against the recent consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 11#Ajit Singh (race walker), where the same reasons apply. --Habst (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a consensus that applies to any pages other than the redirect in question. JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same reasons in that RfD, to a T, would apply to this redirect. --Habst (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect I do not think there was a consensus to keep the page in mainspace. If a valid ATD was presented, the closer should give it serious consideration, even if there is disagreement. --Enos733 (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect or delete: I see a consensus against keeping the article. In addition to being vastly outnumbered by calls for deletion and alternatives thereof, the keep !votes are relatively weak, mainly relying on some flavor of "he's notable because he appeared in the Olympics". This is where a good closer would make a WP:BARTENDER decision; redirect is a sensible middle ground way of reflecting the consensus against retaining the article. But deletion is also within reasonable closer discretion given that many advocates to delete had well-reasoned opposition to redirecting. Left guide (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect, without prejudice against a selective merge. To be fair, I can't fault Stifle for closing it the way he did. When I looked at the AfD on Wednesday, it was clear to me that this will end up at DRV no matter how it was closed. I was hoping to come here to endorse a Redirect close, but for all practical purposes, it doesn't really matter how it was closed, if it is destined to be relitigated at DRV. JoelleJay's analysis of the views at the AfD is, as usual, right on the money. We had one Keep that is arguably based on P&G, albeit inconsistent with NSPORT2022. Three other Keeps cited WP:NOLY--incorrectly. And then we have a sweeping consensus of 10 !votes, all in agreement against retaining the article as a standalone page. Left guide is correct in pointing out that when there's a clear consensus against Keep, but disagreement between the various ATDs, a status quo retention is not the right outcome. Four participants made a valid case against redirection or merger in favour of deletion, but had such an argument been brought up at RfD, where the threshold for retention is much lower, I doubt it would have garnered consensus against those wishing to retain the redirect. Of course, a redirect close still leaves the door open to an RfD, as long as no content has been merged to the target, which would force us to retain the history for attribution. Owen× ☎ 13:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect (involved). The numbers point toward no consensus, but in this case the arguments to keep are much weaker, and a couple are, respectfully, reflexive !votes that did not consider the specifics of the situation. As others point out, NOLY is simply not met, and that isn't a matter of judgement. My own opinion was based more on NOPAGE, which wasn't addressed by the keeps either. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse or (redirect) Firstly I feel extremely offended that I wasn't informed of this DRV as I was one of the people who posted at the AfD. I felt given the circumstances I feel that was a fair enough reflection on the participation. I'd endorse the close enough know I felt it could have gone in a different direction and a redirect would be the better outcome. Also, there is no harm in doing another AfD at a later date. Govvy (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Extremely offended? Where is there any expectation that all AfD participants be notified individually of a DRV? I put notices on both the page and the AfD, that's more than enough. It looks like you didn't notify any of the participants of the DRV you just started, either... JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain the basis for endorsing the close? There were clearly problems with the keep !votes, and the answer to a lack of consensus between delete, redirect and merge isn't the keep the article by no consensus. There was no obligation to notify participants, as you've apparently recognised after lodging your own DRV, so your offence is misplaced. Local Variable (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect (and NOT to delete). There appears to be a rough consensus to not keep as a standalone article and the delete/ATD votes were better rooted in policy. When there is a split between delete and anATD, the latter should always be chosen unless there is a compelling reason not to. The only argument made against redirecting was the claim that having a disambiguator in the title made it a less likely search term, but this was adequately refuted. Frank Anchor 11:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (to redirect). There was no consensus to delete, but I read a consensus to redirect. My initial intention was to “endorse as reasonable discretion, and allow editorial action to merge and redirect to play out, before going back to AfD on the basis of an unreasonable blocking of the redirect”. Noting that the article is obviously unworthy of spinning out from the target. Process is important, but this would be ridiculous. And the post of FOARP(talk) at 13:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC) was a very good preemptive rebuttal.[reply]
How could have the AfD run better? As I have often observed, weak AfD nominations often result in trainwrecks. User:Mysecretgarden made a bad nomination, very bad in not even mentioning the possible redirect target. They are new. Please establish in your nominations that you have followed WP:BEFORE and discount obvious redirect targets before nominating for straight deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have a long history of editors quietly reversing bold sportsperson redirects, insisting that they go through AfD instead, which has led to the current situation where redirect is either the most or second-most common outcome of sportsperson AfDs. I would guess the majority of noms do not mention the eventual redirect target, nor does policy ask them to; in fact, per BEFORE (which is not a policy or guideline) states that considering redirection should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term. If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page. In this case, the combination of [common first & last name] + [highly unusual and unsystematic disambiguation "(Canadian soccer)"] makes a redirect a poor choice, as noted.
Also, the nom did a check of newspapers.com, apparently in addition to a normal search, which is actually more than asked by BEFORE. JoelleJay (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically I mean WP:BEFORE#C4, aka WP:CONRED. It is very good advice if the nominator would like their AfD to be productive.
I see BEFORE uses the word “consider”, where I think it should I structure the nominator to “comment on”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the several subsequent “endorse” !votes, including the closer’s, I support the notion that “redirect” is a better reading of the discussion, but “no consensus” is within an admin closer’s discretion. It’s not as if the close was wrong. If “no consensus” is endorsed, the answer is WP:RENOM, including the advice for the next AfD nominator to make a better nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have the same opinion of NC being acceptable if the numbers were 6 delete (2 opposing redirect, 3 supporting redirect), 2 redirect, 2 merge? If not, what is it about the keeps that is strong enough to sway consensus against a standalone? JoelleJay (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know. The detail of the !votes matters.
At Liz’s 22:35, 19 August 2025 relist, there was a consensus to redirect.
Following the relist, there remained a consensus to redirect.
Only User:4meter4 attempted to put much substance into a “keep” rationale, and there’s no evidence that he persuaded anyone.
I may be fairly generous at respecting an experienced admin (and admin matters) exercising discretion to call “no consensus”, and I have a long-standing opinion and observation that it is more productive to respect a “no consensus” call and follow advice at WP:RENOM, than to challenge a “no consensus” at DRV. My bolded above !vote is “Overturn (to redirect)”.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The multiplicity of proposed redirects was a problem.
The failure of the AfD nominator to mention “redirect” is a problem.
One good reason for an admin to shut down a discussion is that it is consuming volunteer resources outweighing the likelihood and value of the outcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit, I'm curious what your thoughts are on this? I also think it's worth considering the closer's statements suggesting that the keep arguments of "meets NOLY" were simply "different interpretations" of relevant guidance and aren't voided by the fact that the guidance they cite is not only deprecated, but explicitly excludes this athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure what part of this you are asking my input on, but yeah, I think SmokeyJoe has it right. I'm considering writing an essay on inclusion with the basic theme that we look for there be enough reliable, independent, information to write an article AND that the topic be worth writing an article about. That second part has been tricky since basically the beginning and is still evolving. Here, I think we agree we have enough to write, the question is if the topic is "notable" enough (in the English meaning, not the Wiki-term-of-art found in WP:N) to write an article about. I personally think John is above that bar. But I also think the AfD didn't reach that conclusion. I think I'd have closed as redirect, but NC is a reasonable way forward (especially because we didn't have a clear redirect target in that discussion). Not sure what else to add. I don't see delete as being a reasonable outcome from the discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On another review, reading for the "redirect" and "merge" comments, I would call this a consensus to
"Redirect to Football at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Galt F.C."
per User:Devonian Wombat and User:GiantSnowman, interpreting their later !votes as having read and superseded the two !votes to merge to Galt F.C. by User:BeanieFan11 and User:Govvy, noting a consensus against "merge", and noting that Football at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#Galt F.C. contains more information about the subject than does Galt F.C.. There were no "redirect to Galt F.C." !votes.
There is a consensus to not keep the standalone article, and a bit of confusion over two possible redirect targets, both weak, but one is better than the other, evident in !vote analysis of the AfD participants.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ooo, looking, I added his name to prose with the others to Galt F.C.! :/ Govvy (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There was no consensus, and No Consensus is a valid judgment by the closer. Redirect, as an Alternative to Deletion , would also have been a valid judgment. We are asked whether the closer made a valid judgment call, not whether we necessarily agree. No Consensus is always dissatisfying, but it is the lack of consensus that is unsatisfying but real, and we don't make the lack of consensus go away by overturning. Sometimes No Consensus is a reasonable conclusion, although it is very likely to come to DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse That was clearly a no consensus close. Picking any individual option would have been a supervote. SportingFlyer T·C 19:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also note I do not think the keep !votes are weak, considering there is more than cursory sourcing, and that the person won a gold medal. I'm not convinced that is the way I would have voted, but I don't agree with discounting them. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More than cursory sourcing? We had around 30 words of low biographical value in an SPS...and not a single keep !vote even invoked the coverage as being sufficient, so I don't see how that argument would even be relevant to the close. And, per guidelines and global consensus, his winning a gold medal is objectively and explicitly excluded from counting toward presuming any coverage exists.
    This is also a bizarre departure from your stance at the linked DRV seeking to overturn an NC close, where you argued that 2 deletes (including your own that implicitly opposed redirect), 4 redirects, and 2 keeps amounted to a 6-2 consensus against a standalone page. You referenced the fact that all 6 quoted SPORTCRIT directly or indirectly, a valid policy which this article clearly does not meet, and the fact that the keep !voters cited NATH (which was challenged) or BEFORE (without presenting any easily found sources). How is that situation any different from this one, where 8 (or 10) !voters directly or indirectly referenced NSPORT/GNG/N, and 3 or 4 keeps were strictly based on rationales like I think no matter what a gold medal should be grounds for inclusion in the Olympics, regardless of coverage. and Per WP:NOLY (which was not only challenged, but is objectively false, and either way wouldn't matter in the absence of SPORTCRIT #5 coverage)? JoelleJay (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read this one again and I would have closed this one no consensus. I'd also ask that you please don't respond to me again in this discussion or generally, as I'm exhausted from your crusade against sports articles. SportingFlyer T·C 13:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also mention the other DRV I brought, that Olympian could barely be verified, and had a clear consensus to not keep. That was clearly not the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 17:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I actually agree with JoelleJay that there is a rough consensus to not keep the stand alone article, but in the absence of consensus to delete outright and with multiple targets for merge/redirect suggested there is little to no harm in keeping the page while the best solution is sorted out, probably at the Talk page. In cases like this, where the concern is insufficient coverage under the GNG guideline and not problems with core content policies like WP:V there is no reason to peremptorily delete while alternatives are discussed. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eluchil404, under this approach you would always get an NC even if every !vote was either delete or redirect, but that is manifestly not the norm at AfD (see the linked DRV) and would definitely not reflect consensus. I'm positive everyone in this case who !voted to delete and opposed redirection would still prefer the page was redirected over being kept by default (in fact, @Let'srun, @Vanamonde93, and @Asilvering have all expressed that redirect would ultimately be acceptable), and considering both FOARP and I also directly endorsed redirection, and the nom @Mysecretgarden did not oppose it, that's 8 participants who favor redirection. And I highly doubt @Geschichte would reject redirection to a page different than his suggested merge target, since obviously such redirection would not preclude later merge. The sportsperson area has a long history of bold redirects getting reversed (necessitating bringing them to AfD), so further discussion of alternatives would at best result in a temporary redirection that is then overturned precisely on the basis of the AfD being closed as NC. We have NOTBURO for a reason, why require extra procedures to implement an obvious 70-30 consensus the topic shouldn't be a standalone? JoelleJay (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Added to this - the suggestion to take the discussion to the talk page of a stub article is unrealistic. It would attract zero discussion. It's just a backdoor way of keeping. Local Variable (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, my !vote was explicitly against the redirect. But if a closer went with redirect I wouldn't consider that a faulty close. -- asilvering (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here. There was clearly a consensus to not have a standalone article, and while that wasn't my first choice I think it would've been in line with the consensus. I agree with Local that a talk page discussion is impractical. Let'srun (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure as no-consensus with suggestion to use the talk page to determine any mergers or redirects. There was no consensus for one of those decisions in preference to any other. Stifle (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is only true if you weight the keep !votes the same as the delete, redirect, and merge !votes and do not consider any of the delete !voters to implicitly endorse redirection (as is standard at AfD; and even when three of them explicitly did in the AfD, and the two that opposed it have since stated it would be preferable to keeping). JoelleJay (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you say you implicitly endorse redirection for Olympians even when you only say "delete" (and not "delete or redirect")? It seems there is a significant minority of delete !voters, including some also in this AfD, that don't endorse redirection e.g. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajit Singh (race walker). That would lend itself to a no consensus close. --Habst (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, I would support a redirect over keeping (which is effectively what a no consensus closure is). Let'srun (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what is the difference between this case and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajit Singh (race walker), where you argued for delete and explicitly opposed a redirect? --Habst (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it is standard practice, I didn't say I agree with it. What is much more important is the fact that virtually 100% of delete !voters who oppose redirection would still endorse redirection over default keep. JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't the case in the Ajit Singh case, where several !voters said that creating a redirect would be explicitly against Wikipedia policy (specifically, WP:NOTLINKFARM in the RfD). If you don't agree with redirecting as an alternative to deletion, then why did you !vote "delete or redirect" in the AfD? --Habst (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this hard to understand.......? My disagreement is with presuming a redirect is implicitly endorsed by delete !voters in all circumstances, i.e. presuming that they would have no preference between "no article (delete)" and "no article (redirect)" even when those are the only possible AfD outcomes. Obviously when the options are strictly between "no article (redirect)" and "keep", delete !voters are virtually guaranteed to prefer the former. This is why AfDStats groups them together, and why @Sandstein described the consensus in your linked AfD as being "against a standalone". JoelleJay (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to get into the weeds, but the part before the "i.e." and the part after the "i.e." in your first sentence have conflicting meanings. Someone who disagrees that delete !voters implictly endorse redirects would not also disagree that they have no preference, unless you think that delete !voters implicitly would be against redirects which is the point I was making above. It's possible that consensus can be against a standalone article but also a no consensus close is still accurate because a specific outcome wasn't endorsed. --Habst (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can read the statement as: My disagreement is with [...] presuming that [delete !voters] would have no preference between "no article (delete)" and "no article (redirect)" even when those are the only possible AfD outcomes.
    Per our guidelines, Other possible (non-standard) decision results, and/or "combinations" may sometimes be appropriate and Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. In this case there were 10 people who endorsed removing the page from mainspace, with only 2 opposing redirection. Given this (and as documented below), the standard practice is to redirect to the target with the most and/or most recent support. There were no objections from the early merge !votes to the redirect targets proposed later (and endorsed by 5), so that would be the clear consensus outcome. JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I understand the philosophy of picking a preferred 'lesser evil' outcome out of two bad choices. But other delete !voters in this discussion have said that creating redirects like this would literally be a violation of Wikipedia policy (see WP:NOT arguments being made). On the other hand, notability, the primary concern for deleting the article, is only a guideline. So even if you think both are incorrect, surely violating a policy would be worse than violating a guideline? --Habst (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One editor referencing NOTLINKFARM as one of several reasons to delete a redirect in one RfD does not mean it is the singular rationale everyone has for opposing redirection. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that, which is all the more reason why a 'no consensus' close can make sense in these situations because everyone's motivations for their !votes can be different. --Habst (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All editors who endorse delete or redirect agree that the article does not belong in mainspace. There was a clear majority for that in this case. JoelleJay (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At least one of the delete !voters argued that keeping the redirect would be a more severe P&G violation than keeping the article (by inference from policy violation versus guideline violation). --Habst (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not an appropriate inference! JoelleJay (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't think the WP:NOT argument is sound for redirects, but I think the inference makes sense if you accept that NOT is being violated. --Habst (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because there was "A lack of a rough consensus for any one particular action".[11] The closer then followed the process in WP:Deletion process: close the deletion discussion as 'no consensus'; edit the page to remove the deletion notice; and record the outcome on the page's talk page". Thincat (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even when 3 of the 4 keep votes incorrectly cited policy? Let'srun (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think such people are "citing policy" but are expressing opinions suggesting our notability guidelines give an inappropriate result in this particular case. Even if these !votes are disregarded there would still be "A lack of a rough consensus for any one particular action". I think it is unreasonable to be arguing to overturn the closer's action when it is the action recommended in the WP:Deletion process guideline. It seems strange to be advocating going against one guideline so as to fault other people supposedly failing another guideline. Regarding the "homebrew" closing action being argued here for closing no consensus discussions, is this approach documented anywhere, even in an essay? Thincat (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when are ILIKEIT opinions that are not backed by P&Gs given weight at AfD?? We have both a guideline that the keeps are citing that directly rejects what they claim, and a recent global consensus requiring that even athletes who do meet subcriteria like NOLY must have an IRS SIGCOV source cited in their articles. Deletion process states Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. It also states Other possible (non-standard) decision results, and/or "combinations" may sometimes be appropriate ... The closer should aim in any case, to decide based upon consensus, policy, and community norms. Community norms overwhelmingly group delete and redirect !votes together (and recognize that obviously even deletes that oppose redirection would still prefer redirect over keep),(*) they also overwhelmingly discount !votes that are not based in P&Gs, and for sportspeople in particular they discount arguments where a subject meets a subcriterion but not SPORTCRIT.
    Our guidelines also state Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus. Arguments that contradict policy, are based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. WP:DISCARD states The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus. Closers are also required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project's goals.
    If we disregard the keeps, we have 5 !votes explicitly endorsing redirect, 1 more delete that does not oppose a redirect, 2 !votes that advocate merging a literally trivial amount of info and are functionally redirects, and 2 deletes that oppose redirect but here have expressed that redirect would still be preferable.
JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh (involved), again for the same reasons as Vanamonde93. I think it's pretty telling that two regular closers gave up on closing this AfD and !voted in it instead. That is, we both determined that the numbers were sufficiently against typical consensus/practice/sense/whatever-you-want-to-call-it for us to be able to make an unchallenged call that made any sense, and decided to make it easier for the next closer to do so instead. That is, this AfD had an usually high % of keep !votes that were not in line with typical consensus/guidelines. So, I was surprised by the close and I don't think it was a good one, but now that it's happened, eh, whatever, mulligan the whole thing as "no consensus". -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect. The keep votes were significantly rebutted and there was a consensus not to include a separate entry on this topic. Redirect is an obvious ATD. Merge supporters can simply add their desired content to the article about the club, and it could be that no content would be copied, which is not a true merger anyway and falls back to simple redirection.—Alalch E. 21:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). I still stand by what I said in the AFD. WP:NSPORT can't override SNGs like WP:ANYBIO that apply to ALL BIOGRAPHIES. It's a lower order policy. As per the close, there wasn't a sufficient WP:CONSENSUS one way or the other, so no consensus was the correct outcome.4meter4 (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does this hierarchy not incorporate the fact that ANYBIO is of lower standing than NBASIC? And I am curious what you believe an adequate rebuttal to an ANYBIO assertion (in general, not just in this case) would even be if this subguideline supersedes all other SNGs and WP:N, a demonstrable lack of sources on this subject, a global RfC disqualifying any sports achievement from being sufficient to presume notability even if it passes a sport-specific subcriterion, and an RfC that unanimously decided this person's Olympic medal does not meet NOLY? JoelleJay (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a minor clarification added to ANYBIO, stating that sports achievements alone cannot be taken to mean that the subject is likely to be notable without at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, could be made, perhaps as a note. That's what is meant and is what is said elsewhere on the page but it could be said there as well. —Alalch E. 00:19, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, since NOLY already says that it doesn't apply in this case, I'm not sure this would make a difference here.
    The fundamental problem is people just not accepting that participating in the Olympics does not indicate notability. That's always been the problem, regardless of how often the wider community has indicated that it people aren't ntoable just for competing in the Olympics. There is no simple legalistic fix for that. FOARP (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse I do think redirect is how I would close this, but I also believe NC was within closer discretion. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I don't see that there's clear consensus that would be required to overturn the decision. I also note the nominating statement selectively doesn't count at least two contributers who took part in the discussion. Generally at a minimum I'd say merge is a possible outcome (and actually merge - too many editors simply then redirect this without trying to merge any information). Because the name is so common, I think that the John Fraser disambiguation page can serve as a substitute for a redirect. However, multiple editors pointed to his representation in the Hall of Fame; however the nomination above notes that the keep argument was simply ILIKEIT - despite excellent sources at this being provided in the AFD. Isn't that the opposite of ILIKEIT? Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These are some of the more reasonable objections to this DRV, so thank you for that. However I will point out that all of the non-!voters' implied preferences for keep still relied entirely on an assumption that Olympic medalists are notable in the absence of SPORTCRIT and that the consensus excluding low-competitor events from NOLY could be ignored. These were well-rebutted in the AfD.
    As noted in the AfD, a merge would be functionally equivalent to a redirect, as the only content not already present at the target is trivial details like DOB and birth place that obviously do not qualify for merging. Redirection to the target endorsed by 5 editors is the clear consensus.
    Your comment Where this argument fails is that he's a gold medalist. And a member of one of only 18 teams of distinction (and the second ever added) from the last 140 years in the Canada Soccer Hall of Fame. also ignores his explicit exclusion at NOLY and SPORTCRIT and was rebutted by @FOARP, who pointed out that HoF would only be an indication of team notability.
    The source you link was not invoked by anyone as contributory toward SPORTCRIT/GNG; it is 30 words in a blog. JoelleJay (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't look like a blog to me. Here is more info about the site/author. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And also here when he died. As press officer for the CSA and such an integral part and historican of the Hall of Fame, along with being the author of several books, he was far more than just a blogger. No one refuted this source at the AFD, so I'm not sure why it's now an issue here. Had it been refuted we'd be into finding and reviewing Jose's books. Nfitz (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "As press officer for the CSA" - So not independent. FOARP (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Years after he wrote his books - of which as far as I'm aware the (not) blog is merely a summary. Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this the publisher of his books was "The Soccer Hall of Fame and Museum", which he was the founder of according to that obituary. So the books were also WP:SPS/not independent. FOARP (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Redirect (disclosure: this was my position at the AfD so I am involved), while I could definitely agree that 4 well-argued keeps vs 6 well-argued deletes should be a no-consensus so that alternatives can be discussed on the talk page, that wasn't the situation here. The 4 Keep votes cited a version of WP:NOLY that has since been replaced by a new version that this person did not meet, and as such in my view should be given less weight per WP:NOTAVOTE since there's no actual SNG to back them up. A redirect is a decision that allows for future merges since the page history is kept available for interested editors to view, so in my view is a good compromise. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why ignore the other 2 people who spoke out, User:Devonian Wombat, including the one that provided an actual source that no one disputed in the original discussion? If we just toss out that uncontested source, then it's a relist for further discussion surely - not an overturn. Where we can also discuss the additional sources in Google Books. Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the "source" is WP:SPS. FOARP (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how the authors multiple books on the subject preceding his CSA-involvement is self-published simply because he extracted the information to his personal website - which once again wasn't an issue challenged in the AFD. You can't, @FOARP, start going on about a source being invalid now, when it was raised in the AFD; at best you may have a relist argument to further consider the source that you chose not to comment on at the time. Nfitz (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because those books were published by the museum he founded. A relist should only be made when a new source could have plausibly changed the result, and it is not plausible that this one could. FOARP (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What museum? The museum was only opened in 1997 (if it is even open at all); some of his books predate that. And when did he become involved with the Hall of Fame. CSA didn't even become involved with the Hall of Fame until 2017, so I don't see how even old displays and links to that are self-published; all his books predate 2017! I guess the one thing we've established though, is that if people and teams in the HoF are notable, but not those who just played on the team, then we should create Colin Jose without objection from those here! :) Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The book that's an encyclopaedia of Canadian footballers and which this information on this guy's blog (if it came from any book at all) would have come. And as already pointed out ad nauseam, it's not SIGCOV because it's basrely a sentence long. Basically SPS/SIGCOV is the issue here. FOARP (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides the fact that this doesn't appear to aid in notability, DRV is not AfD round 2. Let'srun (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 17:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect - as the most sensible solution here. GiantSnowman 17:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This has remained open for over two weeks, far beyond the standard 7-day period for closing at DRV, so I've filed a close request at WP:CR#WP:Deletion review/Log/2025 August 30. Left guide (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No takers, apparently. Pinging Daniel to see if he can tear himself away from Arbcom business long enough to close this one. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping Owen...I've read this once and I think I would close it as consensus to overturn to redirect (explicitly allowing both merging from behind the redirect if desired, and also an RfD if desired), but the process of nailing out a close that articulates the reasons why, and is bullet-proof to supervote complaints, is a couple of hours' endeavour - and I'm time-poor until Monday at the earliest, as I'm travelling from tonight until Monday. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, Daniel (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for giving this a look, Daniel. I don't think anyone would object to you placing a {{closing}} tag, and coming back to it on Monday. Owen× ☎ 10:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1310345269"