Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For revision deletion, see Wikipedia:Revision deletion.

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

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

Purpose

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

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

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

Instructions

Shortcut

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial Deletion review 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.
  3. If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc.), use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
 
1.

Edit today's Deletion review log and paste the template immediately below the "Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE ..." comment. Before publishing your changes, replace 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
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following at the bottom of their user talk page:

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

For nominations to delete, merge, or redirect an article previously kept or slated for merging, place <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2026 June 26}}</noinclude> at the top of the article under review, to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review at the very top of the original AfD discussion, above all other content:

  • If the discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 June 26}}</noinclude>
  • If the discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 June 26|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Active discussions

26 June 2026

25 June 2026

LoopMe

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

I'm contesting the deletion of the LoopMe article under G11 (unambiguous advertising). I believe this deletion was in error and the article meets Wikipedia's notability standards.

LoopMe is a significant UK-based adtech company with extensive coverage in independent, tier-one trade publications. The article is sourced primarily in AdExchanger, TechCrunch, Broadcasting+Cable, MediaPost, Digiday, and ExchangeWire (all highly renowned publications!). LoopMe has also been used as a data source for articles in non-trade publications including the BBC, CNBC and Forbes.

A G11 deletion assumes the article's purpose is to promote the company. But the article describes what LoopMe does (i.e. its business model, history, products, and industry standing) in neutral, factual language. It doesn't use marketing claims; it reports on third-party coverage. Describing a company's achievements, awards, and products is encyclopedic, not promotional. Wikipedia has similar articles on Criteo, Databricks, and other adtech/martech companies.

The product descriptions are grounded in trade publication reporting, not company marketing copy.

I'm more than happy for neutral editors to review the article and toning down any language that reads as promotional.

The article was deleted without discussion an opportunity for improvement before removal. I'm requesting restoration so the article can be reviewed and improved by the community. Hannahloopme (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even this request reads like a promotional piece. If the article is written even close to the same tone and manner as this then you are better off to walk away and let someone else create it from scratch, if the company is indeed notable. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 09:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate what you're saying but I'm just trying to make my case! Hannahloopme (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its written in promotional language and is a paid for article that was restored to mainspace 3 times on successive days by the nominator after 3 different admins deleted it as a g11 I suggest that we endorse and salt. Multiple creations in these circumstances is disruptive and I question whether we should allow the nominator to continue editing. Spartaz Humbug! 10:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you define promotional language? I wholeheartedly believe that I have been neutral in tone and I've given tons and tons of citations - both industry-specific press and in the general press (e.g. BBC). Hannahloopme (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
its ref bombed and far from neutral. Spartaz Humbug! 16:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not ask the volunteer editors at DRV to assist you (a paid editor) in writing or rewriting your article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To add - I complied with Wikipedia's policies in disclosing my affiliation to the subject too! Hannahloopme (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thats honestly the bare minimum and you don't get credit in the bank for that Spartaz Humbug! 16:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and SALT per Spartaz. I appreciate the appellant declaring her paid editing status--eventually, after being prodded to do so by an admin. But in recreating the article in mainspace a day after it was deleted, she was not only violating WP:PAID/WP:COI, but also engaging in an edit war. The 8 June 2026 revision removed a lengthy product listing section, but was otherwise essentially identical to the one deleted the previous day, promotional tone and all. While I'm not yet ready to swing the ban hammer, if there's any attempt to circumvent the SALT with title-gaming, a p-block from mainspace is in order. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please can you try to appreciate that I've been trying my very best to stick to Wikipedia's rules. I added a paid disclosure note as soon as I found out that was required. I can infer the meaning of edit war but that wasn't my intention. I'm trying my best to understand and adhere to a complex system of rules. I'm also confused because so many similar companies have pages with far fewer citations: Quantcast, Criteo, OpenX etc - so I don't understand how those pages are live when LoopMe was taken down? Hannahloopme (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand how daunting it can be for a new user on Wikipedia to learn our elaborate and often complex policies and guidelines. But let me boil things down to this: on 5 June, you were notified that the article was tagged for speedy deletion, along with a clear explanation of the reason for tagging, and links to relevant policy and steps to contest such a deletion. You did not engage with the editor placing the notice on your Talk page, nor follow the guidelines to contest it. The article was deleted on Sunday, 7 June, at 4pm UK time. The next morning, Monday at 08:46 UK time, you simply recreated the article, minus one section. This does not come across as the action of someone who is engaging with Wikipedia in good faith.
    Arguments pointing to other companies with articles here are typically rejected; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for details. As for earned vs. paid, how long would it take us to find examples of LoopMe buying ad space in one of MediaPost's 20+ publications? I don't think you want to go down that path. In general, trade journals are considered non-independent sources in almost all cases. Owen× ☎ 15:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored to Draft:LoopMe so non-admins can comment. Personally I'm not seeing the "unambiguous advertising or promotion" but no comment on notability. I also note it was accepted via AfC in April, so this probably deserves discussion at AfD rather than speed deletion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To take one of many examples, the paragraph starting with, LoopMe has contributed to broader industry discussion on AI through publications and podcasts doesn't strike you as corporate marketing brochure penmanship? The repeated reliance on paid trade rag MediaPost for many of the claims is itself a red flag. Owen× ☎ 11:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    MediaPost articles are earned not paid! Hannahloopme (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What does that mean ? Spartaz Humbug! 16:14, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Earned media, I suspect. Left guide (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    well that's a new concept to me. The problem with marketeers is an inability to communicate in a way that people who live outside their world can readily understand.
    I'm kind of blown away that the distinction appears something necessary to say. Spartaz Humbug! 20:39, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically overturn G11 but keep in draftspace. The article is not exclusively promotional and would not need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as [an] encyclopedia [article], as required by the policy. That said, this article as written would stand zero chance at AFD. Keeping it in draftspace allows for improvement to encyclopedic standards (both for notability and POV) to eventually be restored as a better article, or to be abandoned and G13ed. No opinion on whether or not the mainspace title should be salted. Frank Anchor 12:20, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G11 If I had come across this in the AFC process I would have flagged it there for G11 as well. This is not an encyclopedic article written about a subject. It's a promotional fluff piece discussing how much affect they have had on the industry and boasting about the "coverage" they have recieved. It needs to be rewritten from the ground up by someone else. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 12:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I can find all of four sentences that could survive unchanged in a neutrally-written article, two of them dubiously so. —Cryptic 13:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I would be curious for a sentence-by-sentence breakdown. Here are six that are factual and neutral and I'm not even halfway down the article....
    LoopMe is an advertising technology (AdTech) company headquartered in London, United Kingdom.
    In January 2022, LoopMe received a $120 million investment from private equity firm Mayfair Equity Partners, valuing the company at approximately $200 million
    LoopMe was founded in 2012 by Stephen Upstone and Marco van de Bergh, two executives who had previously worked together in mobile advertising at Ad Infuse (later acquired by Velti)
    In 2022, former OMD (part of Omnicom) CEO Mainardo de Nardis was appointed as Chair of LoopMe's board of directors.
    In December 2024, LoopMe acquired Chartboost from Zynga, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Take-Two Interactive (Nasdaq: TTWO), for an undisclosed sum. Zynga had originally acquired Chartboost in 2022 for $250 million
    Chartboost is a mobile programmatic advertising and monetization platform that connects app developers with marketers through immersive in-app advertising experiences, and operates a mediation business for gaming publishers Hannahloopme (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not ask the volunteer editors at DRV for assistance in writing or rewriting an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    are you able to explain that last paragraph in plain English and not marketing gobbledegook? Spartaz Humbug! 16:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    One half out of seven, and the only reason that the first sentence might (dubiously) survive is because nobody thought to excise the gratuitous buzzword. —Cryptic 16:19, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and I'll note that the appeal sounds suspiciously like AI that has been told to minimize the chance of it being detected as AI. I realize this is a drown-the-witch sort of approach, but... We don't need this article, or any other article made on this company, which I believe fails NCORP in any event, nearly so much as they need a Wikipedia article to seem legitimate. Thank you, appellant, for disclosing your COI, but we just don't want your company's article here. Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I refute the AI accusation. I was trying to explain my case clearly and in accordance with Wikipedia's rules/terminology. Hannahloopme (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and block Hannahloopme as they're clearly here only to promote LoopMe. Frank Anchor if you or any other non conflicted editor want to work on this, I'm happy to provide it for you as I'm sure you'd produce an acceptable draft if sourcing is available. Star Mississippi 18:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I personally have no interest in the topic but I believe there is some non-G11 material available if anyone would want to work on the draft available. Frank Anchor 19:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted from mainspace and salt, retain in draftspace (where it is now). Wikipedia fundamentally does not want articles written by COI editors. Those editors tend to have an objective of "get X listed in Wikipedia", therefore edit with a bias, and community time is wasted policing for this bias. Such COI editors have a clear interest in pushing the boundaries of promotional content and tone. That is why COI editors have to disclose, and cannot write/place a COI article directly into mainspace. They need to draft it in Draft space, where the AfC process should decide whether to promote it to a mainspace article, with particular rigour to make sure the sourcing is good, the entity is notable, and the tone is nonpromotional. In this case, the current draft has indeed been written by a COI editor, and a quick look at the sourcing shows a tell-tale pattern of many sources, but not sufficiently in-depth and independent to support an article on this company. They're "Company had this (pretty routine) corporate/financial event", or "X from Company was interviewed and said ...". What will make the difference are sources that discuss, with an independent editorial voice, why this company is interesting and what makes it more notable than a run-of-the-mill company in the space. So at best more work is needed on the draft; at worst, there is just not enough independent in-depth coverage to warrant an article. Draftspace is the right place to figure it out, without trying to short circuit the process. Salting is appropriate, since there have been multiple attempts to do so. Technically, I'm not sure CSD G11 was appropriate (not unambiguous enough as advertising for my taste, per Martin above) but I also note the concerning history noted by Owen; an AFD discussion would not have been a good use of time. Martinp (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that it already went through the AfC process and it was accepted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
and it was deleted then too prior to the deletion @Hannahloopme is contesting. I think the community consensus is fairly clear and if she remains unblocked and moves the extant draft it will probably be deleted again. That said, not opposed to an AFD if folks think that would be helpful for a final enough. Star Mississippi 13:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

23 June 2026

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (closed)

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

ArbCom has found that most of the editors who voted to delete this article were involved in meatpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing across this and other Michael Jackson-related discussions, producing a skewed consensus. Another editor who voted to delete, 2BOARNOT2B, was not included in the ArbCom case but is now suspected of being has since been banned as a sockpuppet of Mr Boar. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2BOARNOTOOB. Popcornfud (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud: what is the remedy you are seeking? Owen× ☎ 11:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article ought to be restored. Popcornfud (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus and, optionally, start a new AFD. This AFD was heavily influenced by canvassing/meatpuppetry as all but two of the redirect voters were included in the linked ArbCom case (of the two, one had four edits prior to that AFD and the other is currently being investigated for sockpuppetry, though that case is still open a confirmed sock). With, at best, two one good faith voters supporting redirect, there is not a quorum to do so and the article should be restored. The presence of keep votes makes NC the best option. No error made by the AFD closer as it was closed correctly based on information known at the time. Frank Anchor 12:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
modified vote based on now-confirmed sock investigation linked above Frank Anchor 11:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is the current problem that DRV needs to solve here? I'd be inclined to Vacate the AfD and allow anyone to un-redirect without this discussion being labeled as consensus, but at the same time I would be hesitant to spontaneously un-redirect it ourselves, as a lot may have happened since the article was first redirected. Also, I really don't like the naming of the two articles and am almost positive a better naming convention could be established with community discussion that we're not going to hold here at DRV. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially just un-redirected the article myself, then discovered the DRV process and thought that seemed like the more proper route, so self-reverted. Happy to do it myself if DRV is deemed unnecessary. Popcornfud (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate AfD as tainted by meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, with no prejudice against a new AfD, basically as Jclemens explained. The page should be restored (as it seems to have been done already). Katzrockso (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

) and am concerned that it may constitute inappropriate canvassing in support of Popcornfud. According to that comment, an article with substantially the same content, albeit under a slightly different title, was deleted only two or three months ago following a repeat AfD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Overview_of_Michael_Jackson_sexual_abuse_allegations ).TroVes6 (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TroVes6, the Reddit post that you linked to appears to have been scrambled using a tool (which is equivalent to the Reddit user deleting it). According to its metadata, the post was created on 28 February 2026 and last edited on 13 March 2026 (UTC). How is it that you "just became aware of this discussion" through the comment when it was scrambled over three months ago? — Newslinger talk 11:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a procedural viewpoint, I'm inclined to restore the article. The newest AfD (linked above) does, however, indicate that such an "overview" article may not have support. I'd probably prefer we find another way forward. Perhaps bring this to AfD with a link to the last-real version of the article and discuss it rather than restoring and hosting what the last AfD concluded was non-ideal material (SYNTH etc.) which may have BIO issues. But second choice is a regular restore and allow AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 June 2026

  • Marija Brenčič Jelen – IAR Restored to draft which they did not request explicitly. Regardless of whether this was a good or bad close (it was not an NAC), we are not going to waste seven days relitigating that 12 years later. StructuredFlorescence, you're welcome to use AfC or move it to mainspace where its future can be decided by a new AfD if necessary. Star Mississippi 00:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Marija Brenčič Jelen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reliable sources seem to exist for this person and she seems to meet notability requirements to have her own article. Article in Slovenian already exists and is a good start. StructuredFlorescence (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. This is a low-quality discussion from 12 years ago. Even if we want to evaluate the close (which a delete close seems reasonable here), WP:Consensus can change. Katzrockso (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close / recommend withdrawing, see WP:DRVNOT #2. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the close, but it doesn't appear to be. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow submission of draft subject to acceptance or Allow creation of article subject to AFD (but DRV was not required for those permissions). Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus and REFUND to draft. I know, it's a 12-year-old AfD, and the inexperienced appellant is trying to relitigate the case without presenting a valid appeal rationale. But the appeal rationale is right there: there was no quorum to delete, let alone consensus to do so. The nomination was supported by one participant. Even if we discard both Keeps, it can't be closed as anything stronger than a declined PROD. There's no valid reason to force the appellant to start from scratch, when we can provide them with a better starting point in draft. Owen× ☎ 09:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but chide the closer for twelve years closing a contentious discussion per BADNAC, chide for “please request it at deletion review”, although it was before draftspace, refunding to draftspace does not require DRV, unless unreasonably refused at WP:REFUND.
Refund to draftspace.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth was this a "bad non-admin closure"? —Cryptic 15:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Every !vote was weak. The nomination was very weak. The closing statement didn’t explain anything and anticipated objection. It could have been closed “no consensus”, and so the nonadmin (I believe there were?) supervoted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SarahStierch was sysoped over a year before the AfD. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. So that’s not a problem. Still, it was a poor quality discussion, an unimpressive close, and twelve years ago. It is no barrier to recreation, even if the closing admin said to come to DRV. There is no basis to make someone come to DRV to get the deleted page draftified or userfied or emailed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Slovene article and sources were considered at the afd, and it's gotten no new sources since then, and, for that matter, is barely changed at all. All the sources were present in the English version of the article, too.
    Which isn't to say we can't have an article on this person, or even that it'd necessarily be speedy deleted if recreated verbatim, but you're going to have to do much better than just point at the Slovenian article again. —Cryptic 15:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow submission of draft If new sources have emerged, they should be evaluated at AFC. --Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 June 2026

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

Spartaz closed the AfD with the summary The result was delete and redirect to 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. In discussion on Spartaz's user talk page, CopyleftEverything offered a robust assessment of the AfD, including:

On the merits of the deletion closer: I mostly agree with إيان. (Disclosure: Both of us !voted "keep", so we may be biased.) By my count, there were 9 !votes for keep (Tiamut; إيان; BobFromBrockley; Chao Garden; Edittttor; CopyleftEverything; Tbrechner; Katt Wilm; Smgraves623), 6 for delete (CambridgeBayWeather; EaglesFan37; CharlesBluth; Cachedio; Stanloona2020; and Pretzel Quetzal would've !voted), 6 for redirect (Enos733; Cfgauss77; FantinoFalco; pburka; William.E.Goat; Biosketch). That's 9-12. Closing this as delete is not unreasonable. But there was NOT a clear consensus.
IMO the debate was essentially between WP:GNG through WP:SIGCOV (for "keep") versus WP:BIO1E (for "delete"). I think the sources, including those listed by إيان above, clearly meet WP:GOLDENRULE coverage of activity before & outside the election campaign. The election campaign itself is arguably notable in-and-of-itself -- the coordinated Mamdani-DSA-JusticeDem effort to unseat a powerful incumbent received an enormous amount of coverage. After the article's deletion, there is no coverage of this effort on Wikipedia.
To point to a recent AFD for a challenger candidate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner. When that article was listed for AFD, it had 6 sources. But it was kept, long before the election, because a few months later, it had 27 sources, the vast majority of which WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. It is hard for me to see why that page should've been kept, but not Darializa Avila Chevalier, when DAC's article contained more sources and a similar amount of WP:SIGCOV.
To close with WP:THREE: 1. City & State's June 2026 profile of DAC; 2. NYTimes's May 2026 profile of DAC, 3. The City Reporter's January 2026 profile of DAC. Each discusses DAC's past activism, present campaign, and ideology in detail.

Spartaz then expanded on their close summary:

Firstly the relevant policy here is NPOL which is a special use case of 1E. Consequently, coverage has to be outside the context of elections. At least in this case the keep side put forward some sources but these were not universally adopted, were challenged and after the last relist the consensus very clearly coalesced around a redirect. While maybe unfair on the early votors, I find the opinions of users who come to a more mature discussion are usually the most informed and have the benefit of the whole source picture put up by the keep side. That they were unpersuaded by the keep arguments was what directed my conclusion

As I had stated in the AfD discussion, NPOL is for presumed notability. It does not supersede SIGCOV and the policy explicitly states:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

The !votes to delete the article, a number of which appear to be drive-by !votes, do not provide any convincing argument against this. إيان (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse involved. Editors split 9 (keep) - 12 (delete/redirect) on leaving the page as a stand-alone page and deletes and redirect comments were grounded in policy. This is the second AfD of the subject, which was closed initially as delete in February 2026. In addition, 5/6 editors who commented after the relist were to delete or redirect the page (after sources were provided in the discussion and in the article). --Enos733 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objections to the revised close retaining the article's history. - Enos733 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirect but restore the deleted history behind it. Counting noses is a fool's errand. If the entire SIGCOV cited by the Keeps revolves around one election cycle, coverage in the relevant election article may very well be all that is encyclopaedically warranted. Enos733 said it best, and their !vote, along with those who agreed with Enos733, carries more P&G weight than that of the Keeps. That said, I see no valid argument to delete the history behind the redirect. If there's any copyvios or other policy violations there, those--and only those--revs can be deleted. But the rest should be restored, allowing anyone to selectively merge relevant content to the target while observing WP:DUE. Owen× ☎ 22:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with covering candidates in the election articles is that their traditional standardized structure is not beholden to contain the encyclopedic information that is covered by the sources. Where in 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York#District 13 (an already overburdened article) would you suggest the policy positions of each candidate (which are often covered by reliable sources) go? There is plenty of pertinent and encyclopedic information in an article like this [1]. Katzrockso (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur that there is a consensus against retaining a standalone article in the discussion, however, so overturning to redirect is the best outcome. Katzrockso (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect (with history retained) largely per OwenX. I do see policy based consensus to not keep as a standalone article. However there is not consensus to delete rather than redirect, nor is there any valid argument to not redirect or to delete the article history. As the argument for not keeping the article is BLP1E, a redirect to that 1E is a very reasonable ATD. Frank Anchor 23:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Spartaz, was there anything particularly concerning in the history that prompted the delete & redirect? This is a BLP, so the risk of something inappropriate in the history is much higher than entertainment content. I'd really like to hear the rationale behind delete and redirect, because like the above 2 !voters, I'm not seeing a compelling reason--or arguments in the AfD--to support delete and redirect instead of a simple redirect. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, in retrospect I probably flubbed the delete part and would be prepared to undo that part of the close. I suspect that I was swayed by the split of later votes between delete and redirect. I stand by the clear consensus to redirect. Spartaz Humbug! 11:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Redirect if this is what we should say to restore the history. The close of Redirect was correct, but I don't see a reason to delete the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the history below the redirect. In retrospect I think I was swayed by the post relist voters being split between delete and redirect but logically the correct outcome is to maintain the redirect and leave the history below. Spartaz Humbug! 11:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Spartaz. I believe this now addresses the only overturn issue brought up by participants other than the appellant. No objection to a SNOW close of this DRV. Owen× ☎ 12:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, this addresses all my issues and would make it easier for editors to recreate the article if Avila Chevalier wins her election and/or gains more significant coverage. I wouldn't object to a SNOW close either. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Pretzel Quetzal and Spartaz: Thanks for restoring the history. :) As a keep !voter, this is better. Looks like consensus here remains against keeping.
    I am frustrated at this consensus. To revisit my example of Graham Platner: That AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Platner) was closed as "no consensus" (with 22 keep, 17 redirect/delete). That's roughly the same ratio as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darializa Avila Chevalier (2nd nomination) (with 9 keep, 12 redirect/delete). The kept version of Graham Platner had 0 RS predating the election (of 27 sources) and 6 non-lede paragraphs about Platner's life before the campaign, most of which about his military job and bartending job. The deleted version of Darializa Avila Chevalier had 6 RS predating the election (of 45 sources) and 10 non-lede paragraphs about Avila Chevalier's life before the campaign, most of which about her public protests. (It hasn't been WP:10YT yet, but I remember the 2018 Marion Sims protest!) Beyond that: Both Platner and Avila Chevalier are DSA members whose campaigns represent a noisy fight between the socialist/progressive Left wing and liberal/centrist Right wing of the Democratic Party, and IMO are notable in their own right. TLDR: If the Platner article deserved "no consensus", then the DAC article deserved "no consensus".
    I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc etc, but it's frustrating. Anyway, thanks for the undeletion. :) CopyleftEverything (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are counting votes then you won't get that this was a genuinely no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguments in both discussions are very similar. Both cite the same Wikipedia guidelines around sustained coverage, routine coverage, politician presumed notability, and enduring notability. I am engaging the substance and suggesting DAC's article should pass even more strongly. CopyleftEverything (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, if Graham Platner were renominated today, I'd argue to delete that one, too. No consensus shouldn't be confused with a consensus to keep. pburka (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is in the flow of the discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 06:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Which itself presents a game theoretic problem, since many editors are partisan on these type of deletion issues, it incentivizes postponing a vote to show a change in opinion. Or it can equally just reflect a random change in the proportion of partisans from 'each side' (i.e. more non-elected politician lovers showed up after the relist and never would have been convinced by the delete arguments). Katzrockso (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this is a big challenge with candidates at AfD. There are incentives, especially of supporters of the candidate, to come out an support positions to keep the article, thinking it will either help their candidate or to argue about fairness: "their opponent has a page." The answer is not to discourage deletion discussions of candidates that do not meet our expectations of notability, but perhaps we should recognize that a closure in the middle of a campaign may not be the final word. - Enos733 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    They are never the final word as circumstances might change at anytime and previous consensus will change as soon as the policy basis for inclusion will change. This has always been the way we handle these Spartaz Humbug! 15:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why especially of supporters of the candidate but not editors who seek to suppress coverage of the topic? إيان (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    oh please. Suppress? That's real battlefield language and fundamental failure to assume good faith. Spartaz Humbug! 16:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    !votes are not votes and consensus is not established by tally, but by evaluation of arguments grounded in policies and reliable sources. إيان (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely share your analysis of the similarities between Platner and Avila Chevalier, and their representation of this wider fight within the Democratic Party. However I think Platner is much more notable than Avila Chevalier as he is running in a swing Senate seat, whereas Avila Chevalier is running to unseat an incumbent Democrat. Platner has been discussed a lot in national politics whereas at the moment I have seen little discussion of Avila Chevalier outside of NY and progressive circles. Obviously this could easily change, if Avila Chevalier were to win tomorrow it would (I think) be the first incumbent Democrat to be primaries (apart from Al Green in Texas where gerrymandering forced two incumbents to run against each other), and she would likely receive significant coverage. Actually a few hours ago, the Guardian covered the race as well [2], which would be further international coverage. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really understand the rush to run these articles into main space. It would make far more sense to concentrate our editing efforts on those candidates who win their primaries or, god forbid, actually win the general. Spartaz Humbug! 15:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t really understand the reticence. If the sources to establish the notability of a subject are there, why not make sure the information is represented on Wikipedia and available to readers precisely when they are seeking to learn more about the subject in order to make an informed decision when they cast their ballot. إيان (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the many things Wikipedia is not is an election guide. If we want voters to make informed decisions then we ought to include biographies of every candidate. That is one reason why I, and many other editors, believe that no candidates should be included (unless they're notable outside of election coverage). pburka (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If they meet GNG they should have articles. إيان (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    إيان, you seem to be relitigating the AfD here. DRV is not AfD-round-2. We are here to determine whether the AfD was closed in accordance with a reasonable read of consensus there. If you believe the AfD participants erred in their assessment of the sources, start a spinout discussion at Talk:2026 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. DRV is the wrong forum to conduct a source assessment.
    If they meet GNG they should have articles - that is incorrect. WP:PAGEDECIDE makes it clear that not every subject that meets GNG must have a standalone article, especially if the subject can be adequately covered in another page. Unless you have any new argument relating to the closing of the AfD, I'll ask one of our regulars to close this DRV. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just responding to some comments here. Not opposed to closing this DRV. إيان (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to make a point that GNG is not the standard we are using here and NPOL is the controlling guidance dusted with a generous sprinkling of 1E. There is absolutely no value in fighting an established consensus in an area is a contentious topic. You should really reflect on that and ask yourself if your enthusiasm is helping yourself or the project. Spartaz Humbug! 20:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG has a big carveout that you're ignoring: WP:NOT. pburka (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (to redirect, with history intact). There was not justification to delete the history. There was a clear consensus to redirect. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody suggested draftification? I think it should have been draftified. Unelected candidates for elections, who were not notable before becoming a candidate, are routinely required to remain in draftspace until they are elected. There are good reasons for this. I encourage proponents to ask for the history to be moved to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Recent discussions

15 June 2026

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

I just opened my article watchlist and found out that Annisa Suci Ramadhani's English Wikipedia article was deleted on the grounds of WP:G11. Someone put the speedy deletion tag on G11, and the article was then deleted. I was stunned, since this subject's article had existed for more than a year until someone deleted it under the pretext of promoting it. Honestly, I just translated Ramadhani's article from Indonesian to English, and the Indonesian version (id:Annisa Suci Ramadhani) doesn't have any promotional tendencies or flowery sentences. Her article is just like other regents' (second-level local government in Indonesia) articles on English Wikipedia, showing her date and place of birth, education, previous jobs, and how she won the election. This deletion was sound too unfair and hence I made a request for Ramadhani's article deletion review. I hope this review will bring positive results. Faldi00 (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the position held by Ramadhani is a local political appointment and therefore does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians and judges criteria for the English Wikipedia. It could be argued that they have enough notability to be included, on the basis of the references, although these even included a LinkedIn profile. The article that you wrote had been substantially changed by User:Kominfo Dharmasraya, who had a very obvious but undeclared conflict of interest. Looking further back, I see that the older versions still consisted mainly of a CV, and the subject was referred to throughout by her first name. Numerous articles for Indonesian local politicians have been created recently and many of these have been deleted for both A7 and G11, so I propose a deletion discussion to settle it. Is that acceptable to you? Deb (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm chiming in to say two things. First off, regents are elected, not appointed. They are the equivalent of mayors for rural areas in Indonesia. Secondly, people in Indonesia are generally referred to by their given name. For example, Sumitro Djojohadikusumo is referred to as Sumitro rather Djojohadikusumo in the article. Kaythehistorian (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and send to AfD. On reading the google translated Indonesian article, I don’t think it meets G11 or A7. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy undelete and send to AfD. Undelete as a reasonably contested speedy, and per SmokeyJoe. I agree with him that a direct translation of the Indonesian article would not merit a G11; no opinion if subsequent edits did, but a non-G11 version is clearly possible. Concur with Deb (the speedy deleting admin) that notability is at best unclear, and so a discussion at AfD is warranted. (@Deb, since Indonesian does not use first vs family names in the same way English does, I would read nothing into what/which name a translated article might use). Finally, since our policy on contested speedies is clear, since Deb themselves proposes a deletion discussion (therefore undoing the G11), and since all of us here seem to agree, I think we can do it speedily rather than waiting 5 days. If indeed the article in its most recent form suffered from promotional undeclaried COI editing layered on top of a not-so-promotional version, it could be rolled back prior to AfD nomination, or at least the AfD nomination could include a link to the earlier, pre-COI version. This is since the discussion should be about notability and suitability of an article at en.wp at all, not about a COI-polluted edit in particular. Martinp (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 June 2026

Psyclones (closed)

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

Self referral here as the close has been challenged at my talk page here basically arguing that my close to redirect as an ATD was a super vote and that I should enforce the clear consensus of the discussion. I have some sympathy to this argument as the only real support for the redirect was from the nominator. However, my close was informed by recent DRV discussions where the expectation that admins follow a valid ATD has become a constant theme. So basically what I'm asking for is a steer on whether I should have closed this as direct as I believed the expectation at DRV would be or whether I should have deleted anyway, which would have seen me put a redirect in as an editorial decision. Essentially, the end state is the same but the second more closely reflects the discussion Spartaz Humbug! 04:33, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse 1) status quo was as a redirect for the past year, 2) Nothing added in the attempted un-redirect and improvement was attack, copyvio, or unambiguously promotional, 3) No one who argued for deletion also argued against the AtD. This is a perfect AtD: clearly not notable, notability/verifiability is the main problem, and there is a notable and sensible redirect target. Mind you, the Psyclones paragraph in the target article kinda sucks at the moment, but that's something to work on without needing admin tools to spruce it up and smooth it out. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While there were more editors who supported deleting the article, no editor explicitly expressed opposition to the redirect. A delete close would also have been acceptable, but we have frequently given lots of leeway to an AtD. --Enos733 (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – when an ATD is suggested and there's no argument to the contrary whatsoever, I do believe closing as delete would just amount to raw vote-counting. (Thanks for bringing this here. I think more DRV self-referrals would be a good thing.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Yup, that's how almost all of us interpret ATD-R. Owen× ☎ 08:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was the one that raised this on Spartaz's talk page, and I did so because my understanding of policy was that when the question of a possible redirect was raised during an AfD discussion, the result on this was determined there, by consensus on the matter. If this isn't the case, the relevant policy should probably be made explicit in WP:DISCUSSAFD, which as it stands seems unambiguously to state that whether a redirect is created is one of the options being determined by participants. As for the specifics, Spartaz says the content on Psyclones in the redirect 'kinda sucks', which in my opinion is an understatement, since dedicating getting on to a quarter of an article supposedly on one band, which at least has a claim to be notable, to another band which, per the AfD, isn't, seems to me to run contrary to WP:DUE and to the spirit of the AfD consensus. Anyway, I'm not going to make a big thing of this, since it appears the redirect is seen as acceptable, and my time is probably better put into trying to sort out the confused mess at the target, which isn't even consistent as to whether it is discussing a band (or two bands?), an individual, or a 'project' lead by said individual, and which arguably is basing its 'notability' claim around flipping between one and another. If the target was less of a mess, the validity of the redirect might be clearer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My sense is that participants at AfD need to explicitly argue against a redirect. And there are many reasons why a redirect, while reasonable, may not be the preferred outcome. Examples include: if a subject is mentioned in the targeted article as the current holder of a position (and might be removed from the article), there are multiple redirect targets, or there is not any substance in the targeted article. In this case, I do agree, a redirect may not be the optimum outcome, but no editor suggested that restoring the redirect was incorrect. - Enos733 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My sense is that participants at AfD need to explicitly argue against a redirect.
    Which seems rather inconsistent with the insistence at DRV that delete !voters must have explicitly endorsed a redirect if they want to avoid a delete/redirect split being closed as no consensus..... JoelleJay (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think very many people actually agree with that position (I know I don't), and sometimes DRV has overturned closures along those lines, e.g., Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 March 14#Masini Situ-Kumbanga. I guess you're referring to the Fraser DRV, but that one was enough of a mess that I'm not sure it tells us very much either way. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clear consensus not to keep and no opposition to redirect from the delete !voters. Consensus is not required to close as an ATD instead of deletion. Anyone who does not believe the redirect to be correct can start a discussion at WP:RFD. Frank Anchor 16:37, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No argument against a redirect was presented in the AfD. I second Extraordinary Writ's notion that closing as delete would be vote counting rather than evaluating the strength of arguments (i.e. determining consensus). Katzrockso (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Redirects are both cheap and useful. Sometimes there should be a redirect unless there is a reason not to redirect, and no reason was given. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse As I wrote here on Spartaz's talk page, "I agree with Spartaz's interpretation of the community opinion at deletion reviews to supporting Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and strongly support the close as redirect given the discussion at the AfD."

    When a redirect is an alternative to deletion, I always support keeping the article's history accessible to non-admins if there are no BLP violations or copyright violations or anything else that should be publicly inaccessible in the history. The article may contain useful content for a merge or useful sources. The article may have unreliable sources that cannot be cited. But the unreliable sources may have information that helps editors find reliable sources that can be used. Without having to ask an admin to restore to draft, a non-admin who is interested in recreating the article with better sourcing and content can immediately view the prior state of the article to see if anything can be reused. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment about notability: I consider Psyclones notable through the significant coverage in reliable sources I provided at Talk:Psyclones#Sources. Of the eight sources I listed there, I think only one—the 2021 Times-Standard article—was discussed at the AfD. Rather than deletion, Psyclones should have a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read Wikipedia:Deletion review. This isn't a rerun of the AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but this falls under the "significant new information" purpose of DRV. Moreover, Cunard didn't advocate for overturning the result to keep, since that obviously wasn't within any discretion for a closer. Katzrockso (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If " Rather than deletion, Psyclones should have a standalone article" isn't advocating for overturn of the result, what is the purpose of writing it here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would Cunard explicitly write just above "Endorse" and then quote their own post I agree with Spartaz's interpretation of the community opinion at deletion reviews to supporting Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and strongly support the close as redirect given the discussion at the AfD (emphasis mine) if they were advocating to overturn? Katzrockso (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I endorse the close as an accurate and well-reasoned interpretation of the policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, consistent with the discussion at the AfD and the community consensus established in many recent deletion reviews.

    I support the creation of a standalone article based on the new sources I found at Talk:Psyclones#Sources, eight of which were not discussed at the AfD. I am stating that opinion here based on the "significant new information has come to light" purpose of DRV as explained by Katzrockso.

    These two statements are not in conflict. I endorse the close while also supporting the creation of a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. Endorsing the result of the AfD is not related to whether or not a different result should arise for the subject in question (i.e. we could endorse a keep closure and then advocate for discussion on the talk page to merge the subject into another article). Katzrockso (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The AfD nom mentioned the prior redirect, and User:UtherSRG explcitly supported the redirect, and no one argued against redirect, so the close was not a Supervote. The target mentions the topic, so the redirect is appropriate. It was a pretty obvious ATD-R, although unusual in the number of clean and simple “delete” !votes.
The inclusion of Psyclones at the target feels clunky. Hopefully that will be fixed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATD-R is not, and never has been, a license to close an AFD contrary to consensus. The alternatives listed are things that an AFD (or indeed an editor) is permitted to do. In other words, ATDs are options, not mandates. One person suggesting an ATD does not take, and never has taken, deletion off the table. Where redirection has been suggested and the participants at the discussion choose not to take forward that suggestion and instead form a consensus to delete, the closer should close according to that consensus. There is no blanket requirement for !voters to explicitly !vote against an ATD for this to be the case.
    That being said, in the very specific facts of this discussion, where the article was spun out last month from a redirect that had been existent for a very long time, and where the nominator expressed this, and where most of the participants didn't seem to engage with this, reverting to a redirect is the most sensible outcome. I don't know if that constitutes an endorse, but I will go with no action. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely with this position. JoelleJay (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just endorsing vote counting as a legitimate method for evaluating consensus, which is contrary to policy. Katzrockso (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm aware, mind-reading, i.e. assuming that because somebody didn't actively oppose a redirect they must support it, is definitely contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Silence implies consent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice try, but an essay on content editing doesn't equate to a policy on how AfDs are conducted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not just a content essay, but an ancient proverb. Once redirection is mentioned, for all subsequent posters, there’s an onus to to mention an objection if they have one. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we assume (which reasonable minds can disagree about) that delete !voters oppose a redirect, presenting no argument against a redirect, but opposing it, is WP:JUSTAVOTE and should be discarded by a competent closer. Katzrockso (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:JUSTAVOTE is an essay and does not bind closers in any way. Without waiving that objection, delete !voters are not, and never have been, required to traverse every possible alternative !vote that they might have cast and write a wordy explanation of why they have considered that possibility and ruled it out. They are expected to explain why they support the course of action they are !voting for, which most of the participants did. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a clear extension of the WP:CONSENSUS policy you reference elsewhere, which states Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. The idea that a bare !vote to "delete" or "keep" an article should be counted is not consistent with existing Wikipedia PAG, practice or community consensus. WP:ATA is not WP:JUSTANESSAY, but one that garners significant community support. Katzrockso (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that our peripheral P&Gs, like WP:DGFA, WP:PRESERVE, WP:CHEAP, and of course the seminal statement at WP:ATD, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. inform the process. I get that Stifle and AndyTheGrump don't see it that way, but this goes to the purpose of Wikipedia: to provide appropriate articles to the public. Using the least invasive ways to correct problems, consistent with allowing the most people to fix such problems, is an important part of the process. Thus, arguments about whether ATD-R must be prioritized in any given situation are not dry legalities based on meticulously parsed grammar and flowcharts, but informed by common sense: "What ends the problem in a way that leads most readily to it being fixed (if possible) and put back in mainspace?" and that is going to be something where no administrator action is needed to undelete something 10 times out of 10. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    All very florid, but these are guidelines that the community is able to take into account. If a discussion comes to a consensus that deletion is appropriate despite all those things, it is to be followed, even if the !votes do not traverse seriatim every last guideline, essay, and process guide and say that they have considered it. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But in case you want to argue logic, WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS means that a deletion !vote when there is no policy-based reason for deletion, either per se (no WP:DEL#REASON applies) or because an WP:ATD would correct all reasons for deletion, is not a policy based !vote and is to be deprecated by the closer. There is no "default to delete" in Wikipedia: a reason for deletion must exist, and no other way to resolve the problem by editing can exist, before a deletion discussion can be closed as "consensus to delete". In practice, this has meant that such sub-par delete !votes were still accorded the understanding that the !voter didn't believe the article should be present in mainspace as it currently existed and counted toward whichever ATD was most relevant, usually redirection, unless an argument was made that the article in question should never exist as a mainspace article, a much more narrow and forceful argument. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That presupposes ATD and ROUGHCONSENSUS are policies, whereas they are in fact a process guide and a guideline respectively. WP:CON, on the other hand, is a policy, so trumps all the foregoing. As for the question of "default to delete", that's a strawman (attacking an argument I never made).
    Nice try though. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ATD is policy. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know when that happened or where the consensus came from, but you appear to be correct. Nevertheless, ATD outlines things that editors are permitted to do, not that they are required to do. The application of ATD to a given situation is to be determined by consensus. Nothing in ATD says it overrides the requirement for a consensus. There is not, and never has been, a requirement that a person !voting to delete set out seriatim every possible ATD and why they have rejected it. Such a !vote would be looked upon as sarcasm or disruptive. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You not remembering that ATD is policy and me not remembering a time when it was ever not policy might go a long way to explaining the differing perspectives. I seriously do not know that that section ever existed anywhere outside of the deletion policy page, and me viewing it as a policy has shaped my view on its prioritization, as expressed here and elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A !vote advocating for deletion for a reason that is remediable by a non-deletion option is not policy-based and should be either downweighted or read as a vote for the AtD which addresses the concerns of the editor. This a straightforward application of WP:ATD and WP:CONSENSUS. Katzrockso (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, with others. Article was a redirect, redirect got restored. Valid ATD. Skyshiftertalk 02:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse I would endorse a redirect even without this having been a long-standing redirect in the past per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. But in this case it's easy. Also, as Cunard has noted, there are enough sources to actually have an article that easily meets our inclusion guidelines. So in many ways, the AfD, while closed correctly, it got it wrong (though maybe WP:TNT applied?). Hobit (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close as a reasonable interpretation of the discussion, given its context, and our overall approach to redirects. In fact, a good example of a thoughtful close which goes beyond counting noses. That said, a close like this would have benefitted from a closing comment to explain the reasoning pre-emptively. And it would also have been very reasonable to not close, rather to relist with a targeted request for comments whether to redirect, since the discussion had barely engaged with that and yet there were voices emphasizing the content shouldn't be merged into the (possible) redirect destination. Martinp (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the threshold for retaining a redirect is much lower than that for retaining an article. Therefore, any Delete !vote at AfD that presents a valid argument against keeping the article, but fails to meet the more stringent RfD standard for deleting the proposed redirect ATD, can--and should--be counted as acquiescing with the ATD. This has been our common practice for as long as I can remember. The Stifle doctrine can result in absurd situations where an article is kept as "no consensus" because participants, unanimous against retention, are evenly split between "Delete" and "Redirect". Perhaps an added sentence at WP:ATD could align the policy, as written, with our common practice and with common sense. Owen× ☎ 11:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't thought of it that way, but that's a very useful illustration: problematic enough to redirect but not bad enough to delete is a real thing. Jclemens (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this might fit better at WP:DGFA? Katzrockso (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The nominator recommended redirection, that suggestion was explicitly endorsed and nobody (explicitly or otherwise) presented any arguments against redirection so this was a correct close. Deletion wouldn't have quite been outside the bounds of administrator discretion, but it would have been on the edge and distinctly sub-optimal outcome in the cirucmstances. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, there is a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Recent reversion and its subsection Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Why should redirecting be preferred over deletion?. Cunard (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2026 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1357387749"