Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
 |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
- 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;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
- 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.
Deletion review should not be used:
- 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.)
- 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:
- creation protection – request removal of the protection from the protecting administrator or, if the administrator is unavailable or non-responsive, request at Wikipedia:Requests for page unprotection.
- title blacklisting – file a delisting request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist.
- 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);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Steps to list a new deletion review
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial 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.
- 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. |
and paste the template immediately below the "Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE ..." comment. Before publishing your changes, replace {{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:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to delete, merge, or redirect an article previously kept or slated for merging, place |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review at the very top of the original AfD discussion, above all other content:
|
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
- An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though it 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, 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".
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 a sockpuppet of Mr Boar. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2BOARNOTOOB. Popcornfud (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- @Popcornfud: what is the remedy you are seeking? Owen× ☎ 11:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think the article ought to be restored. Popcornfud (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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). With, at best, two 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 fault to the AFD closer as it was closed correctly based on information known at the time. Frank Anchor 12:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Marija Brenčič Jelen (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Darializa Avila Chevalier (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Spartaz closed the AfD with the summary
Spartaz then expanded on their close summary:
As I had stated in the AfD discussion,
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)
|
| 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. |
|
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)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Endorse. Yup, that's how almost all of us interpret ATD-R. Owen× ☎ 08:51, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Please read Wikipedia:Deletion review. This isn't a rerun of the AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- Why would Cunard explicitly write just above "Endorse" and then quote their own post
- 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)
- 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)
- Please read Wikipedia:Deletion review. This isn't a rerun of the AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)- I agree completely with this position. JoelleJay (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- WP:Silence implies consent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- It is a clear extension of the WP:CONSENSUS policy you reference elsewhere, which states
- 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)
- WP:Silence implies consent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- WP:ATD is policy. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- WP:ATD is policy. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse, with others. Article was a redirect, redirect got restored. Valid ATD. Skyshiftertalk 02:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- I think this might fit better at WP:DGFA? Katzrockso (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Per my statement on the closer's talk page: "
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |