Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VfU)
"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 29}}</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 29}}</noinclude>
  • If the discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 June 29|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

29 June 2026

27 June 2026

Giuseppe Palamara (closed)

  • Giuseppe Palamara – LLM drafted nominations are not useful and it's unfair to expect volunteers to wade through them. If you want to nominate you need to prepare a much shorter text yourself. If your English is not strong enough to do that yourself then this might not be the project for you. Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Giuseppe Palamara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am formally requesting a Deletion Review of the AfD for the article "Giuseppe Palamara", which was closed by administrator Owen (talk · contribs) as "delete" based on an alleged consensus. The closure and the subsequent explanations provided by the closing administrator on his talk page rely on demonstrably false factual claims regarding user registration, an arbitrary invention of non-existent participant counts, and a severe misrepresentation of community consensus.

1. Factual Error and Misrepresentation of User Status (The "TortugaP" Keep Vote)

In his talk page response, administrator Owen justified discarding the Keep vote of user TortugaP (talk · contribs) by stating it was "a brand new account created for the purpose of voting on this AfD" and implying meatpuppetry. This is factually incorrect. Global account analysis (GUC) proves that TortugaP (talk · contribs) is an established contributor active on other language projects, such as the Catalan Wikipedia (ca.wikipedia), with a clear edit history dating back to at least April 2026—months before this AfD was opened. Furthermore, the user contributes from Catalonia, focused independently on regional infrastructure and historical bridges, demonstrating zero correlation or "call to arms" with the article creator in Italy. Disqualifying a legitimate cross-wiki editor's input based on a false premise is a severe administrative oversight that violates WP:BITE and WP:AGF.

2. Direct Invention of Participant Counts and Consensus Distortion

The actual breakdown of community members who took an explicit stance and voted in the AfD discussion was a tight 3-2 split:

On his talk page, Owen claimed there were "four participants arguing for deletion" to assert an artificial "4-to-1" split against retention. This fourth distinct voting participant does not exist. While user Lijil (talk · contribs) technically opened the debate as the nominator providing structural background, they did not cast a separate, independent vote, meaning the total count of delete proponents is strictly three. Even if the administrator had valid grounds to discount TortugaP (talk · contribs), the real count would be 3-1, not 4-1.

More importantly, if we look at the independent community feedback by subtracting the two primary opposing parties—the active nominator who led the deletion push (Adri08 (talk · contribs)) and the main contributor of the article (Kasper2006 (talk · contribs))—the outside community was split at a minimal 2 to 1. A 2-1 margin (or 3-2 overall) represents a glaring lack of consensus under WP:CON. Fabricating an additional participant to claim a 4-1 "consensus" to delete is an unacceptable distortion of the process. Per WP:DELGROUP, when no clear consensus is formed, the default outcome should be to keep or extend the discussion.

3. Ad Hominem Deflection on Sourcing

Instead of evaluating the 16 secondary media sources provided—9 of which are major Italian national networks and outlets (such as RAI, Mediaset, and La7) providing independent expert coverage—the closing administrator dismissed the arguments by claiming the text "reads like it was generated by an LLM". Utilizing structural or language assistance to present a well-documented table of national media coverage is entirely within policy. An administrator cannot bypass a rigorous source assessment under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV simply by attacking the drafting style of a non-native English speaker.

Conclusion

Because the closing administrator relied on a false claim to invalidate a valid Keep vote, invented a non-existent fourth Delete participant to inflate the numbers, and declared a "consensus" where independent editors were split 2-1, the closure violates standard consensus-building guidelines. I respectfully request that the deletion be overturned, the page restored, or moved back to a neutral, third-party discussion. Kasper2006 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kasper2006 you have a misunderstanding of AfD. Owen did not invent anything. The nomination is their participation. Unless they explicitly say it's procedural or they're otherwise neutral, it is counted as an argument in favor of deletion. This is how the process works. That an editor of your tenure doesn't know this is bewildering. No comment on the rest of this at this stage, but pLease remove the headers and bullets from your thread here. They break the page. Star Mississippi 03:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Procedural Close although I am not sure that this is the right place to enter this, because of the way the appellant has broken DRV. Maybe I can explain something to User:Star Mississippi. I don't think that Kasper2006 has misunderstood how AFD works, because I don't think that Kasper2006 has written this appeal. An appeal that begins with an introduction of the form I am formally requesting a Deletion Review and is followed by three points and a conclusion is probably written by artificial intelligence. So the experienced editor didn't misunderstand how AFD works, because the chatbot misunderstood how AFD works. The Keep statement in the AFD was largely copied in this DRV and so was probably also written by artificial intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse LLM does not have standing at DRV. Jumpytoo Talk 05:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kasper2006, please review WP:LLMTALK, thanks. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The most unfair accusation that can be leveled against me is that my text was written by an LLM. I have already explained that, not being a native English speaker, sometimes I use a translator for assistance, but the arguments and thoughts are entirely my own. What is true, however, is that I am an expert wiki user. Therefore, before drawing the conclusion that Lijil automatically voted 'delete' by default simply because they opened the AfD, I would strongly advise Robert McCleon to review the entire history starting from April, when the article was first created, he can look at my contributions to see the steps I have taken. This was well before Adri08 brought their cross-wiki not-notability campaign over to en.wiki, in fact before his intervention the page had remained quiet in the namespace for almost a month. Doing so would reveal that it was actually myself who wanted the AfD process, after multiple attempts to obtain third-party opinions over several months had failed. It is a pity he did not check, because if he had, he would have noticed at least a few other editors there who had explicitly expressed their support for Palamara's notability. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify for the reviewing administrator: the previous editors who explicitly expressed support for Palamara's potential notability did so on the article's talk page (Talk:Giuseppe Palamara), which is currently deleted and thus only accessible to administrators. My extensive efforts to seek third-party input over the past months also included opening a Third Opinion request and posting on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I respectfully invite the closing admin to verify the deleted talk page history to confirm this context.
I therefore ask for a review of the two who voted endorse in light of these three new facts: 1) I rejected the accusations of having used LLM; 2) In fact, Lijil opened the AfD because after two months I myself wanted it, having failed to obtain a third opinion beyond that of the two contenders (me and Adrio08); 3) You failed to consider the fact that Owen stated something untrue by saying that TortugaP had registered to vote, in fact he had been active on the Catalan wiki for some time. Therefore, the 2-3 could not be considered a 1-4 by Owen (the addition of Lijil's vote if, even if it is true that he opened the AfD, I had understood this myself and the justification for the deletion of TortugaP's vote is not true).--Kasper2006 (talk) 07:20, 28 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.

Loveworld Records (closed)

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

The merge discussion was not tagged at the merge target. It had the deletion tag on the page but no one responded to the deletion discussion. It was therefore closed after one relist as consensus to merge to the proposed target. The proposed target is the wrong target. The correct target would be Christ Embassy. I only noticed this when consensus to merge was tagged on a page I watch (Chris Oyakhilome). It is not clear that there's anything to merge though, and straight deletion might be better. Either way, discussion should be relisted for another week, with a tag at the proposed merge target, so that editors watching that page can be involved in the discussion. Attempted to request this be done informally yesterday at closer's talk page [1] but the closer has not responded, despite continuing to edit (and close discussions). Requested action is to Relist for one week, properly tagged. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Our procedures for nominating for merging[2] segue with deletion,[3][4] and and are under significant churn at the present time.[5][6] These procedures should either be ignored, and DRV is well placed to do this, or should be examined in precise detail to be sure of the correct procedural status at each relevant time. Thincat (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD started as a nomination for deletion so there was no relevant merge target. Then it was switched to a merge discussion using, I think, an undocumented but often used procedure.[7] Thincat (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Chubbles: to explain the reasons for his vote. Svartner (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Closure was reasonable but arguably wrong. I doubt anyone would have much heartburn with the alternative merge target, assuming both articles meet our inclusion guidelines themselves. I don't see a reasonable case for deleting if that's the case per WP:NNC, because merging only verifiable content can sometimes devolve to a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a classic case of WP:SOFTMERGE, which states, A soft merge closure may be used when a discussion receives very few or no comments [...] any editor can reverse this by splitting them back out [...] the discussion does not need to be relisted. @Svartner: if you agree, please change "merge" to "soft merge", and we can close this DRV as resolved. Owen× ☎ 16:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Svartner (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I'll close this. Owen× ☎ 23:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft merge or alternatively relist The decision to close as merge was not wrong, but I agree with others that the merge target articulated in the discussion may not have been the most optimum choice of target. Merge has always been a plausible outcome at AfD, so I do not agree that notification of a plausible target is necessary by editors at AfD. --Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft merge per above. FaviFake (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per nom. Notifying the target talk page of a merge proposal is procedurally necessary, absolutely. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 27 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.

26 June 2026

List of brands notable for sponsorships with content creators

List of brands notable for sponsorships with content creators (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was closed 8 days after it was opened, by which point it only had a few comments, which I thought had only indicated mixed consensus so far. I talked to the closing administrator, who provided this rationale:

there is no set length of time beyond a minimum of 1 week and I believe in closing things once a consensus has been established. That said I did ponder for longer than normal about whether to relist or close it and I ultimately decided there was a consensus established and 4 editors is enough to establish such a consensus. Because it is not a vote, I did not simply count numbers but instead considered the comments in finding there already was a consensus. The comment, while not leaving a bolded !vote, cast doubt on the reasoning behind the keep !vote. This echoed the concerns of the 2nd delete !vote (the first being the nominator) and thus was enough to find a consensus.

Although I consider these points to be fair, I still think this discussion was closed too soon for the consensus to be considered quite clear just yet. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What he excluded from that comment is that I asked him Do you have substantive reasons to offer for it being kept? as if he did I was prepared to relist it. However he did not and apparently does not being instead focused on process concerns. I look forward to the feedback from others here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but relist, this is a valid reading of the discussion, but a very slim consensus. We have an established editor who, I presume, wants to add to the discussion. More days for a firmer consensus does not hurt anyone. Star Mississippi 00:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrPersonHumanGuy can you confirm that you would like to add to the discussion? When you wrote I was hoping for other AfD participants to be able to find enough additional sources to potentially rescue the article and didn't answer my question I got the impression that you were concerned about consensus rather than looking to add. However, as I said above if the answer is "I have a !vote I wish to add" I'm happy to reopen and relist this myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If I was planning to !vote in the discussion, I would've done so as soon as I became aware that it was nominated for deletion. (I didn't unintentionally "miss my chance" to do so) When an article is nominated, I assume it means that the nominator thinks the existing source coverage is insufficient, and I don't think I could personally argue against that myself. (although other editors might be able to) I would appreciate the AfD being relisted. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    struck that part of my comment per your followup, MPHG. I guess a relist isn't technically needed if there isn't someone looking to add to the discussion? Firmly meh as I'm not sure what the answer is here. Do we need to spend seven days here? Star Mississippi 02:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My assumption is that, even if I have nothing to add, at least one other contributor (besides any of us so far) may decide that they themselves would've wanted to add to the AfD if they become aware of it, so I'm leaving this DRV open just in case. Only time can tell for certain whether my hope for that will turn out to have been valid or misplaced. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't recall DRV ever reopening a discussion merely because someone said they wanted to add to the headcount. Searching, I can find a couple where we (well, I) have indicated willingness to reopen a discussion someone had missed if they had something concrete to add like an unconsidered source, and said what that was here at DRV (1, 2, 3). While that's never been successful, I still think it's a good metric.
    I'd intended to ask MrPersonHumanGuy what, precisely, they planned on saying if we reopened this afd for another week, but looks like we've gotten the answer while I was still searching for precedent. Hoping someone else will come along and rescue the list, or perhaps that another closer will read the same discussion and come to a different conclusion, isn't sufficient reason, I'm afraid. Endorse. —Cryptic 02:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't recall DRV ever reopening a discussion merely because someone said they wanted to add to the headcount. I was going to say I did, but then realized I'm probably thinking of talk page discussions where - as was the case here too - closer says essentially, "OK, will relist if you have something to add."
    To any potential closer, don't let my !vote hang up consensus. I'm firmly split in that the close was fine but a relist would be too There's probably no wrong outcome here other than seven days of bureaucracy Star Mississippi 03:35, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are normally loathe to treat DRV as AfD round 2. But in this case, I'm with Barkeep49: I'd like to see what argument for retention the appellant presents before I decide. There was no procedural error; eight days is more than the required duration. Barkeep49 gave the appellant every opportunity to present his case on merits, yet MrPersonHumanGuy chose to appeal on procedural arguments I see as baseless. MrPersonHumanGuy: the floor is yours; tell us why the page should be kept, rather than why the AfD should be reopened. Owen× ☎ 01:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist a 2 v 2 discussion, not previously relisted, even with one side having a better grip on policy, is probably best relisted just to avoid situations like this where even if this might have been the right final answer (and I'm not advocating that it unequivocally is; I have no opinion on the topic), it just looks bad for a numerical tie to be closed conclusively in either direction. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. With only two users who opposed retention, there was not a quorum to delete. Take out any keep arguments and it would be a soft delete, subject to immediate restoration upon any good faith request (e.g. this DRV). The presence of keep votes takes soft deletion off the table, meaning the discussion should have been closed as no consensus or relisted. I would opt for the latter as there is an interest in continuing this sparsely-attended discussion. Frank Anchor 12:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - the discussion was not well attended, and while I don't feel that Barkeep's close was unreasonable, given the good-faith request to relist I now see no reason why we should not. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There was no quorum to delete here, so a deletion closure is improper, per Frank Anchor. Katzrockso (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

Recent discussions

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 [9]. 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 [10], 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.

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.

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"