Wikipedia:Deletion review

Skip to:

Active discussions
Recent discussions
Archive
(purge cache)

WP: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

Shortcut

WP:DRVPURPOSE

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 significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

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);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
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 repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
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);
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

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

Instructions

Shortcut

WP:DELREVD

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review


1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in `page` with the name of the page, `xfd_page` with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and `reason` with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, `article` is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 \|page=File:Foo.png \|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png \|article=Foo \|reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRV notice\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev\|date=2025 June 3}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2025 June 3}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2025 June 3\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Active discussions

3 June 2025

1 June 2025

Grant Cardone (businessman)

Speedy delete under G4 but article was not eligible for G4 as it was not substantially identical to the deleted version, it wasn't even close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original article, Grant Cardone was deleted multiple times, and finally SALTed. The dabbed draft was a (nearly) attempt to circumvent that SALTing. While G4 may not have been the right tag, the article should not have been accepted due to the SALT. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no speedy deletion category which would apply and the topic is clearly notable so unsure why you're insisting that the salting is relevant... Salts are not supposed to prevent a page from being created if the topic ever actually becomes notable (which this one did sometime between 2021 and 2024) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel everyone (and I do mean everyone) involved in this mess should be presented with a serving of trout. A family sized fish and chips to share, perhaps? In any case, yes, yes, list this at AfD instead or whatever. Safari probably shouldn't have bypassed the salt with an invalid dab because they felt pressured(? I don't know, I suppose I'm not psychic enough.) instead of raising it again at RFP, RFP probably could have just unprotected the first time, and no, this isn't really sufficiently identical to be G4-eligible.

On the other hand, yelling at people, while it might be cathartic, is hardly appropriate and unlikely to be a good way of getting the issue fixed. I suppose we've now reached the first venue in this whole saga where discussion and a consensus closure is expected to take place, but there's no good reason any discussion should need to happen here rather than at AFD (if anyone thinks the article is sufficiently dubious to actually nominate it). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I start yelling you will know... I've been handling this calmly and rationally for months now (the only reference to yell/yelling in the entire thing is one self deprecating comment from me), I would tell you how long but the entire history got is unavailable to me because the article was deleted instead of being turned back into a draft... The level of incompetence and errors I have encountered is staggering. If I wanted to do this the loud and angry way I would have done it in two days months and months ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Horse Eye's Back - While most DRVs should be concise, you made the mistake of not giving us enough information about what the issue was, so that we had to do a lot of research to infer what had happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the comment about yelling: Sure, Horse, I suppose I should make it clearer that I understand that your yelling comment was not entirely serious, and I do not believe your comments quite rises to a level that should be characterised by that term. If I believed otherwise, I would be taking this discussion to a different venue, since this place is mostly about procedure and less about any yelling that might (but didn't) happen during said processes. All the same, if there are three ways you believe an incorrect decision might have been made, and two of them can be characterised with charged language, listing them out gives those ways salience, since people pay attention to such language. Said salience is undue and unnecessary to make the point that the decision was incorrect, that you have a bit that says someone trusts you to make the same decision for your own articles, and that continued protection is no longer needed.

Coming back to something slightly more on topic: Perhaps we do also need to streamline our processes for unsalting, given that WP:RFPU is possibly more reluctant to do so then we'd often like here (though, given my observations are taken from DRV, I'd obviously lack a sample of titles successfully unsalted without ending up here). WP:UNPROTPOL gives both discretion to unprotect at RFPU to any individual admin but also deference to the protecting admin, and while pages are supposed to be unprotected if there is no consensus it is still required, RFPU requests are not (afaik) routinely evaluated for said lack of consensus. Maybe we should more explicitly define which groups from which we expect an unsalt request to be routinely accepted, whether that includes NPP, AfC reviewers and autopatrolled or a broader group. At the moment though, I suppose the policy is sufficiently unclear to make it a frustrating process, at least occasionally. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the decision in question... For example when talking about the speedy deletion incompetent is the only way I can describe that edit, that appears to be the least charged language possible as the other language suggests bad faith editing (and there is no possible way for this to have been a good faith competent edit, its either not good faith... Not competent... Or not either). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions - Are Grant Cardone and Grand Cardone (businessman) the same person? Did User:UtherSRG compare Grand Cardone (businessman) and the deleted Grant Cardone, using admin glasses, and determine that they were essentially the same? Is it that determination that is being appealed by User:Horse Eye's Back? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- They're the same person. —Cryptic 22:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - This is a mess, of a different type than a train wreck. What I can tell, with regular glasses, is that the undisambiguated title was created five times, and deleted five times, four times as G11, and once in 2017 after a deletion discussion. (I would Endorse the deletion discussion, except that I don't think that is being questioned.) Then User:SafariScribe created Grant Cardone (businessman), apparently accepting a draft by User:Horse Eye's Back. I don't know who disambiguated it, but they should have known that it would look like gaming the title, because that is the usual approach to try to sneak a salted title into article space. The point at which we, DRV, should have been called was when the reviewer tried to approve the draft and couldn't due to the salting. If I understand what happened, then the disambiguated article that was accepted by Safari Scribe and then deleted by UtherSRG, and the 2017 article that was deleted after AFD, should be temporarily undeleted and compared. That is what I think needs to be done at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minor corrections: HEB did not create this draft (it was created by an IP in 2023), although they did make significant edits to it. Related other discussions at User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Grant_Cardone_(May_23). SafariScribe seems to have decided sua sponte to add the unnecessary disambiguation without prompting from anyone else, an action I would argue is fundamentally incompatible with being an AfC (and by extension NPP since the latter includes the former) reviewer - they are supposed to enforce standards, not circumvent them. So, counter Cryptic I can totally understand why someone would push the G4 button here and want to say "endorse", since I think (and am not alone in thinking) that this action by itself should justify a speedy deletion. But the community thinks differently of the matter, and we as admins are bound by that consensus. So reluctantly return to the status quo ante prior to SafariScribe's impermissible actions, which is to overturn the deletion, move the page title back to draft space, and leave it salted until an admin decides to unsalt it independently of this fandango. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... which it appears Discospinster has already done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In partial defense of User:SafariScribe, I think that they were not knowingly circumventing standards. I think that I have been warning about the gaming of titles as long as anyone has, and I have also tried to make distinctions between different groups of editors who knowingly or innocently game titles. This was a good-faith error by a reviewer who saw a complicated situation, and tried to solve a problem, and in the process made the problem worse. They were not trying to circumvent the salting, but just did something that is often done on purpose to evade salting. I am sure that they didn't know how common the evading of salting is. And it is still true that reviewers who want to accept a salted title do not have clear and consistent guidance as to what to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewers who want to approve to a SALTED title should ask at WT:AfC or a variety of other options. What reviewer are you referring to? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:SmokeyJoe - The reviewer to whom I was referring was User:Safari Scribe, who evidently tried to approve Grant Cardone and was blocked by the salt, and so changed the title. This was a good-faith attempt to work around the salt, but other reviewers of course saw that as gaming the title. That is, it was a good-faith error that, to a reasonable third-party editor, appeared to be bad faith. Does that answer your question, or were you asking something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that User:Safari Scribe has the New Page Patroller permission? That user is not registered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The correct username is "User:SafariScribe" with no space. SafariScribe does have new page reviewer permissions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that I understand why HEB is frustrated. Alpha3031 said that multiple trouts are in order. That is true, but I see no evidence that HEB has made any mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If not for the added "Legal issues" section, the G4 would seem reasonable, though still incorrect - the rest of the article's structure is identical, and while the text is rephrased, it mostly states the same facts in the same tone; what would make it incorrect is that the references are entirely different. With the new section, which is quite substantial, this wouldn't have been a proper speedy even if it had happened the day after the AFD closed instead of the better part of eight years later, and I can't understand why any admin would think it would be. Overturn. —Cryptic 22:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete in mainspace, allow AfD. It was an AfC review mishap. Clarify the instructions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~. Undelete to draftspace and instruct proponents to use WP:AfC and to read WP:THREE. ENDORSE the deletion of the mainspace title as evasion of the SALTed title. WP:RFUP may be used to request unsalting, but it is not OK to evade SALT by trying alternative titles. WP:G4 has extra latitude when SALT-evasion is being played. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: this went through AfC and THREE has already been checked and accepted before it was moved to mainspace. G4 says nothing about SALT evasion at all but it does say "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." so appears to give exactly no latitude in this context whatsoever. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t see the evidence for this.

request temp undeletion

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about this. I accepted the draft to mainspace so that it would be easier for HEB to appeal the original title block at RPP; initially when it was in draftspace, I declined it and during that time when HEB requested a block lift at RPP, it was declined following my AFC decline. After much recheck and assessment of the draft, I accepted it into mainspace with a dab so that HEB could present that the draft has been accepted by an AFC reviewer while appealing the original block at RPP. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe I think the best option next time would be for you to mark the review as "pending", leave a comment using the AfC Helper Script that you intend to accept the draft, and then follow the instructions here by requesting unprotection at WP:RfPP. Toadspike [Talk] 08:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and undelete. What a hilarious mess. Like Cryptic, I can tell everyone that this was definitely not G4 eligible, and I encourage temporary undeletion so everyone can review. As Safari notes above, the choice to disambiguate was a creative one to allow page creation while the page protection issue was settled. Wires were crossed, and the undisambiguated page is now unprotected. Nothing but a series of good-faith errors has prevented this page from being published, so let's end the saga. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 as not eligible for G4. Contra to SmokeyJoe, I see no reasons why G4 would have any change in scope or reach with an apparent SALT evasion. And, of course, SafariScribe is here explaining why the action taken seemed like the least bad action at the time, and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/05#27 May 2025 substantiates that the SALT and AfC processes worked against each other in this case. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sure if you try, you could see the reasons. SALTing, which per policy should not be done lightly, is an emphatic decision that the topic does not belong, stronger than an AfD delete. And SALT evasion is not a respected way to contest SALTing. I’ve been here a long time, and over all that time, this is policy in practice. You might object to how it is not policy as documented. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically it: G4 is the most overused CSD, and I don't want to open that door any wider. I'd be fine with a separate CSD for "created under an alternate name in violation of a valid create protection" which doesn't even have a "substantially identical" qualifier, if someone wanted to propose that, and believe that would be a better/cleaner way to deal with abuse of process. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except, if it is SALT evasion, but not G4-style identical, I think it should be speedily draftified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily draftified at the correct title, with no redirect preserved? I think we may have a working proposal here. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a terrible speedy deletion criterion because it would fail "Objective" and "Uncontestable" principles of CSD (WT:CSD header). It's only a violation if done as a violation, and is not a violation if done as a good-faith new attempt at an article. —Alalch E. 10:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFUP: it does not show that the processes work against each other, but that the instructions are poor, and unqualified accounts should not be playing the reviewer. I see that eventually, User:Firefangledfeathers speaks for the draft, and on their recommendation the draft should be mainspaced. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
‘=== Grant Cardone ===
- Grant Cardone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Reason: The draft article is ready to be moved into main space but this is blocked by an admin move lock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Grant Cardone —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not unprotected. The draft was declined 4 days ago with only a minor improvement since then. I am not seeing a good reason to circumvent the review process at this time. If the prior reviewer deems the recent small change as sufficient for passing, then make a new request here. @SafariScribe: What do you think? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: SafariScribe's analysis was either bad faith, incompetent, or mistaken and they have chosen not to support it despite being pinged to my talk page to do so. I have Autopatrolled permission so NPP consent is not needed (and meaning that this does not circumvent the review process, I am allowed to move it to main at any time I want), no more reason is needed than that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Discospinster, the protecting admin. Judging from the log, the purpose of the protection was to prevent repeated, problematic recreation. The recreated version back then was an advertisement. A good-faith, experienced editor is trying to create the article, and no one appears to be claiming that it is overly ad-like. The reviewer's decline rationale was probably an error. I'd recommend unprotection. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear I'm not challenging the validity of the earlier deletions and protection, it seems that people (many of whom appear to have some sort of conflict) have been trying to create an article for him since 2008 and IMO he isn't actually notable until the early 2020s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't think you were, and I'm not either. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I like and greatly respect discospinster and it worried me that my comment could seen as throwing shade at them. Just wanted to acknowledge that the waters are really muddy but that there is now a legal sized fish in there so no shade on the game warden who said there wasn't many years ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"an emphatic decision that the topic does not belong" that isn't what salting is... Salting is a tool which cuts down on disruptive editing, not a supervote... Its purpose is to prevent disruption, its purpose is not to be a supervote against future notability or to win a content dispute. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 and restore to draft. Based on the opinions of DRV regulars who have acces to the histories, G4 did not apply as the versions are not sufficiently identical. Whether this should remain in draftspace or moved to mainspace is not a DRV matter and was recently discussed (and declined, then accepted in though that assessment has been considered incorrect) at AFC. Frank Anchor 13:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Anchor: Actually it was eventually accepted at AFC, for context SafariScribe (who created Grant Cardone (businessman)) was the NPP reviewer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks updated my response to reflect this. Frank Anchor 15:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Anchor: who considers that to be an incorrect assessment? Unless I'm missing something not a single editor has challenged that assessment (the lack of anyone actually challenging the article's notability at this point is one of the things that makes this such a weird series of events, not even UtherSRG is challenging the notability of the topic). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are entirely correct about everything. Content matters take precedents over process matters, and process matters takes precedence over conduct matters. Here, worries about gaming conduct compromised proper deletion process, all while losing sight of the much more important thing: That the article is fine on content grounds which is the only thing that ultimately matters. —Alalch E. 13:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn G4 and restore to draft space as Draft:Grand Cardone. Unsalt the original title (if not already unsalted) so that a reviewer will be able to accept it. We don't need a temporary undelete; enough editors have said that the article in question is not the same as the deleted article that we should let a reviewer decide whether to accept it and another AFD resolve any remaining questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4. Not sufficiently identical. The idea that given a salted title "Foo", creation of "Foo (disambiguator)" is disallowed is not supported by policy. Preemptive restrictions on new article titles are instituted through the title blacklist system, not through page protection. Judgement is needed to determine if WP:GAMING is involved or if the creation at the alternate title was done to circumvent a mere technical obstacle to a legitimate page creation. If gaming is involved, address the behavior, and even then, G4 would not apply. Here, the page was created in good faith and the use of an alternate title is not a problem (just move the page to the desired title).—Alalch E. 10:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AfC angle is completely irrelevant. AfC is optional. Deletion policy and protection policy aren't optional. —Alalch E. 10:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

28 May 2025

List of Sony Bravia televisions

Unreasonable nomination which consisted of following arguments:

1. Lengthy list → Usually, an article being too short is a reason for deletion but not it being too long. If that was truly a problem it would have to be split up, not deleted entirely. Otherwise, any article that exceeds some specified size would have to be removed

2. doesn't provide notable coverage of any individual models → It provided the sizes, resolution, light source technology, light control technology, ports, refres rate, a notes section which can include any additional attributes like screen curvature and availability among others, as well as references for many models. That is a lot of coverage on the individual models in my opinion.

3. Fails WP:NOTCATALOGUE → In what way?

a) Simple lists (such as a list of phone numbers) that do not include contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. → Does not apply, it has contextual information listed in 2.

b) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional) → Does not apply, this is about a clearly delimited topic

c) Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y" → Does not apply, it's about one subset (TVs) of a range of products from one manufacturer.

d) Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. → Does not apply, is about things not persons

e) Electronic program guides. An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. → Does not apply, is about products not electronic programs

f) A resource for conducting business. Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. → Does not apply, this was in no form conducting business

4. There was exactly one answer to add any new content which has not been mentioned before which said "It's not the job of Wikipedia to include every single model number of a particular television producer" → The article does not just list the model numbers (which would be 3.a.) but instead with contextual information which include the most important attribues of a TV. Also, there are many other lists on technological products from different manufacturers which are broadly accepted, like List of Intel processors, List of Microsoft Windows versions, List of Apple products, all of which show that these arguments brought up have no foundation or any relevance in any other similar articles. Punkt64 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This was a unanimous discussion that couldn't have been closed any other way. Deletion review is only for challenging alleged failures of the closer to read the consensus of the community. If the consensus the community comes too is substantively incorrect rather than incorrectly assessed then you're just out of luck; it is supreme. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So just because I am a less frequent user than the people voting for the deletion does mean my opinion is automatically worthless? Does that mean one could just team up with two other users and vote to delete articles with less frequent edits by using unfounded arguments? That seems to be a gap which would allow both sabotage from outside and self-destruction from inside on large parts of the content of Wikipedia. That would also mean the opinions of the many would trump the facts of the few. It also would mean that Wikipedia hates infrequent authors even though they make up a large part of the authors. In that case, it seems more plausible for such users to stop contributing at all. Or is there any other way where I can request to continue the discussion on a deletion after the just 1 week of time there seems to be between a request for deletion and it’s execution? Punkt64 (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pppery, that's just DRV #1, but this is clearly being brought under #3 and #5. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't "significant new information" - it's just what could have been written as a keep !vote, so #3 doesn't apply. And the alleged error is entirely substantive, not procedural, so #5 doesn't apply. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - After one week, there were two possible valid actions by a closer, Delete or Relist. In my opinion, either would have been valid. After reading this statement twice, I see that the appellant is not arguing any error by the closer, but is arguing that the statement by the nominator is wrong. That is a Round 2 argument, and DRV is not AFD Round 2. So the closure of Delete should be endorsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete it was a valid close but if the DRV nominator had made this argument at AFD the outcome might have been differently. I might have voted keep if I'd been there. It's true that DRV isn't round 2 of AFD, but there wasn't really a proper round 1 here, also no one came back to look at the improvements made late in the AFD. If someone misses an AFD but has a valid argument against deletion, what are they actually supposed to do? I don't know of a specific process for that, it doesn't technically fit WP:DRV or WP:RFU but surely leaving a valid article deleted just because of process isn't a good outcome. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, but that's a good critique on ochlocracy. With that said, I would Endorse per Robert McClenon. Worgisbor (congregate) 20:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I meant. Does it really make sense to have an article be deleted and never allowed to be written about again because not everyone who wants to contribute to the discussion was present in the one week after the AfD author chose to write their AfD? I have not seen anyone here disagree with the reasons I brought up to not have the article deleted, only claims that this is would not be the right place for this without pointing to anywhere where what I did was possible to do. The AfD discussion is closed and can not be edited. It points to using either the talk page or DRV. The talk page has been deleted together with the article. So I went to DRV and am now told this is not the right place either. I cite:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

When I go to the deleted page, it says

A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.

* 12:14, 21 April 2025 Explicit talk contribs deleted page List of Sony Bravia televisions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sony Bravia televisions (XFDcloser)) (thank)

I left a default DRV note on their talk page. They did not react until now. Because unlike the AfD process, I recognize users of Wikipedia are not online all the time, I don't mind this but I will write another message pointing out this discussion here so maybe they can see my arguments and maybe consider what to do with it. As I said before, and as you point out too, I don't think it makes any sense to completely disregard an opinion because it was not brought up within one week of AfD because of infrequent use of one's Wikipedia account. Punkt64 (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My sense was WP:NOTCATALOGUE was mis-applied if what is being claimed here is true, but I can't see the article to confirm. Can we temp-undelete please? SportingFlyer T·C 05:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. DRV deals with failures to follow deletion process. It is not a venue to get a second bite at the cherry if the AFD didn't go your way. Stifle (talk) 07:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I answered to Pppery, I'd appreciate if you could point me to somewhere where I can refute the unfounded arguments of the other party like done here for the case I missed the one week window where I could bring up my points because I log into Wikipedia less than once a week. Punkt64 (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Punkt64: you seem to be under the impression that the authors of an article nominated at AfD are entitled to the due process protections as if the action was taken against them. That is not the case. Content debates like AfDs are independent of the authors that created or contributed to the pages. As a courtesy, we like to notify those involved in creating an article when it is nominated for deletion, but the authors have no inherent right to "have their day in court" to defend their work. That is not how Wikipedia works. I am sorry you never got a chance to voice your views at the AfD, but your views have no special weight just by merit of you being one of the major contributors to the article. Repeating this argument here is a waste of everyone's time. The only two questions relevant to us here are: (1) does the close correctly reflect consensus at the AfD? And, (2) have new facts come into light that require us to reassess the article? So far, you've failed to present any argument to either of those questions. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does (2) not apply when I comprehensively countered the very short-lipped argumentation of the other side? Nobody has yet disagreed with what I wrote, they just said this is the wrong place to do it. Punkt64 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argumentation at AfD can be concluded to

AfD author: I think this article does not conform to rule X and I won't elaborate further.

User 1: Yes I agree

User 2: Yes I don't like the article

User 3: Yes

--> Article deleted

Again I don't fault the user who made the decision to delete the article but the system of Wikipedia to do not being able to add any new discussion points after just one week when there should not be a time limit even after the deletion has been executed.

Why is it possible in Wikipedia to permanently delete a topic based on such a discussion? You call this a waste of time, yet how big of a waste of time is it pouring hours of unpaid work into an article that nobody had a problem with for years because suddenly someone who does not like it does not even have any real argument and just votes together with three others to get rid of it? If days of work can be deleted in minutes without valid argumentation then why should anyone even put more work into this project? This destructive approach within Wikipedia will definitely bite back but I would like to prevent that from happening. Punkt64 (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also by the way I never said that the users who contributed to the article have any evelated priviledges, that's something you interpret not something I said, but they should at least have the opportunity to share their point of view, just like the AfD author who has the elevated priviledge to determine the time frame in which it is possible to contribute to the AfD discussion. Punkt64 (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also said "Repeating this argument here is a waste of everyone's time." yet this is the first time I bring this up because I have not logged into Wikipedia since the AfD so this is not repeating in any way but adding new information which has not been taken into account before. Punkt64 (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have brought up this argument five times at this DRV. If that's not "repeating", I don't know what is. And claiming that you didn't get a chance to voice your opinion at the AfD isn't "new information", it's an irrelevant point of order. If there was any chance at all of overturning that AfD, your WP:BLUDGEONING here reduced it significantly. Owen× ☎ 14:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repetition is not what you referred to when you said "(2) have new facts come into light that require us to reassess the article?". Writing multiple answers automatically seems to disqualify one's argument apparently. However, because I am not an admin, my opinion is automatically worth less, I have experienced this in the German version of Wikipedia often enough, and it also solidifies that I should not spend any more time contributing anything here because it will be arbitrarily deleted at some point in the future. Also, the way you write your comments shows that being an admin in Wikipedia is not automatically coupled with respectful behavior, but that just as an ad-hominem personal opinion aside and not a fact, so I point this out because until now I have tried to only argue with facts. This discussion should be an example for anyone thinking about starting to contribute to Wikipedia and invest a significant amount of time into it. I made the mistake of doing so for over 10 years and I regret it. But I will take it as a lesson learned to not repeat that mistake in the future. Because now, an admin is arguing against me, my request is automatically doomed for failure, which means you can close it up because any more words from a lower-class user will not change the tide in any way. Punkt64 (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Punkt64 - The title has not been salted. You have the right to create a new version of the page and either to submit it for review or to move it into article space. On the one hand, you cannot move the exact same article into article space, because that will be a G4. On the other hand, the course of prudence would be to improve it anyway to address the points made in the AFD. You have much more likelihood of developing an improved version of the article than of telling DRV to overturn a valid AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. The problem with that is that I do not understand what was wrong with the article in the first place. It still does not seem like the deletion was done because of factual argumentation, but because of consensus of 3 people (who put very little effort in outlining their argumentation). If there was actual criticism about the content of the article, that would be easier to address in actual improvements to the article itself. But it seems more like the AfD author and some respondants were opposed to the concept of the article in general. At least the AfD author seems to be opposed to lists. That is a personal preference and not an argument in favor of deleting an entire article. I mean it's in the title that it is a list, and they use it in the 13 words they took to argue for the deletion of the article. Punkt64 (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would Wikipedia want to host a complete and comprehensive list of television models? We're an encyclopaedia. I can see why this was deleted promptly and without much discussion.—S Marshall T/C 08:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The AfD could not have been closed any other way. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

27 May 2025

User:Kaustabc/Guwahati Sports Association

Discussions were improperly closed before 7 days. Legend of 14 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse snow keep of all three processes. None of these were going to ever close as delete. Inexperienced User:Legend of 14 seems to be the only wikipedian who holds this particular position (that userspace has a six month G13 timer exactly like draftspace does). The BOLD with which they proceed is admirable but misguided. In fact, their statement upon the closer's userpage seems to indicate the opposite of their in-discussion assertions ("there were legitimate policy agruments made as to why these pages should not be deleted"; my bolding). BusterD (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not falsely attribute statements to me. I never said that G13 applied in the same to userspace drafts as other drafts. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
G13 applies to pages in userspace that are just the article wizard placeholder, which haven't been edited in 6 months[.] This you? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is obviously a different application than to draftspace. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't your position before now. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've always viewed userspace as having additional requirements for G13 to be met, compared to draftspace. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Closer comment) Endorse own closures. Given an appropriate WP:NOTBURO close ("WP:SNOW" refers to said policy), an early close is not a procedural error. See Wikipedia:Deletion process#Early closure. Responses were unanimous and there was no chance for a different outcome at the end of a full discussion period. Letting these multiple processes keep running would have been an undue diversion of volunteers' attention and time.—Alalch E. 16:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBURO cannot be used to support actions that fundamentally undermine the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, like silencing discussions after 1 day. Having open discussions which volunteers do not have to participate in is not even a burden. There was a chance of a different outcome given the legitimate questions of if, User:Kaustabc/Guwahati Sports Association should be deleted based on G13 or User:Magnatyrannus/Promylophis was notable enough to ever make it to mainspace.

You also seem to have generally problem with the fact that I even bothered to share my perspective in the first place, saying that I should not concern myself with G13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Legend_of_14#c-Alalch_E.-20250527165100-Legend_of_14-20250526181700. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...undermine the collaborative nature of Wikipedia... That's strictly Legend of 14's personal view. Their reading of SNOW varies widely with every other interpretation I've read over many years of doing this. There's something of undue stridency on Legend of 14's part to be discussed here (or perhaps later at ANI). BusterD (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:INVOLVED. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you accusing me of being involved? We are way off the rails now. BusterD (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. that comment was directed at User:Alalch E. who after they closed the discussion, left the comment on my talk page about the validity of an argument I made in the discussion. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every admin is allowed--nay, encouraged--to participate in a community discussion (like this one) evaluating whether their administrative action is correct. INVOLVED does not apply, because a community discussion is not an administrative action. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the editors participation in this discussion. I'm talking about his criticism of the arguments I made in the original discussion on my talk page. You cannot close a discussion, and then say the nominator made bad arguments in the discussions you closed. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legend of 14, you keep making these wildly incorrect pronouncements. I did not falsely attribute statements to you (and you have ignored several of my points). You did make defective arguments in the closed discussions; that's precisely why we're at this pass, why almost every contributor in THIS discussion is endorsing Alalch E.'s three snow keep closes as proper. INVOLVED doesn't apply. The closer visited an existing thread on your talk page and made the mildest of feedback statements on your actions, with advice to future situations. It is wise for closers to raise such issues with any nominator. It is far wiser for the nominator to take the appropriate critique and afterwards internalize it for future reference, instead of lashing out with these continued multiple accusations of misbehavior. Admitting error is part of discussion, and you have not quite mastered it. But continuing to attack after you've lost the review is merely poor wikibehavior. BusterD (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even though the MFD only ran for a day, it was clear there was zero chance of the page not being retained no matter how long the discussion were to stay open. Therefore this is an appropriate snow closure. Frank Anchor 17:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - These MfDs, while filed in good faith, started from a caved-in foundation. Promylophis was blanked prior to the MfD by Legend of 14, while Guwahati Sports Ass'n had a G13 tag placed by Legend summarily reverted off by an administrator. I would strongly suggest Legend of 14 focus more on editing articles than policing userspace sandboxen. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the Promylophis result; obvious snow close and OP deserves a warning about wasting community time. Question about Guwahati Sports Association: isn't Legend right that it was eligible for G13? To me, it looks like it only contained wizard placeholder text. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It had been tagged as G13, but was declined by User:Hey man im josh reverting it off. G13 tends to not be used anywhere near as extensively in userspace, especially for article skeletons/placeholder templates. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the decline. If the decline was erroneous, I'm likely to support re-opening that MfD. If we're in a situation where a page is eligible for speedy deletion but is being kept at MfD, that's a tension between policy and practice that deserves further discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost certainly the latter situation. I think the sentiment is not to delete skeletons just in case the editor is busy trying to do the necessary legwork before actually writing their draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion was declined, therefore becoming controversial, another process was used, and the outcome of that process was to keep, with all responding editors objecting to deletion on various grounds including that the perceived issue is not worthy of bringing up for a full discussion, which is a frequent and not an inherently invalid type of argument at MfD, causing many make-work nominations to fail (otherwise MfD would be a big joke as a whole). The process has taken its course as-written, and can't be unwound, with the full discussion track taking precedence over the speedy deletion track given a controversial speedy deletion. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Process interaction. From this vantage point it doesn't matter what Josh did, an admin can decline a speedy deletion, and there's no conflict. —Alalch E. 18:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SLAP the nominator. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SNOW closes were correct. An admin could have closed them “speedy keep” WP:SK#1 no reason for deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relist All (involved):
On the one hand, I think that the appellant was seriously misguided in nominating these four pages for deletion at MFD. Just leaving useless pages in draft space or user space does no harm to the encyclopedia. Draft space is self-clearing. User space is not self-clearing, and pages can linger in user space for years, but do no harm. They are just there. Considering their nominations for deletion at MFD causes the regular editors at MFD to spend time that they could be instead improving the encyclopedia or working on their day jobs.

On the other hand, since the appellant thinks that their nominations should be allowed to run for 7 days, letting them run for 7 days might persuade them that they should stop wasting the community's time by nominating useless drafts for deletion.

By the way, the appellant/nominator has referred to an interesting situation, which is that there are 39,545 pages in the Category:Stale userspace drafts. It will be very much a waste of time for humans to try to deal with them, but many of them have probably simply been forgotten by mostly active editors, and I have proposed that a bot be written to notify the authors of these drafts, and also to make a report on abandoned drafts by blocked users. The appellant/nominator saw an interesting situation and approached it enthusiastically, but in an unproductive way.

The non-admin closer acted in good faith, but sometimes a relist is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a correct reading of consensus. User:Kaustabc/Guwahati Sports Association was eligible for G13 per the clause Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text., but it isn't now since Josh's decline reset the clock. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and SNOW close this. I'd love to see the day when there are so few real problems with Wikipedia that we can go around policing up userspace content with impunity, but this was wrongheaded from the get-go and continues to waste our time restating the obvious: It's not worth anyone's time to go cleaning up useless but non-abusive userspace content. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We often see, at DRV, closes under WP:SNOW that are meant to stop us wasting community time. These don't tend to achieve their intended result because then you get the drama at DRV instead, leading to more time and text being generated than if we'd just let it run for a few days. But the self-appointed userspace police do need to be shut down, hard. I'd endorse this.—S Marshall T/C 07:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes. The problem is two different wastes of community time, premature snow closes that are meant to avoid wasting community time, but actually spend more community time at DRV, and the policing of user space and draft space, which waste community time at MFD, when no harm is done by Leaving the Useless Drafts Alone. I think that User:S Marshall and I are in reasoned disagreement as to focus on the two timesinks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was 2 (or 2+) MfDs with almost the full duration to go vs. one DRV. People are leaving complaints about how they're not getting what's going at MfD utility-wise, and what they're complaining about is MfD on a good day. This DRV has attracted more text than the MFDs would have combined, but it isn't just about text, it's about the atmosphere ... the permeating sense of non-goodness-of-thing.—Alalch E. 01:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage the closer to be a little less trigger-happy in the future to avoid excess process, but endorse as inevitable keeps. Stifle (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent discussions

26 May 2025

Gary King (radio presenter)

The article shouldn't be deleted, but a notability tag should be added for a few couple of weeks in order to allow a number of people to attempt to improve it and to add three secondary, independent sources - "https://media.info Steve Penk: It's time to rebrand Key 103 and start again", "https://www.jstor.org/stable/853501" and "https://radiojinglesonline.com/legends/the-super-station/"; this is given Gary King's extensive career in presenting and narrating high and medium-profile radio and television programmes. Jw93d59 (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary King (radio presenter) (2nd nomination) extensively considered the sources and determined that they were insufficient for inclusion. That's it. JMWt (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have corrected a malformed link and have linked to the deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - This was a valid Delete close. The article was already restored after deletion once, as discussed in the AFD, to look for better sources. At this point the place to keep the page while better sources are looked for is draft space. The title has not been salted, and should be refunded to draft space on request from the appellant, and an improved draft with better sources can be reviewed by the normal AFC process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse that was validly deleted, and the sources presented here are not enough to make him notable. SportingFlyer T·C 21:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Properly deleted. Respect that consensus for at least six months, and then if you still think so, try the WP:AfC process. Read WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I can see that there's the odd passing mention in a moderately reliable source, and I'm not greatly impressed. The article was tagged as lacking sources for an extended period already.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (involved). I don't suppose I need to add an endorse, so I'll just say that I think this is coming from a new editor who is enthusiastic and in good faith, but who was unclear on notability requirements for articles. There are other pages with concerns, but as per my discussion with them at Talk:Tom McKinney (broadcaster), I think they are coming to understand the notability requirements for pages better, and hopefully this will lead to better sourced content. I do not object to Robert McClenon's suggestion that this could be worked on in draft, although considering they have a number of other pages to work on, and that this one doesn't seem to be notable, it may be their efforts could be expended well elsewhere. Leaving it six months before draftifying may be better per SmokeyJoe, as that allows time for more sources to appear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Self endorse and thanks, Cryptic, for the note. Jw93d59, I suggest you take SmokeyJoe's suggestion of waiting and trying AfC if sources are found. Consensus was clear that sourcing is insufficient at present and this would give you time to work on it. Star Mississippi 01:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

25 May 2025

Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka

This AfD is not related to my recreation of the Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka article. I created that article by translating content from its Bengali version. Since then, I have noticed that significant coverage has emerged following the deletion. Therefore, an independent article can now be reasonably created. I would like to highlight some sources to help establish notability per WP:GNG: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]

References

^ Bano, Masooda (2007). Allowing for Diversity: State-madrasa Relations in Bangladesh (PDF). International Development Department, University of Birmingham. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-7044-2567-5.
^ Sarwar, MD Ghulam (2013). Bengali Fiqh Practice (1947–2006): An Analysis of Its Forms and Features (PDF) (PhD thesis) (in Bengali). Bangladesh: University of Dhaka. pp. 303–304.
^ Wadudi, Abdul Bari (2015). The contribution of Sheikh al-Hadith Allama Azizul Haque and Mufti Amimul Ehsan to the study of Hadith (PDF) (M.Phil. thesis) (in Bengali). Bangladesh: University of Dhaka. pp. 83–85.
^ Qasmi, Ainul Haque (7 February 2023). "Jamia Rahmania split: An impartial analysis". Monthly Adarsha Nari.
^ Akbar Hossain, Chowdhury (16 July 2021). "End of Mahfuzul-Mamunul Dominance Over Rahmania Madrasa". Bangla Tribune.
^ "Waqf Estate Gains Control of Rahmania Madrasa After Two Decades". Bangla Tribune. 19 July 2021.
^ "Mahfuzul and Mamunul Lose Administrative Hold on Jamia Rahmania". Kaler Kantho. 19 July 2021.
^ Parash, Shahadat Hossain (22 April 2021). "Rahmania Madrasa Sees End of Mamunul's Administrative Hold". Samakal.

–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 18:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Deny request as not in scope for DRV. Instead, advise User:Owais Al Qarni to go to WP:REFUND and request undeletion to draftspace, to improve it there, to follow advice at WP:THREE, and to submit for approval. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the AfD from 2020. If there are decent sources then go through the normal article creation process. JMWt (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the 2020 AFD as the right close, but Allow REFUND of deleted article to draft space and normal review. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23 May 2025

ThinkMarkets – Recreation not allowed on the basis of the provided draft. It is possible to attempt a draft that is prima facie worthy of a review and acts as convincing evidence that recreation should be allowed. Instead of requesting at DRV again, it would be better to obtain an AfC review of such a draft (possible in spite of protection) or to directly address the protecting admin about protection (with an especially convincing and easy to review draft). —Alalch E. 02:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted seven years ago after an AfD discussion, but since then circumstances have changed significantly, with extensive independent coverage and notable developments regarding the company. I've prepared a completely new, well-sourced draft from scratch: User:Kahvihenki/ThinkMarkets. My draft extensively uses independent and reputable sources, clearly addressing previous notability concerns. Initially, I mistakenly submitted a request at WP:Requests for undeletion, which went unanswered and was archived. I now realize that DRV is the appropriate venue. Thank you for considering restoration or providing feedback on my draft. Kahvihenki (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow review of draft but do not unsalt until draft is reviewed. Does the appellant have any conflict of interest? In view of the history of four previous Deletion Reviews in 2019 (listed at the top of the AFD), largely frivolous and by spammers, we should be cautious about any request to re-review this deletion or to review a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no conflict of interest regarding ThinkMarkets or any other financial company. My interest in writing this article is purely encyclopedic: I contribute regularly to financial and regulatory topics, as you can see from my edit history. I fully support having my draft reviewed before restoring the article. Thanks! Kahvihenki (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thinkmarkets too. —Cryptic 03:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you, Cryptic. That was after ThinkMarkets had been salted, so the capitalization was changed to game the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all routine, WP:MILL coverage in specialist trade press for online financial markets. I see zero interest in ThinkMarkets from any kind of mainstream news outlet. Don't unsalt.—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It is all specialist stuff, but a lot of it is anything but complementary. It doesn't feel like PR work or anything--it's real (if specialized) news. I'm not sure it meets WP:CORP's fairly high bar, but it does appear to be real and meaningful coverage. Hobit (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
move to mainspace I am, of course, also okay with going to draft. The sources appear to be real reporting and not PR stuff. The article covers the ups and downs. If there is a case made that WP:CORP isn't met, please ping me and I'll look (I don't know that guideline as well as I could, but I think we're over it). Hobit (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hobit, what two or three sources do you think meet WP:CORP and the GNG? Are they in the current reference list of 34 sources? On skimming none look promising to me.

I really think that the topic proponent should be challenged to point to the best two or three sources, and really think it is unhelpful to the proponent for you to suggest that what they have done is productive. “real reporting and not PR stuff” is not the threshold for the best sources to meet. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep salted I agree with S Marshall that the sources clearly don't pass WP:NCORP. I would not unsalt until we have clear NCORP-passing sources in the article itself. SportingFlyer T·C 00:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. DRV is not the right venue. Your mistake at WP:REFUND was requesting undeletion straight back to mainspace. (The REFUND instructions are pretty lacking here).

You have a draft, User:Kahvihenki/ThinkMarkets. You were right to work with AfC. You need to read the response better. Read WP:THREE, you have WP:Reference bombed the draft.

Dont worry about the WP:SALT. If a draft is approved, the title will be UNSALTed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 May 2025

List of birds of Lakshadweep – So, this is WP:SNOWING and given the context shared in this DRV, I now disagree with my past self's actions. That being said, the nominator, mitsingh should have documented the copying in line with WP:CWW and also resorted to more traditional forms of dispute resolution (like contesting the tag, or just asking nicely on my talk page) before resorting to DRV. Page restored. Sohom (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe there has been a misunderstanding here. The family descriptions I used in the Lakshadweep page were taken from List of birds of India. The pages for List of birds of India and List of birds of Uganda were created on the same date (27 April 2007) by the same person, Yomangani. He presumably wrote the family descriptions for both of the articles, as they are the same.

However, the website that was mentioned in the copyright infringement case was created in 2020 (as mentioned in their "about" page).

"And in 2020 (of all years) he started to start a tour company and spent the pandemic lockdown learning about the industry and building the first pieces of content for the website"

So it is much more likely that the website that was mentioned in the copyright infringement case took the information from List of birds of Uganda. As the family descriptions in List of birds of India and List of birds of Uganda are the same and I took the family descriptions from List of birds of India, the descriptions look the same.

Mitsingh (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying all of these articles should be reviewed for copyright infringement? Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's more likely that content written on Wikipedia in 2007 infringes a blog created in 2020, rather than the reverse? —Cryptic 17:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. On re-reading it, this is more clear the second time. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine challenge of a speedy deletion.—Alalch E. 18:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy. WP:BACKWARDSCOPY, apparently. —Alalch E. 18:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy - The question is not whether the articles infringed copyright, but whether the blog infringed Wikipedia's copyleft. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy This page obviously didn't infringe copyright Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 22:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per my information the article has already been deleted. Mitsingh (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore, clearly.—S Marshall T/C 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draft:Michael Rojewski – DRV is not a forum to appeal AfC reviews that you do not like, per Wikipedia:Articles for creation and Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose. Michael Rojewski has never existed in mainspace, and hence never been deleted from it. (non-admin closure) Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This draft article was recently rejected after multiple submissions, with reviewers concluding that it did not meet notability standards due to a lack of significant, independent coverage. I respectfully disagree and request a second opinion, as the draft includes several third-party, non-trivial sources that cover the subject in detail.

Specifically: – A full-length “Mile Markers” feature in Keys Weekly (May 2024) – “Neighbor of the Week” profile in Upper Keys Weekly (July 13, 2023) – “Realtor Spotlight” in Upper Keys Weekly (May 4, 2023) – “Directors Spotlight” with Florida Keys Board of Realtors (April 4, 2024) – Participation in the “Big Kahuna” fundraiser (featured by Keys Weekly) – A member spotlight published by Business and Professional Women Florida

These articles reflect sustained, independent, and published recognition in regional press. The article has also been revised to reflect a neutral tone with no promotional language. I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for people based on reliable and independent documentation.

I respectfully request reconsideration or additional editorial input.

--Keysnewssource (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 May 2025

List of Delta Air Lines destinations

I closed this AfD as "merge", but there has been a follow-up conversation on my talk page objecting to this. To resolve the logjam, I'm opening a discussion here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. None of the Keeps addressed the actual question of meeting NLIST. Two of them relied on an RFC that determined that an airline destination list does not violate WP:NOT, which still doesn't tell us whether it is notable. One comment suggested it may be a useful navigational list, which was refuted. One relied on a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at a wikiproject, and one was a VAGUEWAVE. On Ritchie333's Talk page, Axisstroke (679 edits) dismisses Aviationwikiflight (10,000+ edits) as a "noob", and brings up the argument that "The reference for each destinations (sic) passes widely WP:GNG", which tells us nothing about whether the list, as a whole, passes NLIST.
The 2018 RFC, unanimously upheld at a 2024 AfD, was not superseded by a local consensus at the wikiproject. This is one of those AfDs that was bound to reach DRV no matter how it was closed. Ritchie333 closed it correctly based on P&G weight rather than on a nose-count. Since the page isn't deleted, I'd normally suggest participants take the matter to the article's Talk page and continue as a spinout discussion. However, seeing as Axisstroke is unwilling to discuss the matter or even listen to opposing views, Ritchie333's close stands. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a newer RFC from this year. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link it, please? The most recent RfC I'm aware of is November 2023. Once again, I'm going to bemoan the fact that we don't have a searchable index of RfCs. We ought to organize them in the same way as we do AfDs, but for some reason we don't, and every time I suggest this, nothing happens.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's linked in the AfD: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 60#RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that's an RFC about an unrelated airline in a different country.—S Marshall T/C 02:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the closest thing to a recent, on-point polling of the community about how it sees lists of airline destinations. I don't think the airline name or country are relevant differentiators. Both Delta and BA are large, global airlines. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay. Whether you prefer that one or the November 2023 one, it's pretty clear that there's fundamentally no consensus across the whole community about these.—S Marshall T/C 07:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the times of your relists it should have been closed as “no consensus to delete”. I suggest this biases your perspective here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. There was not a consensus to merge, or anything else. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved, but this was clearly a bad close. Furthermore, after the most recent consensus we should probably restore the United Airlines destinations as well. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC per Stifle. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think most people want these lists completely deleted, although there's a vocal minority who do. I think the more useful question is whether they should be separate pages or included in the main airline article. We as a community can't agree on that so I guess that instead of a logical, principle-first approach, we're going to get contentious, fractious, ad hoc decisions that are inconsistent. Which leaves me at a reluctant overturn to no consensus, as there was none.—S Marshall T/C 07:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus" was my second choice in closing this. Actually, that brings me to another point, there doesn't seem to be a consensus (a meta-consensus?) when closing AfDs of this kind between "no consensus" (which keeps the article) and "merge / redirect as a compromise" (which doesn't.). I'm certain I have done a mixture of both. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be too concerned. Long as the information isn't lost, I'm not overstressed about whether it's in the main airline article or a separate list.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, don't delete. (from WP:DGFA) is pretty clear: we keep the article on NC, rather than merging it as a compromise. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That item is not relevant, as Ritchie333 did not delete the nominated article (logs, already included above in {{DRV links}}). Merging is not deletion.
WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators (guideline, shortcut WP:DGFA) does not pertain to merging article content. Ctrl-F for merg returns a section about categories and a passing mention of WP:History merging. I skimmed DGFA's history, finding only a 2009 addition by you: Be aware of alternatives to deletion and only delete an article when another measue (e.g., merging) is not appropriate. It was reverted within a few hours.

As you know, WP:Deletion policy#Merging (shortcut WP:ATD-M) is a subsection under Alternatives to deletion.

Page deletion (WP:Deletion policy) and content reorganization (WP:Editing policy) are distinct.

Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – The first two keep votes are correct in that the list does not violate WP:NOT per a recent RfC. However, the RfC discussed whether or not these lists (along with airport destinations) violated WP:NOT, not on whether these lists were notable. One keep vote cited "WP:AVIATION guidelines", however WikiProject guidelines do not trump official Wikipedia guidelines. Lastly, no evidence was provided as to why WP:GNG/WP:NLIST was met, so all in all, the close was correct. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but it's actually pretty obvious that had the arguments been made with a different emphasis, the discussion would have uncovered plenty of RS'ing. I just don't see an argument from silence--no one argued RS/GNG--as normative when the bulk of the discussion was NOT vs. not-NOT. At most, such an oversight would call for a relist. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This dispute is difficult for at least three reasons, two of them interrelated. First, this was a deletion discussion where the majority of participants cast !votes that were at variance with policies and guidelines. Such disputes often end up at DRV, because the closer either agrees with the majority, but against guidelines, or overrules the majority. Second, this was a dispute about a list of airline destinations. Disputes about lists of airline destinations are usually controversial. Their inclusion in Wikipedia violate various guidelines, but there are editors who are enthusiastic about wanting to include lists of airline destinations, and for those reasons the majority of participants often call for inclusion and argue against normally accepted guidelines. It is difficult for at least a third reason, which is that two editors have been uncivil to each other, but DRV is a content forum, and it is not easy to ignore the conduct, but DRV is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is your opinion that they violate policy. There are plenty of other editors, both participating here and at the AfD, who disagree. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and as the most recent AfD shows, the consensus of the last RfC was that a similar list did not violate policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The comment by User:Jclemens is correct. On the one hand, there are sometimes deletion discussions where the majority of participants cast !votes that are at variance with policies and guidelines. On the other hand, I am persuaded that this is a deletion discussion where there is No Consensus on what the guidelines say or should say. In an ideal world, the guidelines would be revised to make it clear that we don't know whether lists of airline destinations are encyclopedic, but in an ideal world, we would have a guideline one way or the other. Lists of airline destinations are like articles about films that are about to be released. Reasonable humans disagree, and disagree unreasonsably. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus because there is no consensus as to what the guidelines are or should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the civil follow up User:Ritchie333. My three points questioning the AfD were:

A) This specific list had seen previous AfDs which should have heightened the bar for thiw latest iteration, but previous AfD conclusions were not mentioned nor taken into account.

B) Consensus from the British Airlines list with wide participation was ignored.

C) Plenty of destinations were properly referenced and the sum of references are proper WP:GNG.

As I was involved in both the vote and previously in improving the list my bias is quite clear. Axisstroke (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (uninvolved, in this AFD anyway) per OwenX. Policy-based arguments were made based on WP:NLIST which weren't decisively rebutted by the other side. The BA discussion, which bundled unrelated issues related to a specific airline and a specific branch of WP:NOT, says nothing relevant to the specific issues on which this was decided. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. We've had these discussions so many times now that merging is clearly without precedent. The simple fact is that we can't keep up with a commercial flight destination list and shouldn't need to. Therefore violated WP:NOT in various ways. Claiming there is no consensus is at odds with regular practice. The information doesn't need to be kept, the destinations are found on the airline website, we don't need to be a mirror. That's it. That's how we've consistently dealt with these AfDs many many times now. JMWt (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm given to agreeing that straight-forward deletion is probably the correct thing to do with what are ultimately list of commercial services, and that the outcome of the BA discussion owed a lot to the bizarre bundling of different issues by the nom in that discussion, as well as their attempted withdrawal that gave a lot of people the impression that the discussion had ended. However, this is DELREV and we're supposed to review the close, not re-litigate the discussion. FOARP (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I am relitigating. The point is that those who dismissed Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the discussion (which are !merge and !keep votes) are not taking account of consensus and many AfD results. There's no point in counting or weighing these as valid !votes.

Any other solution gives us the ridiculous situation that this specific airline has had the information kept via a merge when many other airlines in exactly the same situation at AfD have been deleted and not merged. JMWt (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"many other airlines in exactly the same situation at AfD have been deleted and not merged". Indeed, in excess of 200 of them. I know, because I nominated most of them. Unfortunately Sunnya's bizarre and misguided RFC back in January - which was anyway targeted primarily at lists of airport routes, not airline destinations - has made a complete mess of this field. FOARP (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The logical fallacy there is that there are articles which could and should have been deleted in that list and ones that probably should not have, based on what can be sourced. There's no reason this information isn't encyclopedic. SportingFlyer T·C 16:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. In what sense is this information encyclopedic? It's like saying that the parts of town that the local Dominos pizza will deliver to is encyclopedic. JMWt (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely incorrect analogy. Destinations that were served by air transport providers have a long history of being reference information - I recently even saw volumes of books in a bookstore listing different air mail routes from maybe 100 years ago now. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Books of stats/catalogues, something that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. But we’re going OT. FOARP (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to “no consensus”. That was not a consensus to merge. It is not workable to call a WP:Rough consensus of “merge”. “Merge” is the start of a process requiring consensus that is subject to change. An AfD close cannot create a future consensus to merge. If the discussion needs to be stopped before an actual consensus has arisen, it can be closed as “no consensus” defaulting to “keep”, or “redirect with the option to merge material from the history”, which defaults to “redirect”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But consider Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 March 14#Masini Situ-Kumbanga, where I was criticised for closing a similar AfD as "no consensus" when people wanted a merge / redirect. These two deletion reviews seems to directly contradict each other. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, you could try avoiding difficult cases. No, don’t do that.

my advice is for closers to avoid the word “merge”. AfD is not for merges. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be criticized either way. As I said, this was bound to come to DRV regardless of how you closed it. Listening to criticism is good, but don't take it as proof you made a mistake. The variety of opinions here tells us this AfD was anything but straightforward. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having been involved with both, I think they are two entirely different AfDs. The one from 14 March was problematic because a majority of people didn't want the article to be a stand-alone page. This one was problematic because keeps and merges were split evenly, and those saying the keeps don't hold water here are also the ones who don't think this material is encyclopedic when it is. SportingFlyer T·C 08:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
those saying the keeps don't hold water here are also the ones who don't think this material is encyclopedic when it is - please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. I have no opinion whatsoever about whether the content is encyclopedic. I am here to voice my opinion about whether the AfD close reflected P&G-based consensus or not. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an aspersion. SportingFlyer T·C 12:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having read further, it is very unsatisfying, but, per Stifle. No consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without a single !vote to redirect, closing it as such would be seen as a supervote. I know you're not a fan of closing AfDs as Merge, but our current policy clearly lists it as a viable option. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator’s proposal was to delete. There was no consensus to delete, even consensus to not delete. After the nominator, no one !voted for deletion or simple redirection. User:TurboSuperA+‘s !vote is invalid due to self-contradiction. You are right, closing as “redirect” would not be defensible. “No consensus” was the result.

A proposal to merge scan be started on the talk page. Go to WP:PM, proposed merges are not in scope for WP:AfD, even if sometimes a consensus for something out of scope can arise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Like OwenX, I do not see the (first two) Keeps as grounded in our policies and guidelines. The close of "merge" does preserve the information. --Enos733 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closers are allowed to ignore or downweight non-policy-based !votes, and so a merge is the correct assessment of the consensus here even if, like @JMWt, I think the proper outcome would have been deletion. Merges are listed as common AfD outcomes in the second sentence of WP:AfD and are recommended multiple times elsewhere on that page as well as on the deletion policy itself, so I do not see how that's a problem. JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. There was a not a consensus for the article to stop being live and not enough (any) discussion of what the content intended for merger would do in the suggested target article. A list bigger than the article sitting there collapsed Yo Dawg style as is currently the case? That's against MOS:DONTHIDE. So what should the merger actually be? It's an absolute mystery. Now the list needs to be spun out. Or removed. It's too late for a zero-byte merger, which is like an AfD "redirect". And there was no consensus to remove the content from Wikipedia. Nothing makes sense. AfD is so terrible for merging. "Merge" is not a compromise outcome and the workings of AfD strongly bias participants and closers into treating it as a workable middle-of-the-road resolution to an eligibility dispute. I agree with SmokeyJoe.—Alalch E. 21:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC Basically per Stile and Alalch E. To be more detailed--the first two !votes do a fine job of countering the nomination statement. If you are going to throw those out (as some here want to do) you also have to throw out the nomination. But yeah, we have no consensus on how to handle this--even among senior editors. The latest RfC seems to eliminate NOT as an argument and sourcing is debated (and frankly, debated poorly) in the AfD. Arguments that some list elements don't have sources that meet WP:N's requirements really aren't a deletion argument, we only need to meet WP:V for the elements of the article--there just has to be enough coverage overall to meet WP:N. If someone in the future wants to delete this, they should have an argument based on sources (or the lack thereof). Hobit (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment′ These articles are problematic on so many levels but I have to be honest that they are genuinely useful and generally accurate. I currently work at Heathrow and have worked in airports across Europe and the Middle East too. There is a frequent need to verify what airlines fly where or what routes are available from what places and, astonishingly, this information is only easily found on Wikipedia. That should be sufficient but as we often see now there is insufficient participation at AFD or RFCs to overcome entrenched views of editors engaged in the area. That often leaves us hamstrung as we are here. I don't have a strong opinion to be fair as I use the lists regularly but I don't believe that they are properly compliant with site policy and content guidelines. So I'm a strong meh Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time I've had it pointed out that these lists are useful, and I'm sure that they are even if that is not a reason to keep under policy. I'm surprised they haven't just moved off-Wikipedia on to "Wiki routes" or something similar TBH where they can make and maintain these lists in peace TBH. I'd be happy to undelete all the ~200 lists that have been deleted so far to facilitate this if anyone wants to set it up. FOARP (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki travel guides don't want them, because they're not travel guide-related information, even though one of the main claims that these are "not encyclopedic" is WP:NOTTRAVEL. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's also edited Wikivoyage, it definitely isn't something for Wikivoyage. —Alalch E. 17:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I'm saying a new Wiki is needed. And as for them being encyclopaedic, they just don't tend to survive AFD (or at least, 200 of them didn't). It'd also be a good place for train, sea, river and road routes, buses and so-forth. We could just undelete and inter-wiki all the non-encyclopaedic stuff that has been deleted over the years there and instantly have thousands of articles.

PS - I've started a new discussion here about this for anyone interested: Wikimedia Forum#Start a new WikiRoutes Wiki FOARP (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates