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); or
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.

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

Shortcut

WP:DELREVD

Instructions

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.	Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 \|page= \|xfd_page= \|reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 \|page= \|xfd_page= \|article= \|reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Follow this link to today's log 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= }} ~~~~
3.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRVNote\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
4.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev\|date=2022 July 3}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
5.	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=2022 July 3}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2022 July 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.
Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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. 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 finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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

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 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 July 2022

1 July 2022

Unaloto Feao

Both keep votes used rationale that is not applicable anymore (WP:NFOOTBALL). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Relist. The keep !voters had neither a numerical majority nor any policy/guideline-based arguments at all, so I don't understand how the closer could have found a consensus to keep. Another week of discussion in the hope of attracting some additional participation would probably be the best idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Relist per Extraordinary Writ.4meter4 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The deletes certainly could have been better explaining a bit more about why the existing sources are deficient or at least asserting they'd tried to find more sources. The keeps cite no "authority" for why their assertion that fact X rise to the level of notability and one contains a personal attack on the nominator. I really can't see how this rises to the level of keep. It seems either no-consensus or delete would be viable outcomes (I can't see how relisting would help). I don't see the point in overturning to no-consensus, so I'd just give it a few months and renominate. ----81.100.164.154 (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:ATINER Athens Institute for Education and Research

Even ignoring that XFD isn't a "vote", there are 3 well reasoned deletes (4 if you include my nomination) and a single keep that was discussed endlessly and was incorrect. I fail to see how this is a possible outcome given the discussion there. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment from closing admin - There were two keep votes, not one. User:SmokeyJoe made a comment towards the end that was clearly a keep vote even though it didn't have a bolded keep in front of it. As I mentioned in the closing statement, the article was heavily modified throughout the course of the MfD to remove any content that might be an WP:ATTACK. Many of the delete votes were made before or during the the time that the article was being modified. As it stands now, the draft is two sentences: the first is a basic description of the organization, and the second is a sourced description of two public lists that the organization was added to. It strains credulity to claim that the current version of the draft is an attack page, even though the original version might have been. While it's rather unlikely that the current version of this draft would ever be approved to become an article, that isn't a valid reason to delete it. The bar is quite low for drafts, since they're NOINDEXed and generally difficult to find. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I only made one pass through the nominated page and the nomination, and considered the nomination to be ridiculous, it absolutely does not meet G10. I was leaving it for later to think what should be done with it, almost certainly a merge suggestion. Drafts may be destined to become part of an existing article, their not being likely to become a standalone page is not a reason for deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Endorse per Scottywong. The current version of the draft merely states facts as neutrally as possible to reliable sources. The offending content from the time the deletion nomination was first made has since been removed.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Endorse and note that a Revdel of the objectionable content would render much of the remaining objections moot. Not that I'm necessarily endorsing that, just noting that that's one way of handling attacking material in an otherwise appropriate article. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak Endorse, although my !vote to Delete was, as noted, with respect to essentially the same version of the draft as is now being viewed. The closer had four possible actions, three of which would have been valid conclusions, and one of which would have been wrong. The wrong answer would have been Keep, and the close wasn't a Keep. Any of Delete, No Consensus, or Relist would have been valid conclusions by the closer. In view of the extent of changes, Relist would have been good, and No Consensus for a draft isn't that different. As the closer says, drafts are only occasionally deleted, and they should even less often be deleted by overturning a close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Endorse (no consensus). If the page were in mainspace (if the journal passed WP:NJOURNALS), then the contention over claims and sources would and should be sorted by editing and discussion on the talk page. In draftspace, the same doesn’t really happen, which is my guess for why it was taken to MfD. Mfd is the wrong forum to fix bad drafting. Draftspace exists to host bad drafts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

30 June 2022

List of fatwas – Withdrawn by nominator Ovinus (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

To be clear, I'm not opening this DRV just because I disagree with the outcome, but because the closer's rationale was wanting. I have raised this issue on their talk page, but they have not responded. By raw vote count, there are 3 deletes (including nom), 1 merge, and 5 keeps, but more importantly, none of the keep rationales made policy- or guideline-based arguments. I'd like at least a consensus here that the closer's judgment was correct. Ovinus (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Endorse. In reading through the comments, while many keep voters did not specifically wiki link to policies they did use the language of notability policy at WP:SIGCOV in making their arguments. Therefore, I don't think one could accurately state that the keep voters were not making a policy based argument. Further, I don't think either side made a particularly strong argument in proving or disproving SIGCOV/ NLIST . The failure to do a proper source analysis made arguments on both sides, but more so on the delete end, weak. The list uses many types of sources, including academic journals and scholarly books in addition to newspapers with inline citations. Therefore, the general argument that the article lacks scholarly sources and fails WP:NOTNEWS by the nominator is not convincing. Without actually providing details about the sources, one can not prove original research and synthesis. On the flip side, the fact that so many sources are used in the article does hint at a passage of SIGCOV/NLIST. However, without a specific source analysis it too is not provable. While I personally think this should have been closed as no consensus, a keep closure is within the realm of reason given the weak deletion argument and the number of individuals voting keep.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Endorse the arguments to keep were not appreciably less policy based than the ones to delete it. Rather than DRV, I might suggest the talk page to address concerns that can be solved by regular editing, e.g., documenting and implementing inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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

29 June 2022

italianwinepodcast

I would like it restored so I can make the appropriate corrections (which I was making but it was deleted before I could post them) since it was deleted for a WP:G11 not for copyright infringement or anything else I can change the sentences and make it encyclopedic and objective Jdtw2022 (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Restored in draft at Draft:Italianwinepodcast, please use the submit from review button when you've finished with your corrections. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
There's already a sandbox version (User:Jdtw2022/sandbox) and you've posted at Teahouse. There's still no indication of notability. Perhaps it's best left for someone without a conflict of interest in promoting the podcast. Star Mississippi 14:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse the deletion as G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Either version of the draft should be Declined if submitted as written from the viewpoint of the podcast rather than presenting what third parties have said. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment to appellant - We know that the queue for review of drafts is backlogged, and sometimes review takes a few months. Please don't try to use Deletion Review as a device to jump the queue. It annoys the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: To be fair, at the time of the listing the article was deleted and the userspace sandbox didn't exist. The nominator isn't trying to jump the queue. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I think the current state of affairs with the article in draft/userspace and the main article deleted is satisfactory and this nomination may be closed. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

28 June 2022

Gideon Obhakhan

This AFD was closed as delete. However, I do not think the closer recognized that a policy based argument made by Reading Beans (who quoted NPOL directly using green text and connected how the subject passed it) had shifted the final comments all to keep. This was further supported by evidence from Soman. This should be overturned and re-listed to allow further discussion or be overturned as no consensus. 4meter4 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Overturn and relist so that recent edits and improvements can be given full consideration. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Weak Endorse as a valid conclusion from the discussion, although No Consensus would have been better. However, also Allow Review of Draft Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Relist if there is indeed not enough significant coverage, the presumption of notability from NPOL is irrelevant. However it always seems to me to be a bizarre outcome if on one day if consensus is considered not clear enough that a relist occurs, and all following opinions are for one outcome and we then close with the opposite opinion. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Relist to allow further development of consensus. These commissioners are state-level officials, but it's not clear to me that they're state level politicians, so I don't want to directly overturn.--Jahaza (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn to keep in the 11 days since the comment 4meter4 references, the count is 3-0 keeps. The previous delete !votes don't address the topic and never revisited it; according them equal weight is problematic. Another relist isn't necessary, because there was a whole relist after the turning point without any further deletion input. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Overturn to no consensus the tone of the debate changed after User:Reading Beans cited [WP:NPOL]] in their argument. Should not be overturned to keep as the delete votes have merit as well. Frank Anchor 12:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Overturn, no opinion whether to keep, no consensus, or relist. The WP:NPOL argument had clearly turned the tide at the point of closure and there was no consensus for deletion. Because the argument was well-founded in a widely accepted notability guideline, one cannot merely discount those opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Overturn NC or relist are both viable here, deletion is not. Both sides made guideline-based arguments, I honestly can't tell from that discussion what the right outcome is. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Relist slowly shifting to keep, could use more discussion. 75.99.8.58 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

27 June 2022

Khae Rai Intersection

I believe there was a clear majority consensus that the article should be deleted due to a failure of WP:SIGCOV. There was consistent comment that the sources did not meet the standard of that guideline per WP:ROUTINE, and there was no rebuttal of that argument. As such, I believe this close should be overturned in favor of deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Without attempting to restate all of the arguments, and everything else about, IMO the close was clearly incorrect and should be overturned. On one new point, that closer argument was in essence an argument by the closer, and was for a synthesized topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A very poor close regardless of where you fall on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum. This close was basically, "I have disregarded every single vote and comment in the AfD and have therefore decided it is no consensus." It should be overturned. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Overturn and delete. The closer substituted her own view, which could and should have been expressed as a !vote, for a proper assessment of the consensus of the debate. This is a failure to follow correct deletion process. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment by closer
- To clarify, I did not "disregard every single vote and comment in the AFD". Nom statement was that this was an "intersection of two roads", that there is no practice under wp:outcomes to keep intersection articles, and that there was no indication of notability under GNG. The first delete comment (by Trainsandotherthings) echoed that "It would have to take something extraordinary for a road intersection to be notable." The second delete comment (by David Fuchs) was also based on it being about an intersection - "it's extremely rare for any intersection articles to exist because the content makes much more sense in other places..." The third delete vote (by Doczilla") indicated that it was a "barely-sourced item about a street intersection, of all things". However, as the non-delete comments pointed out, this article is not just about the intersection, but about the neighborhood around and named for the intersection. This tells me that the first three delete comments did not adequately engage with the content of the article or the arguments that had been made earlier in the discussion. The later set of delete comments all actually cited policy, either WP:SIGCOV or WP:ROUTINE, however Ms. Snoozy Turtle's comment again cites it being routine "for a road intersection." None of these commenters provided explanations as to how they felt it violated WP:SIGCOV and WP:ROUTINE, and none of them engaged with the sources found by 3 kids in a trenchcoat.
- Regarding the keep arguments, the first two argue that the focus of the article is or should be the neighborhood, rather than just the intersection. However, the first two do not provide sources indicating that the neighborhood meets notability. 3 kids in a trenchcoat is the only commenter in the AFD who provided a substantive attempt to engage with sources. However, they were hampered by their lack of fluency in the language, and those sources have not made it into the article. Lerdsuwa did do some independent evaluation of the sources found by 3 kids in a trenchcoat, but did not go into detail as to how they did or did not meet the requirements of GNG.
- The closer's job is not to merely count votes, but to evaluate the arguments. I did not find either the keep or delete arguments persuasive. Thus I closed it as no consensus. I added the clean up tag to the article as the title of the article causes confusion (at least as far as was apparent in the delete comments), and it does need more sourcing.
- I disagree with the assertion that my closing statement was "in essence an argument by the closer". I was not making an argument about the article, I was not substituting my own view (I have no view on the article). I was merely summarizing my reading of the comments made in the discussion and the weakness of the arguments on both sides, which lead me to close as no consensus. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd also like to draw attention to wp:NHC.
"Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue."
~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Right now I feel like a meme of some one who keeps running back going "and another thing!" but if the commenters in a discussion cannot even reach a consensus about what the article under discussion is even about, how can there be consensus about what to do with said article? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The failure to deliminate a topic is a result of the poor sourcing to support said topic. If we had sources addressing this topic "directly and in detail" we wouldn't be having problems with delimitation. It's not surprising that in a case without significant coverage that issues like this exist. To my mind this is further evidence of a lack of notability in support of deletion. 4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Endorse closure as no consensus. The closing admin correctly pointed out most of the delete votes lacked policy-based rationale. Frank Anchor 19:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse WP:ROUTINE is part of Wikipedia:Notability (events) and thus isn't applicable to an article about a junction. This weakens the delete argument. The closer's statement seems like a reasonable explanation why they closed as "no consensus". NemesisAT (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn to delete If I view the initial relistings are reasonable in terms of consensus, followed by one "marginal" keep (lean), one "debatable" delete (considered it just to be the intersection) and three deletes - perhaps the deletes weren't comprehensive but their meanings were clear - how many more delete opinions would be required to move from not a clear consensus? clearly a perverse outcome relisting was essentially meaningless. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse. It seems like the burden of proof these days has fallen disproportiontely on those editors who want to keep an article to find and demonstrate that there are reliable sources that prove notability while those seeking deletion can simply say that a subject isn't notable or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed). I think the closer was correct in discounting Delete "votes" that just reflect an editor's opinion on whether or not an intersection should be considered notable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that is indeed what WP:BURDEN states. If you feel you'd like that to change, do feel free to gather a consensus for your proposal in an appropriate talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
No, actually WP:BURDEN applies to content within an article, not entire articles. Jclemens (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

" or say that they can't find any sources (which can't ever be confirmed)." - it may not be able to be confirmed, but it can be rebutted by finding those sources, which is exactly the point, no one can prove the negative here, I can't show a picture of stuff I couldn't find because well I couldn't find it, or are you proposing I have to record in someway all the searches done and prove to the satisfaction of those opining to keep that the searches were comprehensive somehow? Of course those saying the sources exist, can point to them and demonstrate it which would seem a much easier standard. 81.100.164.154 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
If you have spent time looking for sources and failed to find any, then say "despite searching, I've not found any sources", rather than just "there aren't any sources". Better still say what you did find, e.g. if you found a sources that mentioned it in passing, say "I found an article [link] that mentions it but nothing more.", if you searched the archives of a particular newspaper and failed to find any coverage, say that. If you can't even verify that the place exists, say that. Mention what search terms you used, especially if you used multiple ones. In other words - be specific about what you did and what the results were. Not only does this make it clear that you have spent time looking, it helps other people with their searches and reduces duplication of effort and can explain differences in results (someone searching for "Place, Country" is going to see different results to someone searching for Place, Province). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Weak endorse I think there were two threads in this AfD, was the intersection notable, and was the neighborhood that contains the intersection notable. The consensus to the intersection was a clear no, while the neighborhood question is closer to a yes. While I feel the best close would of been to draftify to change the primary topic and discuss the title, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is a valid argument, so I'll weakly endorse this. Jumpytoo Talk 05:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn to delete I believe that participants in a discussion have an expectation to discuss the sources found in the article if another participant points toward additional sources that may meet GNG. In this case, the four delete comments after 3 kids in a trenchcoat's keep comment all suggested the sources found were not sufficient to meet GNG. And looking at most of the comments favoring deletion, there is a suggestion that the coverage is not significant. I do understand where the closer was coming from, as many of the comments also referred to intersections not being notable . --Enos733 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Weak Endorse - This was a poorly written close that reads more like an !vote than a close, but it was a close that properly reflects the lack of consensus. It is a waste of time to say that the closer should have drawn a conclusion from the discussion when the conclusion was not there. The conclusion did summarize the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse. It's clear from the AfD that there is consensus that the road junction alone is not notable, but there is no consensus about the wider neighbourhood of which the road junction is a part. As the article is about both neighbourhood and junction and not every topic covered in an article needs to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, we're left at no consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Comment: May I suggest that those arguing to overturn and delete take a look at the present article, now at ~~Khae Rai, Nonthaburi~~ Khae Rai, which has since undergone major restructuring and expansion, and confirm that their positions still hold? Cc: 4meter4, Stifle & Enos733. PS Also North8000 and Trainsandotherthings. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)–14:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

So now there are two questions. Review of the close and the future status of the expanded and renamed (and possibly new-scoped) article. On thee latter question I would try to learn if the surrounding neighborhood truly has an recognized identity as such and my answer would follow that. Perhaps the pragmatic answer here should be to reopen a new AFD. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Bhumika Gurung

Procedural close, as the nominator has been blocked and so is unable to participate here. This is without prejudice to a new nomination after the block has expired. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The afd is rejected simply everytime without any logical reasoning. The actress has clearly passed WP:NACTOR with her multiple lead roles in the shows Nimki Mukhiya, Nimki Vidhayak and Mann Kee Awaaz Pratigya 2. She is currently playing the lead in the show Hara Sindoor. So she is eligible to have a Wikipedia article with the four lead roles she has played. I don't understand what is wrong with afc reviewers that they are constantly rejecting this draft without any logical reasons when Gurung has everything required for an article. Commonedits (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I request a proper review of the draft by a good capable reviewer unlike the ones who have reviewed till now because the xfd: [1] is no more valid. The xfd [2] happened in 2018 when Gurung had got her first lead role in Nimki Mukhiya. Now Gurung has four lead roles, so she has fully passed WP:NACTOR so why are the reviewers not allowing the creation of her article?Commonedits (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Just here to note Draft:Bhumika Gurung, and that the nominator just got blocked for a month (for something entirely unrelated, to all appearances). —Cryptic 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Procedural Close because the appellant is blocked for 30 days for personal attacks. But this is an "interesting" case. The title is create-protected, admin-only, due to a history of sockpuppetry in 2018 and 2019, and the protecting admin said that any request to unprotect should only come via Deletion Review, so here we are. The appellant has created a draft, Draft:Bhumika Gurung, and is requesting that it be reviewed, and so has come here. Another reviewer declined the draft two weeks ago, and then I Rejected the draft, largely because the submitter was being disruptive by accusing everyone else of being disruptive. What the blocked appellant mostly does is to insult other editors and accuse them of stalking. (This is not a block review, but I concur with User:KrakatoaKatie in blocking the appellant.) However, the draft as written does not support acting notability, but the subject does now appear to satisfy the conditions for notability. I was hasty in Rejecting the draft, and a draft submitted by a reasonable editor may be reviewed at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment to User:Cryptic - The block is only mostly unrelated. The block is for having a modus operandi of insulting other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Procedural close per Cryptic so that the nominator can fully participate when their block expires. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning players

The list was deleted under WP:LISTCRUFT, however there was nothing indiscriminate about the list. It was a straight up factual list of players who had won this specific cup. The information was straight forward and clear. Some argument was that the list violated WP:SYNTH, which is bizarre, as lists can't be a conclusion of information. Lists are a collection of information. From List of Star Wars books or List of PlayStation games (A–L) or List of James Bond films. This list just needed work to bring it up to standard, which no one had done. I suggest over-turn to draft space for improvement and put a hold on this AfD. Govvy (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Closing admin I do not have time at this moment to re-evaluate my close so no comment on that until I can. However, if @Govvy or another editor would like it for draft space, I'm happy to provide. Star Mississippi 16:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I went back and read through the AfD. I don't see any other way that I could have closed this. But still fine with draft space incubation. Star Mississippi 13:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. The close is a valid conclusion from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Allow Re-Creation of Draft if that is what is being requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment - There is no need to overturn the close to create a copy in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse, closure is valid. I don't support creating a draft version, as the circumstances of the article mean that it is very unlikely the reason for deletion can be resolved; therefore, the only possible outcomes would be the draft going stale, in which case we are back where we are at the moment, or it being moved to mainspace in an end-run around consensus, which is undesirable. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse - there was clear consensus. Giant Snowman 17:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse - no issues with this closure - it reflected the consensus from the participants Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment a 'per nom' is only half a !vote when one of the two arguments put forward in the nom is a clear misunderstanding of WP:CLN. I can't see the sources to opine on those, but I think the deletion arguments are structurally weak; seeing the sourcing would help me opine further. Jclemens (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse I disagree with deleting the article and tend to agree with nom's arguments. However, consensus says otherwise. It was quite clear that the "Delete" close was correct, as much as I wish it weren't so. DRV is not for relitigating arguments expressed in AfD - I've made that point in DRV when I've been on the prevailing side in these kinds of AfDs and it's only fair that I point that out when I disagree with the outcome as well. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment I think a deletion of the article was a hasty decision. To be honest, I totally regret that I started a talk page in WikiProject Football which resulted in this deletion. It was a mistake to trust it for solving edit disputes for the article. Instead of solutions for the article's edit disputes and problems, we got a total eradication of it. It did not have WP:SYNTH as it was not a case of an original research. I think that the article can exist in Wikipedia. It just needed a little improvements. I support Govvy's suggestion even though many will disagree with me. NextEditor123 (talk) 20:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

26 June 2022

Alberger process

I disagree with the closing admin that the nominator failed to advance a valid deletion rationale. I think they were attempting to express a concern about notability. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

And in fact, I'm not sure from WP:BEFORE that this topic is notable. Most results are mirrors of Wikipedia, primary, or non-RS, except for Encyclopedia Britannica. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The rationale presented there "Page does not seem to justify a stand alone page" is entirely ambiguous. Is it due to notability concerns, promotional/advertising concerns, copyvio concerns, WP:NOT concerns, which one is it? The way the deletion rationale is worded, anything fits. A specific guideline- or policy-based rationale was not advanced. If we're going to base assessments of nominations that lack any said rationales here at DRV with guesses such as "think they were attempting", based upon subjective probability assessments of what the nominator was getting at, then why bother having any nomination rationales at all? My close was entirely valid per WP:SKCRIT #1. That all said, feel free to renominate the article for deletion with a valid rationale relative to Wikipedia's deletion policy. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid deletion rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
My reasoning for nominating (that I admit that I did not articulate well) was based around not meeting WP:GNG. I tried to phrase it in a way designed to start a discussion (i.e. is this page something that should be deleted / merged?) rather than a firm perspective (i.e. please nuke this page!). I do not plan on renominating it for a couple of weeks but would support someone else doing so. Gusfriend (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse. The text reads like a merge proposal and not a deletion argument. As such, it was a proper speedy close. The nominator can always re-file with a properly formed deletion proposal if desired. That said, if the nominator truly believes a merge is a good outcome, perhaps filing a WP:Merge proposal in the proper forum might be a better option. AFD should really only be used for deletion arguments, not merge discussions (at least from a nomination standpoint). We only merge as an alternative outcome to a deletion proposal per WP:ATD and are not a proxy for WP:MERGE.4meter4 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse, with no prejudice to a speedy renomination with better rationale, as the nominator does not say that the page should be deleted or the specific reason why. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse "Page does not seem to justify a stand alone page" is not a deletion rationale, instead it's basically just saying "I think this page should be deleted, redirected or merged". Which is obviously true, since the page was nominated for deletion. If the rationale for deletion was notability-based then it should have mentioned notability somewhere. This isn't asking for much. Hut 8.5 14:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Weak Endorse - The closer, and the above editors, are correct that a valid deletion argument was not provided; but it would have been better to !vote Keep and ask the nominator to clarify their reasoning. Closing an AFD seven minutes after it was entered looks like the closer is watching the AFD log or a deletion sorting list, which is permitted but has a meh quality to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse no prejudice against speedy renom with better rationale, although if a merge is desired... why bother going through the AfD process until a merger is contested? Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse as valid closure, the D in AFD is there for a reason and proposals to merge are not in scope. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse If no one is going to put forward a good rationale for deletion in the deletion debate, then it should be there (I've seen "procedural" nominations arising from DRV too, same view on those (and why can I find no such procedure...)). If someone wants some broader view/perspective there is the talk page. If someone wants to make a case why this shouldn't exist, then they can make that, this outcome doesn't preclude that either from the original nom or someone who would argue here that it shouldn't have been closed - realistically that would be a quicker outcome than waiting a week here to continue the (non) discussion anyway. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent discussions

25 June 2022

List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle – AfD re-closed by Newyorkbrad. Sandstein 06:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

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

The Afd was wrongly closed by the nom with rage statement. I am not challenging the outcome, but for future reference, it is requested to redo the close by an uninvolved user. Consensus discussion about the bad close at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd short circuited with inflammatory and accusatory statements. Venkat TL (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Let's cut out the heat and the bureaucracy here. Is there anyone other than the AFD nominator who currently wants the article deleted (or some other ATD)? Iffy★Chat -- 15:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
No one that I am aware of. Venkat TL (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse per WP:NOTBURO then. If that changes, anyone can open a new AFD. Iffy★Chat -- 15:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

There were a couple admins in the VP discussion who seemed to think it should be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay FWIW, 4 admins commented in that thread and no one said so. Dear admins @Lee Vilenski @Black Kite @Visviva @Redrose64 speak up and clear your position, lest you risk being misrepresented. Venkat TL (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, I would re-open that AfD, because as a closer I would ignore every single one of those Keep rationales. There isn't a decent source which actually discusses the subject in that article - every single one is a database listing, from a website where it isn't clear if it's even reliable. Obviously, there may be good sourcing for such as list, but it doesn't exist at the moment. This is a pretty strong indictment of the article and its keep rationales. Not necessarily advocating to delete, but I think it's clearly not pro-keep either. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
You are quoting Black Kite, I cant speak for him but FWIW I note in his second comment there he said "I'd actually close it as No Consensus [...], or more likely I'd re-list it,". Venkat TL (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse the outcome but not the closing statement. Does it need to be reclosed? no. Would it benefit the project if the closing statement was replaced with something reasonable? Maybe. Would I reclose it if this comment didn't make me arguably invovled? No, I don't think it's that important. Will I object to anyone else doing so? Also no - if someone else feels that it is worth the time then as far as I'm concerned they should feel free to do it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Just popping in to say that adminship status should be of no relevance in determining consensus (or the lack thereof) on AFD. (That's not exactly what anyone was saying above, but I think it's a necessary point.) Apart from that I guess I'm with Thryduulf. -- Visviva (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn and relist, per WP:WITHDRAWN as it seems that the early closure is an attempt to force the discussion to close, and that the closing statement does not show that the nominator has genuinely changed their mind. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Well the closure is fine, per WP:SK the discussion can be closed as speedy keep if the nominator withdraws the nomination and nobody else supported deletion, which is the case here. I do think the closing statement should be removed though as it gratuitously insults the Keep participants and accuses them of acting in bad faith. Hut 8.5 14:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment. I have re-closed the AfD with the same result but a neutral statement, as suggested above. Hopefully that resolves this DRV. Another AfD can be filed in due course if desired, though I am not suggesting it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
With Newyorkbrad's closure, this DRV has served its purpose. This DRV can also be closed now. Venkat TL (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse with {{diet trout}} to the nominator and to the rage-quitter. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse per above.4meter4 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse the outcome (with thanks to Newyorkbrad for re-closing the discussion). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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

22 June 2022

Nishan Velupillay

This was closed as keep at 5k to 3d/r with zero given close rationale and apparently without weighing !votes. Talk page discussion suggests the closer simply agreed with the keep !voters that someone playing at the top level of football in their country "is notable". Since that argument is invalid, due to NSPORT being subordinate to GNG and NFOOTY being deprecated, and since the only GNG-based reasons put forth by keeps rested on unreliable sources and passing mentions in routine match reports, the close should be overturned and the AfD relisted. JoelleJay (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Copying my talk page comment with examples of similar AfDs being closed as delete or relisted:

[3], [4] (relisting comment, at 7k 3d: Clearly some significant coverage, but no overriding consensus. The keep view wins the voting but doesn't really create a strong enough consensus right now with just the single source of significance presented.), [5], [6], [7] (including three !votes calling The Football Sack unreliable), [8], [9] The "keep" arguments consist only of references to WP:NFOOTY, which presumes notability for high-level players. But this presumption is rebuttable, and it has been rebutted here: the "delete" side argues that the subject fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources, and that argument has not been refuted (or mostly even addressed) by the "keep" side. Based on the strength of the arguments presented, in the light of applicable guidelines, we therefore have rough consensus for deletion. [10], [11], [12] ...The first keep vote rests solely on the premise that paying in the Egyptian Premier League is sufficient for notability when no league carries that presumption..., [13], [14] Although opinions are divided, the "delete" arguments are significantly more convincing in the light of applicable guidelines. These guidelines have recently been revised to make it clearer that mere participation in high-level sporting events is not a guarantee for inclusion at the article level if a search for sources does not establish notability to WP:GNG standards. [15], [16]. Note that some of these were from before NFOOTY was deprecated; those same keep arguments weren't even persuasive then. JoelleJay (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

endorse at the very very best this could have been no consensus. Folks have argued the sources aren't good enough but there wasn't anything close to consensus on that point. Hobit (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse Whether it is Keep or no consensus is up for debate (given that it is 5/3 I'm leaning towards the latter), but the end result is the same. 12.148.188.220 (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse. No realistic chance that a relist could turn the discussion to “delete”. See advice at WP:RENOM, especially the part about a better nomination. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse. I personally would have read it as no consensus. Relisting is not mandatory and I don't think it's necessary here given the participation (though I would say it's also within discretion, not that we usually get relists at DRV). Keep a reasonable margin within discretion, considering the distinction is not that substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The closer actually tried to close it at 4k 3d but then accidentally relisted, leading to another (substanceless) keep !vote, so the discussion was certainly not dead. A relist would've at least allowed more editors to contribute valid !votes; we cannot achieve consensus from arguments explicitly rejected by our guidelines (presuming notability from his playing pro football, assertions of GNG being met from sources that are unreliable/not independent). The remaining GNG claims rest on articles specifically excluded from NSPORT due to being ROUTINE match reports and bare mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To be clear: the sum total of info referencing Velupillay from the RS brought up in the AfD (aside from the Daily Telegraph tabloid piece that is paywalled) is 8 sentences at best, 6 of them strictly from routine recaps. The other two sentences are only found in a drop-down box after clicking his name in a list, and are far from SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I admit I may have been intending to comment on that AfD between the relist and the close, and based on the discussion at that point and the assumption I'm not substantially better at finding sources than existing participants (a fairly safe assumption, I think) I likely would have !voted delete, but (maybe I'm too cynical) I doubt a couple of delete !votes would have made much of a difference. Especially with the keep !votes also continuing to come in, whether or not they post their own independent reasoning. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@Alpha3031 A couple of delete !votes, even if they contained just the bare minimum argument, would absolutely have warranted at least a relist. The issue with most of the keep !votes is that they do not actually have any guideline backing (which, per the examples I linked above, means they should be given very little weight), and, importantly, do not bring the subject into compliance with NSPORT (as the IP said below, SPORTSBASIC now requires all athlete articles have at least one piece of SIGCOV in IRS in the article). The closer should have been familiar with at least the revised NSPORT consensuses and therefore should have weighed arguments with those in mind. JoelleJay (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse as per above editors. Keep was a valid conclusion, and No Consensus also would have been (and that is a distinction without much difference). It is true that the Keep statements did not say much and that the close did not provide analysis, but that wouldn't have changed the outcome or made it a bad close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse. I might have closed no-consensus but that wouldn't change anything. Relisting would not have achieved anything meaningful. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Overturn and relist. The close-comment in the AfD includes nothing beyond the decision to keep, and in particular did not address how, or even whether, the arguments were assessed for weight. Only two keep !votes were even close to having substance, in so much as they produced the two articles of dubious significance expanded on below, and these two also mix in clearly insufficient arguments such as "has Google autocomplete suggestions" and "is on a notable team". Two other keep !votes only produce routine match reports and the last provides no further argument.

There is no evidence of SIGCOV; certainly not in the article, and not in the AfD discussion either. Sportscrit #5 requires all articles to have at least one piece of significant coverage. Only one keep !vote even explicitly asserts SIGCOV, but provides only routine match reports to support it. As explicitly said in WP:NSPORT, routine match reports don't count as SIGCOV. That leaves The Football Sack article (an article on a "volunteer-based website" written by an undergraduate) and the ABC News article (two sentences in a listicle attached to the end of an article).

Again, the closer gave no indication of having considered the content of the votes, rather than just counting them up. 46.235.225.42 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Overturn and delete. The keep voters and the closer all supported a non-policy based rationale that contradicts the policy at WP:NSPORT per the RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability. At some point we have to start enforcing the new updated policies. This is one of those times.4meter4 (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Guidelines aren't policies. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn or relist Not seeing a consensus that the sources constituted significant coverage: some keep voters asserted it, the delete voters all denied it, the latter more convincingly in my view. A relist for more policy-based input would have helped, but a forceful delete would not have been inappropriate either, considering the need to enforce the updated guidelines. Avilich (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse no consensus would also have been a reasonable closure, but there wasn't a consensus to delete there. I don't think a relist would be appropriate, since there was plenty of participation and there weren't any substantial changes during the discussion. The fact an AfD didn't come to the "right" outcome is not grounds for a relist. Hut 8.5 11:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

20 June 2022

List of Bengali songs recorded by Runa Laila – Overturn to relist as WP:BADNAC. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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

A non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees. Two said to keep it, one said to redirect, the nominator and two others said to delete it. An administrator should close this. Dream Focus 19:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in NAC that says "everyone must agree" for a NAC- it's about consensus and consensus doesn't require total agreement. It requires majority agreement and pertinent arguments. So Endorse. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's an essay. Is there any guideline or policy page about this? Dream Focus 20:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You literally implied that WP:NAC doesn't allow for a closure, yet you're asking for guidance on what policy does while declaring that it doesn't allow for this at the same time? PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Endorse: Closer is experienced and the decision was not a close call or controversial. Dreamfocus only mentioned the !votes, and of course it is not a vote. ––FormalDude talk 20:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Per Praxidicae, I am not aware nor can I find any evidence that there is a policy or guideline that states A non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees, and there are as far as I'm aware hundreds if not thousands of NAC's where not everybody agreed. So Endorse -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Overturn. The guideline for non-admin closers (it's at WP:NACD, for the nominator here who doesn't seem to know how to follow a hatnote) states that close calls should be left to an admin. Deletion discussions that could have more than one outcome, like this one, are close calls by definition. While the closer was right to discard both keep votes, an administrator correctly closing this would also downweight the minority, barely-explained redirect !vote since the redirect target contains zero mention of any songs recorded by this person. Yes, we could just take it to RFD, but there isn't reason to when this has already been discussed and incorrectly closed. —Cryptic 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment (involved somehow) Please also read the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd short circuited with inflammatory and accusatory statements - related to the nominations by the nominator on all similar lists — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I was the nominator and I don't see any discussion with regard to my behavior nor was I notified of any such discussion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Damn, thought it was RandomCanadian. Still that discussion is relevant — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing an obvious connection between that discussion and this deletion review...4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Overturn per policy at WP:NACD. There was clearly not a consensus to redirect (or keep or delete for that matter), and with very little participation, this probably should have been re-listed to give time for further comment in order to build a consensus.4meter4 (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn to Relist - With opinions all over after one week, a Relist is the right action, and any other close by an admin would have been appealable also. A Trout to the appellant for one of the more wrong reasons to appeal, but both the closer and the appellant made mistakes here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn: re-close by admin or relist, not obvious enough to qualify for WP:NACD (guideline). Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn – non-admin closures are reserved for straightforward cases, and this was not a straightforward case, as explained above. On the merits, the closure isn't too far off the mark, but a relist – to obtain further participation and to discuss the proposed alternative to deletion – would perhaps have been a better option. (I don't quite agree that NACs are only acceptable when "everyone agrees", though: there are plenty of non-unanimous AfDs that are still straightforward enough for a non-admin closure. The real question non-admins should ask themselves is "could anyone disagree with this closure in good faith?", and if the answer is yes, the AfD should be left for a sysop.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn to Relist followed by an admin closure after more discussion. Same reason as last 3 above me. Venkat TL (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn to Relist: While "non-admin closure is not appropriate unless everyone agrees" is absolute bullshit, looking at the arguments, both keep arguments are very weak on their own, and have already been countered with a much stronger argument. However there is no clear consensus among participants if this should be deleted or redirected, which is why I wouldn't want this to be closed the same way by an admin as well. ~Styyx^Talk? 15:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn to Relist: This is a clear relist candidate. Extremely weak keep arguments, no real arguments for and against redirect, redirects are cheap but there should be discussion about it.Lurking shadow (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse. Obvious WP:ATD-R. The nominator should take WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD more seriously. The merge or redirect target was obvious, and the nominator made no effort to explain why it shouldn’t be done, and this failure regularly leads to undisciplined deletion discussions. Do not relist because the nomination was faulty. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse I was at first torn between endorsing the closure and going for a relist after a similar AfD was reopened after it was closed as delete. The rationale of the ones who !voted keep are very weak as they mentioned other stuff exists instead of list-related policies, compared to the rationale of the ones in the AfD I mentioned. As the one who !voted redirect in the AfD because I believe that it's a valid ATD-R, along with the reasons above, I'll endorse the closure. The nom's reasoning is vague. SBKSPP (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Endorse- Given that the only other possible outcome would be to delete, which I assume is not what the appellant wants, I'm not sure what the point of this DRV is. Reyk _YO! 01:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Matthew Tye – Allow recreation. There is unanimous agreement that the page should no longer be protected from recreation. Furthermore, about half the participants here believe the draft should be accepted with the other half being neutral. Seeing that there is no opposition, I shall accept the draft in my editorial capacity as a reviewer. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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

I created Draft:Matthew Tye. Two sources that provide significant coverage about the subject are:

Mo, Yu 莫雨 (2021-07-30). ""在中國，自由都是表面的"：一位逃離牆國的美國網紅" ["In China, freedom is superficial": An American Internet celebrity who fled the wall country] (in Chinese). Voice of America. Archived from the original on 2022-06-19. Retrieved 2022-06-19.
Liu, Youwei 劉又瑋 (2021-08-26). "賺的錢比中國多7倍！台灣擁2戰略關鍵老外讚：一直想搬回去" [Earn 7 times more money than China! Taiwan has 2 strategic keys. Foreigner praises: I always want to move back] (in Chinese). FTV News. Archived from the original on 2022-06-19. Retrieved 2022-06-19.

Numerous other sources provide less substantial coverage about the subject. The subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria which says:

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

The article was deleted in two AfDs: 17 May 2017 and 2 July 2018 (an 8 August 2009 AfD was about a different person). I supported deletion in both AfDs. A deletion review was closed as "Decision endorsed" on 30 October 2021. As noted in the DRV, the DRV was started shortly after this 16 September 2021 Reddit thread where the subject asked his followers to recreate the Wikipedia article. This led to a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Off-wiki nonsense and a series of unfortunate coincidences.... Owing to the significant controversy surrounding the article and the full protection of the title, I am bringing this article to DRV for community review. Since the two AfDs closed as "delete", Matthew Tye has received significant coverage in reliable sources. After I rewrote the article at Draft:Matthew Tye, "G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" does not apply.

Restore the article by moving Draft:Matthew Tye to Matthew Tye. Cunard (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

As the most recent deleting admin, I've been notified about this request, but I have no opinion about it. I don't have the time to re-read all these discussions and form one, and I don't read Chinese. So I'm neutral here. Sandstein 13:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Downgrade Protection to ECP to Allow Review of Draft including acceptance of draft if reviewer accepts draft. The draft is currently admin-protected, which was appropriate until a neutral editor had a draft for review. Lower the protection to ECP so that a reviewer can accept. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Restore the article by moving Draft:Matthew Tye to Matthew Tye. and downgrade protection as needed. I can't verify the sources due to language issues, but the draft looks fine. Hobit (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Unsalt. I don't have a strong opinion about whether the sources are enough to establish notability, but since it's been nearly four years since the last AfD, this attempt by an experienced editor to recreate the article based mostly on post-2018 sources seems fine. If anyone feels that the sources are inadequate, they are of course free to start another AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Allow recreation. No issue with the AfDs at the time they ran, but circumstances have changed and experienced editor has provided a solid draft. No reason not to allow Star Mississippi 13:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

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

19 June 2022

Hablemos de Salud – Overturn to withdraw. Overall sentiment is consistent: 1) the redirect can remain; 2) the redirect should be considered an individual editorial decision rather than the result of AfD consensus. So I think this is the result that best clarifies this situation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Another involved non-admin closure by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) I discovered while collecting evidence for an Arbcom case. The article was unilaterally redirected by TPH. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with this particular case, except perhaps the original deletion nomination. The nominator simply withdrew the nomination with no outstanding delete opinions, per WP:SK#1(a), and if anyone disagrees with redirection they can revert it, which means that a talk page discussion will be needed to reinstate it per WP:BRD. What outcome are you looking for? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Endorse. Seems a reasonable procedural close per WP:SK#1(a).4meter4 (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
This was essentially withdrawn after Matt91486 merged the page's content. Treat the closure as such and let's not get caught up in semantics. ✗plicit 13:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, AfD nominators are allowed to speedily close their own discussions as "keep" where there are no !votes to delete. They can then subsequently redirect the article as a normal editorial action. That redirection can be reverted by any editor. TPH has compressed those two separate decisions into a single outcome.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
This is a withdrawal which is permissible as long as there's not been any votes to delete. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Ignore - I won't say Endorse because the nominator-closer made an error in combining the roles of nominator and closer, but it was an error without effect, as it would be silly now to overturn it and have someone else take the same action. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, withdrawals are often closed by the nominator who is withdrawing and there is nothing in our procedures and policies which forbid this as long as there were no delete votes.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to go with overturn to withdraw which is probably a largely irrelevant difference here, but I think more accurate. Some people take an AfD closure to merge as carrying some weight and I think "withdraw" is just more descriptive of what happened. But eh. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn to withdraw (change the close from "merge" to "nomination withdrawn") per Hobit. This is similar to the case at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 5#Darkover (TV series), where TenPoundHammer's close as "redirect" was overturned. TenPoundHammer was banned on 20 June 2022 from closing XfD discussions.
A nominator should be closing their own deletion nomination only when the page has been speedy deleted or the nominator is doing a Wikipedia:Speedy keep withdrawal close. A close as "merge" is not a Wikipedia:Speedy keep. A "merge" close means there is a consensus after a WP:SNOW or full AfD discussion to require a merge. That was not the case here as the AfD was closed after having been open for a little over an hour. A "merge" close would make it harder for a standalone article to be restored as an editor would have to contest the close or substantially improve the article. It is fine to impose such requirements after a seven-day discussion but not after a one-hour one. A "withdraw" close would not impose such requirements.
I am fine with the subsequent action of editorially redirecting the page to Élmer Huerta as a good alternative to deletion after the merge given the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that were found. So I support an "overturn to withdraw, keep the redirect in place but allow any editor to reverse the redirect without having to gain consensus to reverse it".
Cunard (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse simple procedural close/merge with no dissenting opinions on the AFD. The closure was technically in violation of WP:NACD but was done in good faith and and this DRV violates the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. Frank Anchor 18:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Weak overturn to withdraw per Hobit and Cunard. This probably didn't need to be brought to DRV, but since we're here "withdrawn" does seem a better summary of what took place, and it also prevents any possible issues if someone wants to recreate the article somewhere down the road. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Jeannie Pwerle – Draftify. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for draftifying this article. Now I can use this as a starting point to write a new article if I can find more sources to show notability. LPascal (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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

I only just saw this page was deleted recently. I would have contributed to the discussion or strengthened the case for notability if I had known the page was being considered for deletion. This page was part of an Australian women artists project and may have been started by a trainee editor who may not have been aware of all the policies re notability for artists and may not have access to the same sources I do. There were mistakes made in using a commercial gallery as a reference for the non-commercial and important Holmes a Court collection, which is an early and ongoing non-commercial collection of Indigenous art. So there are two non-commercial galleries for Jeannie Pwerle and I might be able to find more given time for more research. I also find that the notability standard for female Indigenous artists is very difficult as it generally requires references to reviews or articles written by white Australians. The work of Indigenous artists can be notable amongst curators and the collectors of Indigenous art without being written about. However as Jeannie Pwerle was an early Utopian artist and paints her personal yam dreaming stories, it may be possible to show notability as an artist who has contributed to a significant new art movement which is one of the criteria for notability for artists. I have looked at the site for the admin user:Stifle who closed the delete discussion and he seems to have waived his right to be consulted first. So I am asking here for two things before I do any more research and draft a new article on Jeannie Pwerle 1. Is it worth me doing some more research to see if there are more references for her notability and more examples of her paintings in collections or will it be a hopeless waste of time if a new article is going to be deleted again or if no-one is willing to re-open her page for me to work on? 2. Is it possible for me to find or be sent the draft of her page that was deleted so I can see what needs to be changed or where mistakes were made? And apologies for this long comment. I have not tried to object to a deletion before. LPascal (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal

Endorse and allow recreation. This was a difficult close, as the commenters pointed to one work in a national collection and a 32-word entry in Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies. Other comments suggested that WP:NARTIST 4(d) usually means at least three prominent exhibitions and the bibliography entry does not meet WP:GNG. While a no consensus close may also be appropriate, the close, "The keep !votes based on WP:ARTIST part 4 and WP:ANYBIO have been adequately refuted," is based on policy. --Enos733 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn, pretty clear case of a supervote. If "consensus" means "I agree with the policy arguments on this side and disagree with the policy arguments on the other side", we might as well give up on having these discussions at all. I understand the OP to alternatively be requesting that the article be restored as a draft, which can't be done until this case is resolved. If someone can ping me at that point, I will happily undelete it and userfy it to LPascal's userspace. -- Visviva (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse but draftify per request. There was nothing wrong with the close, but LPascal makes a good case for more time to work on this article to make notability clear. This is why draft space exists. Star Mississippi 01:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse but draftify per Star Mississippi.4meter4 (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Overturn to No Consensus - The close was a supervote. There was strength of arguments on both sides. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I do think no consensus was probably the better close. But delete may have been within discretion. That said, I don't see the need for this to go to draft--if better sources (or evidence that an SNG is met) is found, just recreate it. allow recreation with no prejudice to a new AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Endorse own deletion as within reasonable range of outcomes. No objection to draftifying. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment I don't know the policy or etiquette for my making this comment so apologies if I'm not following policy. I am satisfied with the suggestion that I write a new article for Jeannie Pwerle with the aim of finding better sources to support her as a notable artist. I would only write the article and post it to Wikipedia if I could find supporting references. I would do this slowly in my sandbox as I have other articles in the pipeline first and it would take some time to research. I don't expect the deletion to be overturned and the original article to go live again on wikipedia. But I would like to get a draft of the original article if possible and I would dump it into my sandbox to look at. I don't really know the technicalities of how this can happen and what it means to draftify or recreate an article, so if the decision ends up being to allow me to work on a new article, please notify me of how I can get a copy of the original deleted article.LPascal (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal
Endorse This is not a supervote, but appropriate weighing of the argument, regardless of the number. When looking at the discussion, I can see that neither the NARTIST #4, nor the ANYBIO #3 criteria are met. The former because the galleries aren't museum collections, the latter because Aboriginal Artists Dictionary of Biographies isn't a national dictionary as required. Everyone simply saying "Keep NARTIST 4(d)" has their argument refuted, and, again, regardless of how many people !vote keep based on them, the arguments are weak, and outweighed by delete !votes. ~Styyx^Talk? 13:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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 Creation 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 Version 1.0 Editorial Team 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 votings	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil 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

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2022	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2021	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2020	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2019	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2018	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2015	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2013	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec