Wikipedia:Deletion review

This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

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

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

Purpose

Deletion review may be used:

1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

1. 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);
2. (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.)
3. 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);
4. 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);
5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
9. 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.)
10. 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

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial 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 March 14}}</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 March 14}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 March 14|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

14 March 2025

Uzi Vishne (closed)

Uzi Vishne – Moot. Disruprive IP close since reverted. (non-admin closure) Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Uzi Vishne (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This was a pretty clear delete; the only dissenter was a user claiming to be the subject of the article, who dumped a list of his own publications cited in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC) It was seemingly closed randomly by an anonymous user linked to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Various_anon_IPs_closing_AfDs_in_breach_of_WP:NACIP. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC) Speedy undo looks like a clear BADNAC, we don't need seven days debating this. SportingFlyer T·C 04:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC) Looks like this was already done, can you close this? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Masini Situ-Kumbanga

Masini Situ-Kumbanga (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I believe the closer mis-read both policy and consensus for this article. Consensus was 6–2 by pure head count to not keep this as a standalone page (maybe a weak 6–3 if we include the participant who didn't !vote). All 6 deleters/redirecters quoted WP:SPORTCRIT directly or indirectly, a valid policy which this article clearly does not meet, as a reason for not keeping, while the keep !voters cited NATH (which was challenged) or BEFORE (without presenting any easily found sources). This should be overturned to a redirect. I have discussed this with the closer. SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

"This should be overturned to a redirect." But at the AfD, you said "I am going to go a step further and say delete due to a complete lack of verification." Which is it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm allowed to advocate for the consensus position at the AfD even if that was not the position I !voted for. SportingFlyer T·C 12:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I also note this was redirected by another user shortly after the close, which was brought to my attention after I opened this. SportingFlyer T·C 12:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Leave as a redirect. I agree with JoelleJay's assessment of the two Keeps. "Surely sources must exist" has never been a convincing argument, especially for a BLP. This view is supported by WP:NEXIST, but often ignored. I do find Fortuna imperatrix mundi overturning Ritchie333's close to be a form of wheel-war that we shouldn't be encouraging, but reverting it as a rebuke would just be an act of WP:SPITE. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the promotion, hopefully I will justify your faith in me  :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to redirect - As the nom says, there is a consensus when considering all the !votes and policy arguments that the article shouldn't remain, with only the detail of whether to redirect or delete leading to a three-way split. As such, taking the "less radical" option of redirect seems to reflect the community consensus. In fact though, despite the "no consensus" outcome, the closer in fact gave permission for and later endorsed a merge-and-redirect outcome so we've ended up where we should have, but the close doesn't reflect that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

13 March 2025

FedEx Express Flight 3609

FedEx Express Flight 3609 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see a consensus to delete.

1. The merge recommendations were rebutted: Rosbif73 argued against an item at the airport article and redirecting. Rosbif73 also removed the entry, which has not been restored. Esolo5002 noted the removal at the AfD with over three days remaining, but no one responded anywhere.
2. The delete supporters cited WP:NOTNEWS (shortcut to WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper, policy) and WP:NEVENT (shortcut to WP:Notability (events), guideline). They provided topic-specific rationales along the lines of WP:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents#Airline and airport articles (essay, shortcut WP:AIRCRASH). (No one cited it at the AfD – per its own recommendation – but Rosbif73's removal edit summary linked it.) In contrast, none of the merge supporters explained why a mention would be due.
3. The delete supporters hold a supermajority.

The closer stated that they "would have no issue with DRV". Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse 1) speculation that it won't have continued coverage is a reverse-CRYSTAL problem. Non-notable events failing SUSTAINED/NEVENT should be deleted for lack of coverage no sooner than six months after the event. 2) ATD was argued against, but not effectively rebutted, and ties go to the non-delete outcome. 3) NOTNEWS does not apply to aircraft incidents; a routine aviation mishap is still not "routine" in the sense used in NOTNEWS. 4) AIRCRASH is an essay and doesn't add anything beyond NOTNEWS. Very well put together DRV appeal, but Flatscan will undoubtedly be singularly unsurprised to find we disagree on how to apply deletion criteria yet again. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete in line with the clear consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• weak overturn and delete there is a clear supermajority for deletion and while I am broadly sympathetic to selective merges where there is a viable target, there is a clear indication here that the target isn't viable. No beef with the closing admin, I prefer caution when merging or redirection is an option, I just feel that in this case it wasn't the best option. I'm weak because the close was broadly within the closing admin's discretion. I just think that deleting now will save an RFD down the road as the content hasn't stuck in the target Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I just think that deleting now will save an RFD down the road as the content hasn't stuck in the target is not a valid reason to not redirect/merge. It is CRYSTAL-basaed speculation. Also, I do not see a clear indication here that the target isn't viable. I only see one argument made against a redirect, which is equally speculative. Frank Anchor 12:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

you are welcome to have a different viewpoint. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. There was enough support for a merge to make it a valid ATD. Whether the content is kept at the target or not is an editorial question outside the scope of the AfD. The bar for retaining a redirect is much lower than that for retaining an article. not worth creating a future RfD candidate is not a valid reason to oppose a Merge/Redirect outcome at AfD. If the appellant wishes to have the redirect deleted, they should open an RfD, rather than try to overturn a legitimate outcome at AfD. Owen× ☎ 12:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'm going to disagree with that last bit. In six months, sure, go to RfD as redirect may by then be unused/unneeded, but I think Flatscan has selected the correct venue to promptly challenge the AfD outcome as redirect. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  My quote wasn't from Flatscan's appeal here, but from Rosbif73's Delete !vote at the AfD. I fully agree with you that this is the right forum to challenge the AfD result. But the opposition to the proposed Redirect at the AfD was without merit, and the closer correctly discounted it. Owen× ☎ 09:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse - After merge was suggested as an ATD, there was roughly an even split between delete and merge/redirect votes. Merge was clearly not sufficiently refuted, as the only argument made against merging, it is so run-of-the-mill that it won't remain on the airport page for long, so not worth creating a future RfD candidate. is CRYSTAL-based speculation. Frank Anchor 12:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Closer note just echoing what Flatscan said, that I have no issue with this community review. I really didn't see another way to close it once I'd reviewed at their request, and more eyes are never a bad thing. Star Mississippi 13:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. There was a numerical consensus to delete. There are two differences between deletion and redirection. The first is that a reader who enters the title gets a page rather than search results, which is more user-friendly. The second is that history is preserved for future editing. Both of these are reasons why a closing admin may use common sense to redirect as an alternative to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse there's a viable ATD at the moment - for how long is unclear as whether or not it remains on the Newark airport home page is a genuine question, but the closer didn't err by picking the ATD. SportingFlyer T·C 04:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Ko-fi

Ko-fi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Are the current sources enough for notability? I searched for sources focusing on the subject directly but I don't know if they are reliable. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Can you please clarify what you are requesting here? Is it:
  1. To have Draft:Ko-fi, which was deleted in January as an abandoned draft, undeleted?
  2. To ask us to assess whether some sources, which you haven't cited or linked, are sufficient for notability?
  3. To review whether the AFD discussion from 2019 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ko-fi was correctly closed?
  4. Something else?

Stifle (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

1. Considering withdrawing the nomination to restore and continue with the draft as many sources are expected to be reliable. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I see that the Draft:Ko-fi has been deleted twice as an abandoned draft, and submitted and declined four times for lack of reliable sources.

The sources in the article at its last deletion were: [1] [2] and [3], as well as a link to Ko-fi's X page.

Before we go through a fifth round of this, I invite you to share the sources that you propose to add to the draft, so they can be assessed. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• https://www.makeuseof.com/what-is-fanfix-patreon-rival/
• https://www.howtogeek.com/73928/what-is-ko-fi-and-who-should-use-it/
• https://www.pcmag.com/picks/7-patreon-alternatives-to-keep-your-crowdfunding-income-secure
• https://www.makeuseof.com/what-is-ko-fi-benefits-for-creators/

Ahri Boy (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse, since the only question that is properly formulated is whether the close was correct. Without a draft, it is premature to consider whether a URL Dump warrants unsalting. Submit a drart for review, and if a reviewer thinks that it should be accepted, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

12 March 2025

Ryuya Fukushima

Ryuya Fukushima (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't see any proper discussion of the sources I provide in the AFD. Other than the TBS article, All of them have significant coverage of the guy. Due to my lack of knowledge in Japanese terms for football, or my football knowledge as a whole. I couldn't fully squeeze the sources I provided. I already WP:HEY'd it by adding some of the sources. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. I see a lengthy discussion of the sources, by three editors in addition to the appellant, two of whom are among our most experienced. In fact, a full 348 out of the 544 words in this AfD (64%) are just the exchange about the sources presented by the appellant, and that excludes the comment where he presented those sources (with a "Weak Keep"!), or his repeated, lengthy sig (which by itself consumes over 5% of the word count...). All included, over three quarters of this AfD was dedicated to discussing the sources the appellant presented. And then, one of those involved in that exchange, as well as an experienced admin, !voted to delete. Not a single Keep following the source debate. I don't see any basis for the accusation that there was no "proper discussion of the sources", and considering the amount of time and effort spent in the AfD engaging with the appellant in good faith, I find the claim borderline offensive. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse largely per OwenX. There was considerable discussion, and rejection, of the sources presented in the AFD such that delete was the only viable close. Even relisting doesn't make sense as it is one keep !vote that was adequately refuted against several P&G-based delete !votes. Frank Anchor 19:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Request draftification and follow the advice at WP:THREE.

Is there a native-language Wikipedia article? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there is, as well as on the German wiki. Owen× ☎ 22:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Endorse. The sources got a good review.

RE:

I think the sources above have discussion about him is not. But, 9 out of 12 sources are primary, I taken some of the sources and the only useful bit is this and that's it and maybe this Miyazaki Shimbun article Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I translated and reviewed these two sources, and find them to not qualify as GNG-qualifying sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse as the proper conclusion by the closer. There was discussion of the sources identified by the appellant, but that doesn't matter, because DRV is not AFD Round 2. The appellant's comment in the AFD that the ja.wiki article has a lot of press releases is irrelevant anyway, because, as was pointed out in the AFD, press releases are considered primary sources in en.wiki. The title has not been salted, and the appellant should be allowed to request refund of the article to draft space to find better sources. (However, it might be just as effective to machine-translate the ja.wiki or de.wiki version to get an inadequate starting point. Either the deleted article or a machine translation will need work. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Request temp undelete I'd like to see the finished product. The DRV appeal is credible that the !votes don't verbosely engage with the stated significant RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

   Done Owen× ☎ 12:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  Overturn to keep GNG appears to be met, based on my review of translations of refs 1-4. Ref 5 is a trivial mention. Miminity was not boasting in vain about a WP:HEY-level improvement; those five sources were all added by that editor and raised the quality significantly, essentially from stub to start and eliminating the issue of an undersourced BLP. While I'm not a sports bio editor, I am not convinced by my review of the sources that the editors participating in the AfD did, in fact, review the sources in translation to assess their reliability. This feels more like an echo of previous deletion wars over marginally notable sportspeople, but reviewing sources in another language is obviously more difficult. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  It’s not difficult to google translate the sources.

  Refs 1-3 are first-person perspective, containing explicit subject quotes for the bulk of the articles, without author commentary.

  Ref 1 is extensive quotations strung together with subject-sourced information.

  Ref 2 is only two paragraphs, the first quoting the club, the second is just one quote of the subject “through the club”.

  Ref 3 is four paragraphs, 1=facts, 2=quote from the clubs official website, 3=facts, 4=subject quote.

  All are patently non-independent, worthless for trying to demonstrate notability.

  Take it to draft, where a proper WP:THREE treatment can be performed without rush, and the reference bombing non-independent primary sources stripped, before requesting independent review. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• endorse There was an unusually engaged and detailed discussion about sources that went way beyond what we usually get. In this case, the final two delete votes are clearly influenced by this so it would be inappropriate for DRV to substitute a different outcome to that of the editors actually engaged in the discussion. If the nom has better sources then we can consider them but it would be abused of process not to trust the conversation in the AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - The two sources in the deleted article that are in English are database pages, and so are primary. I have not machine-translated the five sources that are in Japanese. At this time I am leaving my Endorse unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

10 March 2025

Marco Trombetti – Between here and Liz's Talk, it was clear that they're not in need of DRV. SilvioT, please create a draft and AfC editors are happy to discuss areas that need improvement before acceptance Star Mississippi 01:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Marco Trombetti (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I’d like to request a review of the deletion of the Marco Trombetti Wikipedia page, replacing the previous version with a revised draft that addresses the concerns raised during its deletion process. I haven't published the draft yet, as I wanted to first discuss these key points with you and explain how the new references strengthen the article’s chances of approval. If you'd like to review the full draft, I’d be happy to send it over right away. WP:GNG – General Notability Guidelines:** The revised article includes substantial third-party media coverage that I believe demonstrates Trombetti’s impact in AI, business, and language technologies: - [Popular Mechanics] – Covers Trombetti’s AI research and AI singularity predictions. - [The Next Web (TNW) – Discusses Translated’s AI advancements. - [Fortune Italia] – Featured Trombetti on its cover, discussing his role in AI translation. - [Multilingual Magazine] – Examines Trombetti’s impact on AI-driven translation. WP:BIO – Notability as an Entrepreneur:** The revised draft focuses on WP:ENTREPRENEUR, as Trombetti’s business and AI contributions have been widely covered: - CEO & Founder of Translated, a company recognized as a leader in AI-driven machine translation: [IDC Custom] - Secured a $25M investment from Ardian, confirming business interest for Trombetti’s company from the financial community: [Business Wire] - Presented research at AMTA 2014 on adaptive machine translation: [AMTA 2014] - Cited by CSA Research for contributions to AI translation: [CSA Research] In addition to his contributions in AI and business, I've found Trombetti's achievements in competitive sailing, probably meeting WP:ATHLETE criteria. I have identified several independent references citing his participation and victories in international sailing competitions. These references are also available in the revised draft obviously. SilvioT (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC) References Endorse and Speedy Close - What part of Deletion review should not 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 didn't you understand? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse and speedy close as a misuse of DRV. There is no draft at Draft:Marco Trombetti. DRV is not the right forum to discuss one's thoughts about how they plan to go about writing a draft. The page isn't SALTed. Any editor is welcome to submit a fresh draft to AfC, although if the sources cited above are all we have, the appellant will likely be wasting their time. Owen× ☎ 20:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse. decision to delete. BLP contained nothing notable, just vapid puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC).
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 March 2025

PlayStation(R)4

PlayStation(R)4 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Linked from some files' metadata: e.g. File:Nando Angelini 1964.jpg, File:Ivo Garrani - Gedeone.jpg, File:Sodoma e Gomorra (film).jpg, File:I due compari.jpg. --MSMST1543 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to keep, based on the revelation that this is objectively a valid metadata link. See Template:R from file metadata link. The discussion can even be read as a consensus to keep after reweighing the arguments with the full fact picture. What Tamzin said. I didn't look at the dates at all apparently, apologies.—Alalch E. 22:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep Recreate as a valid {{R from file metadata link}}, as an inadvertently broken link from metadata. I was about to recreate it myself as an uncontested fix, but then saw it was speedied three times last month, by three different admins, as G4. Am I missing something here? Pinging @Significa liberdade, Hey man im josh, and Pppery to figure out if there's a reason not to speedily fix this. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 23:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• "Overturn to keep" is clearly an inappropriate outcome here. There's no way of reading the 2018 discussion as anything other than a consensus to delete in my book, and "overturn"ing it based on an argument that wasn't even brought up until half a decade later is not just how things work. As far as I'm aware, this DRV is the first time that "file metadata" was brought up as an argument, so what I must have seen is someone pushing an against-consensus campaign to recreate a redirect deleted by community consensus, and felt duty-bound to delete and salt to put a stop to that. The strongest action I could get behind here is to relist at a new RfD, as basically the redirect equivalent of WP:DRVPURPOSE#3,. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  No one is accusing you, Pppery, or any of the other admins of doing anything other than what you were supposed to do. But now that we have this new information, is there still a valid reason to keep this deleted, or even to go through another RfD? I've changed my !vote above to reflect the fact that there was no mistake in the closing or the G4 application. Let's not drag this longer than it needs to be. Owen× ☎ 23:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  Because doing so would be making inappropriate presumptions about what other people would have thought if they had known that information, of which we have no idea and therefore shouldn't assume. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  @OwenX: Why wouldn't I have G4 deleted it if I'm processing CSD requests? It pointed to the same location and the outcome was clear, and, additionally, other similar redirects were deleted based on consensus for such. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. The question is, now that we have more facts, why wouldn't we recreate that redir? Owen× ☎ 00:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  I failed to notice the date of this RfD. I'll adjust my comment here accordingly —Alalch E. 04:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  In a DRV about another RfD, for another metadata link redirect, rather than "DRV [being] the first time that "file metadata" was brought up as an argument", the pro-metadata link argument had been expressed in the RfD and was rejected by seeming consensus, and that seeming consensus (which was not really a consensus) was discarded at DRV as just a series of wrong comments, with the outcome of "redirect restored". Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 February 19#Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384.—Alalch E. 04:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Allow recreation notwithstanding G4, without prejudice against RfD. It's true that there was nothing procedurally wrong with the RfD. It's also true that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and there's no reason to send this back to RfD, given that file metadata redirects are usually kept per WP:R#K5. If someone wants to take this to RfD, they can, but there's no need to presuppose that; just recreate and include an ES note that, per this discussion, the redir is exempt from G4. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• As the RfD closer from 7+ years ago (!), yes, please just go ahead and recreate it if it will be of use. I echo Pppery, in that I humbly submit I didn't misread consensus, but if this discussion is closed as overturn, my pride can handle it. --BDD (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Why doesn't the "what links here" link work for files? Is it because it's been deleted? I'm trying to get a sense of the scope of this. SportingFlyer T·C 05:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment This is not an accusation that there was anything improper in the RfD, not by the nom, not by the closer, not by the participants. This is a separate assertion that because the otherwise inappropriate link is used in certain Metadata, we need to have something there. I count that as 'significant new information' per our purpose criterion 3. As such, yes, let's put it back if that's really what we do with things, pleading that I don't usually mess with RfD to that nuanced of a level. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - The problem here appears to be the idea that a closure of a CFD or RFD is a final decision such that any restoration, years later, is subject to G4, so that any request to restore it has to come here, to DRV. We tell editors who want to recreate an article to go ahead and recreate it subject to a new AFD. Should there be some sort of expiration date for the deletion of categories and redirects? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  I don't mind these cases coming here to DRV. We could never agree on a universal expiration for RfDs and CfDs. But this should have been trivially closed within a couple of hours, not required to run for seven days. "Recreate", "Vacate" or even "Overturn" should not be seen as an affront to the admins who closed the XfD or enforced it with a G4. They are not on trial here, and if they were, they'd summarily be found to have done their job correctly. Why do we need to send this back to RfD? Do they have more competent or experienced participants than we already have gathered here for this DRV? DRV is listed in policy as a valid deletion venue. We can--and should--adjudicate such straightforward cases without tossing them back to XfD. Yes, the close was procedurally correct, the G4s were correct. Cheers all around. And now that we know what the problem is and how to fix it, let's just fix it and move on from this Kafkaesque discussion already. What's the risk here, exactly? That someone will show up tomorrow with a valid reason to delete this redir and re-break the metadata links? Please. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  I think that what is Kafkaesque is that these requests come to DRV in the first place. This violates point 10 of what DRV should not be used for, which I just quoted with regard to an article. It says: Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. We don't want article requests coming here, so why should we have to review these redirect and category requests? Just recreate the category or redirect, and put an explanation on the article talk page or category talke page explaining why it is not a G4. If it is tagged for G4 anyway, contest the G4 on the article talk page or category talk page. Or the would-be recreator can just talk to the closing administrator and say that things have changed. That's my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon, while I agree in principle, the title is currently SALTed. Again, it was correctly protected after the third time it was G4'd. The appellant applied WP:DRVPURPOSE point #10 correctly in coming here to request unSALTing and recreating the redir. But even without the SALT situation, one problem with RfD and CfD is that in the absence of prose, any recreation is essentially identical to the deleted version, and thus falls into the G4 trap. The situation of a valid recreation of a deleted redir or cat is rare enough that we don't need to update policy to deal with it. We can easily handle the occasional instance here at DRV. I just wish we did it more efficiently, without endless, pointless debates, relistings and renominations. To wit, no one here offered a valid reason to keep it deleted. Why hasn't it been restored yet? That, not a bona fide, justified, policy-based request at DRV is what's Kafkaesque here. Owen× ☎ 20:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  I see that this was partly my mistake then, User:OwenX. I had not checked the history and had not seen that the title had been salted, and we really are in DRV territory. The recent history, with two previous attempts to recreate the redirect that were deleted as G4, does illustrate something that the ghost of Franz Kafka may be writing about for the puzzlement of other ghosts. Perhaps this also demonstrates another reason why some religions forbid attempting to communicate with the dead. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

• Recreate as a redirect from metadata - probably don't even need to let this run. SportingFlyer T·C 02:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Recreate as {{R from file metadata link}}. Redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

8 March 2025

2025 Thiruvananthapuram mass murder

2025 Thiruvananthapuram mass murder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Thiruvananthapuram mass murder The nominee only opposed the article topic with WP:NOTNEWS. 3 out of 5 editors just supported the nominee and did not clarify further. There were primary news sources ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]) that were able to confirm this event was a Massacre that brutally killed 5 people. But the AfD did not get the keep vote, this article should be reopened (drafted) to change its title (Thiruvananthapuram Massacre) and improve its content. Spworld2 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Reopen. Some in the Wikipedia community are cross with India because of Indian authorities' behaviour in Asian News International vs Wikimedia Foundation, which has another hearing in May 2025 (the one in February got deferred, because it was 4:30 by the time the judge got to it). And there is a widespread view that most Indian news sources are unreliable because of the pervasive, undisclosed paid news in India issue.

But on balance I am convinced that there are good grounds to reopen that AfD. If someone knifed five people in the UK or France or Germany, we would very likely have an article about the incident, and to delete that one is perverse and inequitable.

It is a spree killing, and not a massacre. The two crimes are quite different.—S Marshall T/C 09:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure we would automatically have an article on a killing where all the victims and the perpretrator were members of one family, unless it was particularly notorious. Regardless, if this is reopened and kept the title should simply be "2025 Thiruvananthapuram murders". Black Kite (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• I think I agree with reopening this. The discussion was, at best, poor. Could we get a temp undelete? The sources weren't really discussed and I'd like to see what is there. Hobit (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

   Done Owen× ☎ 16:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. The close correctly reflected an almost unanimous consensus among participants, with the lone dissenting opinion expressed there by the appellant, who failed to address the key issue of WP:LASTING. I see no evidence that the Delete views expressed there were fuelled by retributive urges relating to any lawsuit. They all firmly relied on P&G. The appellant has not presented us with any valid reason to overturn or even relist. This is merely a rehash of what they said at the AfD, for an extra free kick at the can. If it turns out that this spree killing--not "mass murder" and certainly not "massacre"--has a meaningful lasting effect, the article can be revived. It's been 11 days since the killing, and I don't expect any lasting effect to manifest itself during the six-month lifespan of a draft. I doubt the requested draft is anything more than a backdoor to mainspace, as the appellant doesn't seem to differentiate between verifiability and notability. Owen× ☎ 15:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse as the nominator. My problem about the article is it is unlikely to have any WP:LASTING nor WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and not about the WP:NOTNEWS and I personally think many of the participant are agreeing with my rationale. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 16:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Sources are still covering this as of 2 days ago. Why do you think they will stop? Hobit (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse per above. There was clear consensus that LASTING was not met. Allow recreation as draft if there is an indication of lasting coverage in the future. As of right now, I agree with OwenX that it seems unlikely there will be continued coverage over the next six months but it certainly is possible. Frank Anchor 16:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I did check the last version of the article just to see if the discussion which was a firm delete consensus made a clear mistake, but - and since this is more of AfD 2 than DRV - I must note I also would have !voted delete. SportingFlyer T·C 17:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse and Return to Draft as a valid judgment call by the closer that a Relist was not required. The assessment as to whether this event has continued coverage or lasting effects can be better made in a few months. A Relist would determine whether there was coverage in two or three weeks, which is not useful. If it has continued coverage in perhaps three months, a proponent can expand it with a description of the continued coverage by reliable secondary sources, and submit it for review or move it to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn WP:LASTING is not a reason to delete something that happened this year. It's a retrospective criteria, and rush to deletion ends up with silliness like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms. Agree with Black Kite on the neutral title. I'm fine with a relist or a restore to draft, even though I find zero of the six delete !votes (nom included) correctly make a meritorious, policy-based argument. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Relist (reopen) A quick Gsearch turns up sources in the last few days covering aspects of this event--I just don't see how folks can crystalball that this won't have a lasting impact. But basically per S Marshall--we'd have an article on something like this if it happened in the USA, I don't see the argument for not having it because it happened in India. And WP:N isn't in debate AFAICT. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse: nothing procedurally wrong with the discussion, and the interpretation of WP:LASTING is not outside the mainstream. (On the systemic bias point, there have been countless comparable incidents in the US that don't have an article, as a quick glance at the "family" section of the Mass Killing Database makes clear. Here's one from just a few months ago.) If this incident gets longer-term coverage that goes beyond routine news reporting, no prejudice against recreation at that point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. The delete !votes can't discounted. If there is some coverage in the future, the article can be recreated.—Alalch E. 09:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Allow it to come back via AfC, shoud new sources arise and overcome WP:NOTNEWS. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  So let me get this straight: a featured article with 100 RS references is up for AfD. Six people show up and say "Unreferenced, delete it", no one opposes them, and the closing admin says "consensus is delete". Then someone notices how stupid an outcome this would be, brings it to DRV, and you'd be like "could not have been closed any other way." Am I getting that correct? Because NOTNEWS doesn't apply in pretty much exactly that much of a black-and-white fashion. The fact that editors can look at routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion and come to the conclusion that covers the murders of 5 people is covered by that criterion strains credulity. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  If the !votes were black-and-white wrong, the closer would be at fault to accept them. The closer should instead !vote and refute the bad !votes.

  At DRV I would !vote “overturn” due to closer incompetence.

  I do not agree at all, not even close, that NOTNEWS doesn’t apply. NOTNEWS does apply. All the references were rapid reporting.

  If this topic is worthy, better to take the Draftify, fix, and re-mainspace route. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

  You saying that NOTNEWS does not apply doesn't make it so. You're certainly not the only one to be wrong on this, but it's simply not tenable. The only two things given as examples in NOTNEWS are routine coverage and breaking news, neither of which this is. NOT, being an exclusionary guideline, is to be construed narrowly and consistently: OSE arguments can't apply to something excluded by NOT because NOT is policy: if one tidbit of news is to be deleted from the encyclopedia on such grounds, so must all similar others. NOTNEWS is not based on notability or sourcing but on the type of news--routine or breaking--and again, none of it applies. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  I have read the article again, and all the references, and it fits the meaning of NOTNEWS exactly as I understand the term on Wikipedia, and it matches the shortcut target #2 “News reports”. The whole article, and all the sources, are primary source material, all fact, negligible transformative comment, and my understanding seems to match most of the comments at the AfD, but with the single User:Spworld2 arguing an SNG indicator style “n deaths by murder makes it notable”, which is not how it works, when push comes to shove.

  You are asserting peculiar things, and then an extreme slippery slope fallacy. NOTNEWS applies when it applies to the whole article, not bit by bit.

  And having finished with NOTNEWS, there are no secondary sources to meet the GNG. Maybe we could wait, but when a rush of people agree to delete at AfD, then it gets deleted.

  If later sources can be used to recover the topic, good, use AfD and follow WP:THREE, and a better article will be returned to mainspace.

  The article was WP:Reference bombed, and the nominator of this DRV reference bombed the nomination, and “reference bombed” has become an accepted reason to Draftify. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  Per WP:PSTS For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. In review of the article, I see multiple sources which do not appear to be breaking news sources; those, per our policy, are secondary, even though other definitions of primary sources would clearly include such, and PSTS acknowledges this. I do believe the slippery slope runs in the other direction: we do not have carte blanche to delete news stories under NOT; we can delete them based on notability, and routinely do even in cases where NOTNEWS is cited inappropriately in deletion discussions, but only the types specifically enumerated are must-exclude. I have not evaluated the sources for reference bombing. I'd be happy to hear your take on it if you choose to further elaborate on which sources area breaking (hence primary) vs non-breaking (hence secondary). Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  I do not accept PSTS as defining of the term, but instead go to secondary source.

  WP:NOTNEWS does not read, to me, as supporting the removal of news reporting (where I use “reporting” to indicates facts and primary source material, and news “stories” to indicate secondary source material, meaning contextualisation, value statements, adjectives, and other transformative creative contribution by the author weaving meaning onto the facts), source by source, it reads instead to me as ruling out an article build upon ONLY news reports.

  In that AfD, I would have !voted “keep”, “it only happened last week, give it a month or two and see how the story develops”. However, no one in the AfD !voted that way, they all voted NOTNEWS, except for Spworld2, who invented an SNG indicator “5 deaths makes it notable”, which I cannot accept. So, it was a “delete”.

  The proper way to proceed from here is draftspace and WP:THREE, which is the perfect answer to reference bombing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

  No, we don't use Wikipedia articles in place of Wikipedia policies by the same name, otherwise we'd be looking at Notability (yes, I know it's a disambig) rather than WP:N. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  We do here. Wikipedia should not redefine words and terms. Doing so creates pointless barriers. But if you think there is a meaningful difference, what is it? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Ali Niknam (closed)

Ali Niknam – Speedily closed under the second limb of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Speedy closes.—S Marshall T/C 13:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ali Niknam (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The page may need work, but it clearly complies with WP:N. Also, the user who closed the discussion and made the page redirect to Bunq, also made other page redirect there, which is odd. Spokeoino (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC) - Overturn and/or Allow recreation of the page as it seems admins and editors have different opinions about the article. Spokeoino (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC) I am the editor who closed this AfD as "Redirect". I recognize that my close was too early and mistaken, and for that I apologize. I have already self-reverted the close, as described on the AfD page itself. My initial rationale for closing as "Redirect" was on the basis of my evaluation of the sources on offer in the discussion at the time. I thought most of the coverage of Ali Niknam was in the context of his business, Bunq, and as such a redirect to the company article appeared warranted under WP:NOPAGE, which says we don't require a specific article when there can be a redirect. I was also guided by the original BLAR and the reasoning provided by some of the AfD editors that the coverage was predominantly about Bunq. But now I see that I did not properly take into account a number of key points, Lack of Clear Consensus BLP Considerations Potential Canvassing/SPA Issues Non-Admin Closure I acted in error of judgment, and I should have let an administrator close this thread. I have learned from this and will be more careful in the future. I agree with this review and defer to an administrator's judgment. ) UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Relist it and allow an experienced administrator to make a decision. As the page is definitely notable with reliable sources and reasonable arguments to keep — including those provided by Fram, who gave a clear argument — it’s strange that two accounts one-by-one added a "Redirect" vote, and a third account (all of them inexperienced) closed it as a redirect. And there were no other "redirect" votes - only those suspiciously added by two users. Was this a coordinated action? I think we should consider starting an SPI. --Cinder painter (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC) That close is egregiously wrong. A sysop should exercise their discretion to revert that close unilaterally, and then reclose the discussion more accurately.—S Marshall T/C 09:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC) The close has been self-reverted. Can an admin close this DRV now? ObserveOwl (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC) An admin can, but I have.—S Marshall T/C 13:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 March 2025

Mohammed Tayea

Mohammed Tayea (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Tayea six editors claimed they could not find any sources on the article subject, some of the participants began speculating whether the article was a WP:HOAX. I presented 8 sources, out of which at least 7 confirm that Tayea was a member of parliament and thus easily passing WP:NPOL. At that stage, it would have been an act of good faith if the nominator had withdrawn AfD. He made a comment, which in no way dispute the accuracy of the sources I presented. None of the other five editors that had claimed that it was impossible to source the article made any comment or self-criticism in the AfD. The closing admin, treating the AfD as a majority vote, seemingly made no recognition that new sources had been found in the latter stage of the AfD. Soman (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the closure of the AfD as delete. In response to your comment against me, I would not even begin to withdraw an AfD when 5 other editors had already commented to delete the article. I like to think I exercise a lot of good faith on this encyclopaedia. While your efforts to find some sources in Arabic is noble, I do not believe notability is established. I did not comment on the individual sources as I do not read/speak Arabic. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - there were no "!keep votes". Zero. There were six "!delete votes". At best, this was a case of WP:TNT. Also, even if he was part of a "parliamentary delegation", that doesn't prove that he was actually a member of parliament. In the United States, state legislative officials (chief of staff, chief clerk, Sargent at arms, etc.) are considered officers of the state legislature. In 2005-2007, lots of subjects crept into Wikipedia without any or improper documentation. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse close but no objection to restoring to draft if @Soman feels they can address Verifiability concerns. Star Mississippi 02:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Relist. The appellant made a good-faith effort to find and offer sources. While one participant asked questions about one of the sources, and the nominator invited the appellant to add them to the article, there was no additional evaluation by editors of whether the sources met WP:NPOL or WP:GNG or rebutted the claims of a WP:HOAX. Since no "delete" !votes were offered after the sources were proposed, it would have been productive for this discussion to have been relisted to attract additional attention to the sources. (P.S. The nominator is right that a withdrawal would have had no effect, considering the other delete !votes. And contra Bearian, the appellant did leave a "keep" !vote.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Relist This is a case where sourcing was provided late in the discussion. And it appears other participants did not engage with the sources provided. In my mind, a relist is proper to adjudicate whether the sources show that the subject passes WP:NPOL, in spite of the early delete comments. --Enos733 (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Relist The only engagement with the late-appearing sourcing was non-policy based, expecting the editor finding the sources to add them to the article to merit a keep, which can arguably be read as a keep ("add them and it's notable" was correctly rebutted with WP:NEXIST, and hence implicitly supports notability) but even if not it certainly adds no support to the deletion argument. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Relist I was one of those who voted Delete but my vote was based on the facts presented at that time i.e. there were no sources to verify that the subject was an MP. Since then Soman has provided several sources to verify that the subject was indeed an MP and therefore does meet Wikipedia notability guidelines (WP:NPOL). If the AfD was still live, I would've changed my vote to Keep.--Obi2canibe (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• I am wary of deciding that supplying extra sources late in the debate entitles you to a relist, because that creates a perverse incentive to hold back a few sources til day 6 of the debate.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  This comment appears to suggest a lack of good faith, assuming that the situation involved deliberate hold[ing] back a few sources instead of what seemed more likely: the appellant noticed the AfD with only a couple days to go, then went into a flurry of searching for possible sources. A relist in this situation doesn’t game the system; it’s a normal response when sources are provided and no one else offers an assessment. (If no one were to respond after another week, then a “delete” would be fair since the sources would be unconvincing to those who would see the relisted discussion. In this case, the sources did convince one delete !voter above who just didn’t see them until too late—a situation a relist might have mitigated.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  It is, of course, a comment about the principles of closing rather than about this editor. AfDs have a cutoff time for good reasons.—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  BEANS be damned, adding sources after an AfD close doesn't go your way is an even more efficient way to game the system. I think we can all agree adding them during the discussion demonstrates more good faith. I also note that while a week is a long time, it's never too early or too late to add sources. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  But that isn't gaming. AfD causes the article to stop being a live article, an editor or editors add late sources / newly discovered sources, addressing the reason for the deletion (assuming that the deletion was because of the sourcing), the article goes back live. Assuming that the problem was dealt with appropriately, there's no need for a new AfD, and all is good. If there is a need for an AfD, one is started and has one or the other outcome. Which is the same as a relist period: 7 days in both cases. And it might even be better to have a fresh AfD, which excludes the comments from before the discovery of sources. Again, all good. Relisting is not cheap. I feel like I might be missing something, but I'm not seeing it. —Alalch E. 17:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  I don't follow the "game the system" argument here. We have AfD cutoff times since, generally speaking, all relevant information for a deletion discussion is put on the table within a few days, continuing the discussion becomes repetitive (and, yes, decisions need to be made). When occasionally discussion has not had a chance to engage with relevant information at the cut-off time, it should be extended. This is a feature, not a bug. "Gaming the system" by postponing introduction of sources until the last minute seems a generally counterproductive approach: if those sources do tip the balance to notability, one's aims would have been better addressed by adding them earlier. If not, the "reprieve" of relisting and closing as delete a few days later seems hardly worthwhile -- and if it becomes someone's modus operandi, addressable as a behavioural issue. Martinp (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Relist. While I get the concern about holding off sources until the last minute, I think the risk/reward doesn't really incentivize doing so. And I'd rather us not remove content that meets our inclusion guidelines just because the sources came late. Hobit (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Hobit: That's a bigger protraction and more AfDing that letting the capable editor Soman just add those refs and move the page from draft to article space, and, probably, there won't be any need to discuss the article's eligibility in a formal process. —Alalch E. 17:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

  I get that argument, but my two objections are A) we should probably get to the correct outcome at DRV (basically on the argument that this can set precedent and provide guidance to admins) and the discussion should have been relisted. B) I dislike the draft process being required of nearly anyone, but especially an experienced user. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

• Relist There are many cases in which sources are not found until the sixth or seventh day and/or users are unaware of an AFD’s existence until the sixth or seventh day. Several sources were added and were not properly addressed. There is no time limit on discussions and it is most important to delete or retain an article based on whether it conforms to policies and guidelines. Frank Anchor 16:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse and undelete to draft. It appears that this article was entirely unreferenced. Deleting an article because of non-notability is saying that Wikipedia editors are unable to create an acceptable article under the core content policies due to the non-fulfillment of objective conditions to doing so (lack of sources to ensure verifiability, avoidance of original research, and neutrality as well). Finding some sources and saying that the subject should be presumed to be notable is an assertion that it is possible to create an acceptable article. The most efficient way to test that proposition is to add the references to the article and see what comes out of the process. More efficient than another round of AfD. Maybe at the end of it, there won't be a need for any additional AfD discussing, as the content will speak for itself.—Alalch E. 17:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse and Undelete to Draft as a valid exercise of judgment by the closer to close as delete rather than relist. Relist would have also been a valid exercise of judgment by the closer. Deleting and returning to draft may actually give a proponent a better chance to get the article approved, by giving them time to put the recently found sources properly into the article where they can be reviewed by machine translation (and machine translation is good enough for the checking of sources, although not for article content). This is one of the rare cases where restoring a deleted article to draft probably is the best practice. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I oppose draftify. The sole rationale for the deletion in the AfD nomination was notability/verifiability. As the notability/verifiability issue is now resolved, the article ought to be restored in mainspace. The article prior to deletion was not a masterpiece, but as a wiki entry perfectly fine. It could have used some copy-editing, removing red links, but any of the other editors involved in the AfD could have addressed that as well. --Soman (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
• Relist is the right answer when there's a serious and non-dilatory keep !vote that hasn't been materially engaged with. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
• Relist per Extraordinary Writ. See also my comment above contra S Marshall's argument. Martinp (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
• Relist We have tremendous trouble with non-English language sources, and the sources provided show that he might very well be notable both under GNG and NPOL. (I also don't think anyone ever has any incentive to hold off presenting sources until day six of an AfD.) SportingFlyer T·C 08:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Recent discussions

6 March 2025

ArchiveBox (closed)

ArchiveBox – The WP:G11 speedy deletion is endorsed, but this does not preclude recreation of the article in a non-promotional form if the subject is notable. Agowa, thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia. I recommend you take the advice provided in this discussion into account if and when you decide to recreate the article. Sandstein 07:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
ArchiveBox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Hi, I'd like to request a review of the delete and the provided reason of G11 when reading the section that explains that reason it even says "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." and at least in my eyes that would apply here. I don't understand why my article shouldn't fit Wikipedia. I spent multiple hours looking for sources, references, getting all of the information together, and writing a rough initial version. That I thought would be sufficient and could be extended later. - Anyway, please at least userfy or e-mail it to me. And if possible please provide some constructive feedback as apparently the amount of effort I invest into writing here is inversely correlated to getting it accepted. I'd really like to know how to change that moving forward. I invested multiple hours into this article and now I'm left with nothing and don't even understand why or what I could have done differently. Agowa (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Request temp undelete for review, please. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)  Done Owen× ☎ 19:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse-ish It's a G11, but more than that, it's not really anything that we'd write as a Wikipedia article. It's overlinked and full of irrelevant data (I don't know why an EIN would ever be included in an encyclopedia article) in addition to the generally promotional tone. I'd be OK with letting this live in draft, but offline rework before re-upload to draft would also work. I'd also like the appellant to confirm an absence of conflict of interest with respect to this product. Jclemens (talk) 07:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Isn't an EIN similar to an ASN? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google for example list that one. I'm not from the US so I may just have overestimated its importance. I don't have a conflict of interest here. The most I'm affiliated with that product is having downloaded, installed, and used it. But calling that being affiliated would kinda be a stretch. Agowa (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Thanks for the non-defensive answer. An EIN is a tax identifier for a corporation or other legal person in U.S. tax law. Did you have a different EIN in mind, because that looked like one? Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Nope, no real justification for including it. I didn't fully look it. In short I just assumed it was important. In full: What I did was looked at how unique identifiers for niche audiences are handled on existing pages, like e.g. the formerly mentioned ASN, or a stock symbol for Google. Also I thought (without having actually looking into it more closely) that it was some important finances thing in the US and being similarly important to an ISIN here in Germany (see e.g. de:BMW) especially because it was listed on their donations page. Agowa (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Speedy endorse that is not an encyclopedia article, it's a linkfarm for the organization and the lead person involved including self descriptions and Goodreads links. If you can't recognize that it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia, you should not be editing in mainspace, Agowa. Star Mississippi 23:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC) I could trim the references section. You're right. Maybe I let myself get carried away on that one too much. The initial reason for adding stuff like Goodreads was because I thought it would be valuable to link the official points of contact to distinguish from impersonations. However in the end it probably became way too long and side-traced way too much. And for most of the other references my thought process was it being a good anchor point for creating sections in future versions of that page. Agowa (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC) You'd do better to start over focusing only on high quality significant sourcing. Trimming will not solve the issues here. Star Mississippi 02:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Comment: The excessive amount of external links (including social media profiles) that you added to the article, and the fact that the vast majority of the sources were self-published sources instead of secondary ones, were most likely the reasons why the article was deleted. I recommend reading up on Wikipedia's verifiability policy before attempting to recreate the article. Not only trimming the references section, but adding more SECONDARY sources (and are actually reliable, rather than a random blog someone wrote) to prove it is notable. ApexParagon (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Comment: Maybe I misunderstood a part from that page then. On the very same page you reference it says "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Then further down it references the "Identifying and using primary sources" page where it clearly says "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.". I also thought that I took care of the things mentioned in WP:PRIMARYCARE. The "random blog someone wrote" is actually the primary source of the project owner. So do these two just not together? Did I misinterpret something here? Or? (But your comment would count as challenging the notability so we'd be at "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface" now anyway. However I'm currently trying to understand if my interpretation of the above mentioned sections is correct) Agowa (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC) An article is supposed to have mostly secondary sources. Primary sources are allowed to be used, but sparingly. Your article consisted of almost exclusively primary sources, and primary sources alone do not show the subject is notable. This applies to an even greater extent with self-published primary sources. (See WP:PRIMARY: “Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.”) Also I was giving “a random blog someone wrote” as an example of an unreliable self-published source. I wasn’t referring to the owner’s blog you linked specifically. ApexParagon (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Comment: Ok, but I think I don't quite understand the rules here then. Following your statement am I right to assume that WP:SIGNIF no longer apply then? Especially as you just said something has to be notable where as that page literally says it doesn't (It only has to be significant, which is a way lower bar): > Significance is a lower standard than notability. While the inclusion of reliable secondary sources may itself be an indication of significance, not including any sources is entirely irrelevant to an assessment under these speedy deletion criteria and that the part from WP:V#Notability that I quoted in the post you replied to also doesn't apply anymore? As you quite literally just said an article has to show that the subject is notable. > notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article I think just pointing to the rules doesn't quite cut it when rules as written differ from rules as enforced. Anyone here that can clarify the interpretation (or even fix the wording on the rule pages)? Also as this has become kinda about the rules instead of the deleted article itself, should we take this policy discussion elsewhere? Agowa (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC) That is related to criteria A7 @Agowa. There was an assertion of notability which means it merited discussion if it was deleted on those grounds. It wasn't. It was deleted as advertising, which it is. It will not be restored as is, but there's a case an article could be written. You have the text, what further action are you looking for here? Star Mississippi 14:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse the G11. The article contains marketing buzzspeak, beginning with the lede sentence ArchiveBox provides a digital content archiving solution. In chemistry, solutions are mixtures. In mathematics, solutions are what one does to equations. That's the first example of marketing buzzspeak. I don't know whether the product satisfies software notabiity, but the article cannot be fixed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC) What? How else would one even word that then? The kind of service it offers is "digital content archiving" and its central feature is the ability to archive web pages (but it also archives git repositories and more hence why I didn't just write "it is a software for website preservation"). Agowa (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC) So is "digital content" the solvent, the solute, or the precipitate? If the company provides online digital content archiving services, then "ArchiveBox provides online digital content archiving services" would be a factual, marketing-buzzspeak-free way of describing it. See? No solvents involved. We see this here often; people who have been dealing with marketing buzzspeak so long, they forget how to describe their product using factual, neutral terms. Owen× ☎ 12:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Comment You just made me realize that basically everything I (have to) write all day "in a neutral and professional tone" is still considered marketing buzzspeak then. Especially because I already try my best to push back on it as best as I can without people declining it for being "unprofessional". I think I need a moment to wrap my head around that one. Thank you for the honest feedback. Agowa (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC) What is professional depends on the branch. So, if a person works in a certain industry, the professional way to speak and write is to state things in a way consistent with the special register (sociolinguistics) that people working in that branch are expected to use. The branch we're working in when writing Wikipedia articles is reference publishing / educational publishing. To be professional in the relevant sense when editing Wikipedia, we need to write like professional writers of reference works, not like professional athletes, professional lawyers, professional baristas, professional web app developers etc. —Alalch E. 16:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Comment as the deleting admin, I had another look to see whether I'd got something wrong, but I still believe that the posted text was promotional and completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Comment having slept over the entire thing, I think my main frustration was not with you, your action or your decision but with the underlying process and mainly its side effects of also myself loosing access (Even though I still don't see why it was G11, poor quality or too many links, that I can see now. But G11 I cannot). When an article gets deleted I as the (only) author am now also no longer able to see any of the text I wrote. It doesn't just set it to private, userify it into a draft, delete but send a copy per mail, or similar. Any of that would have been so much less upsetting (in hindsight I probably should just have copied the text before hitting publish but I just didn't think about it back then). Agowa (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Alalch-Cola provides a soft drink beverage experience with a main focus on all-natural flavors to sip, chug, and gulp in. The drink is currently produced by Nemo N. N. (username "Alalch") and operates under Alalch Emis Beverages Ltd., an LLC (sponsored by the Government Pension Fund of Norway; btw, click here for donations) based in New Atlantis. The latest Alalch-Cola flavor was released on the 31st of December 1999. It is a competitor of Coca-Cola and Pepsi. It comes in a wide range of bottles, including glass, plastic, aluminum, and squeeze bags. Besides that, it offers various flavors, from regular cola to exotic fruit blends, through what is called "seasonal and limited-edition options". Its key differentiating factor to its competition is that it is free of citric acid and is and thereby guaranteed to be swishable in consumers' mouth for prolonged periods without severely damaging their enamel. Therefore, it is suitable for health-conscious consumers seeking long-term refreshment. Inherent to its design, it also allows for easy storage and transport, making it convenient for on-the-go chugging. In addition, it can be consumed with or without ice. Can you see it now? —Alalch E. 18:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Comment: Tbh, @Alalch E. not quite, because every time I think I did and then go looking for examples on better wordings from existing pages like e.g. Google, or Amazon (company) I get even more confused than I even was before. Why aren't for example the lead sections here also considered "G11"? They read exactly the same. Agowa (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2025 (UTC) When the Google article's lead says for example, "...one of the world's most valuable brands due to its market dominance, data collection, and technological advantages in the field of AI", that is verifiable, and is therefore not promotional. But if it were to make the same claim without that claim being verifiable, that content would then become promotional. See also: WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:NOTPROMO —Alalch E. 15:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC) There is nothing private on wikipedia. You can see it now and save it @Agowa but there is no path by which this will be accepted that isn't you starting from scratch. Star Mississippi 19:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC) I already did. That was the first thing I did after it was temp undeleted. My main focus now is to just better understand what went wrong in the first place and get myself more aligned with your view of the situation. Thanks to everyone here that is trying to help me better understand my mistake btw. Agowa (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse this is an appropriate G11 deletion because it would require a fundamental rewrite to be in an encyclopedic tone. I don't think anything in the page is salvageable. Frank Anchor 18:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC) endorse I do think it's fairly easy to recreate this as a non-spammy article, but A) it would be a recreation so G11 is reasonable and B) I don't see sources meeting WP:N so it doesn't matter. If the author can provide sources that make it clear it meets WP:N I'll do a rewrite. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Comment Thanks for your offer of a rewrite. As I don't see a better way to share this list with you I'm going to include it in this post. Besides what the project itself already references by ArchiveBox-Specific Posts, Tutorials, and Guides and ArchiveBox Discussions in News & Social Media I can provide you with these (widely varying levels of credibility though, but the amount of pages itself should already show that it is notable): 無料でウェブ魚拓やインターネットアーカイブのようにページやサイトを保存できブラウザ履歴・ブックマークなどからも全自動保存OKのオープンソースでセルフホスト可能な「ArchiveBox」使ってみたよレビュー by the Japanese Livedoor News How to Create Your Own Private Self-Hosted Read-It-Later App from "Make use of" (Owned by Canadian media company Valnet) How I Turned My Raspberry Pi Into a Private Internet Archive from "make tech easier" (already used as source on countless articles) How to Create a Web Archive With Archivebox from "make tech easier" 5 Best Wayback Machine Alternatives To Browse Old Websites from Fossbytes (also already used as source on countless articles) Mit ArchiveBox Webseiten auf der Festplatte archivieren by Linux Community How to Install ArchiveBox on Your Synology NAS by Marius Hosting a Romanian tech blog (often referred to from at least r/synologynas) ArchiveBox is Super Cool (think it's a personal blog by someone) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38954189 discussion thread on hacker news Benefits of ArchiveBox fully managed by Elestio, Quickstart for ArchiveBox An SaaS offering of it by some random company https://perron.de/archivebox/ write up and service offering(?) by a German consultant. Self-hosting an internet archive with ArchiveBox by cyb.org.uk Video: Dein eigenes Internetarchiv mit ArchiveBox by GNU/Linux.ch (a club in Switzerland) How To Self-host Your Own Internet Archive With ArchiveBox In Linux by OS Tech Nix (used as source on at least 5 pages) [Also referenced by LinuxToday https://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/self-host-internet-archive-archivebox/ ] https://indieweb.org/ArchiveBox a very small mention by IndieWeb ArchiveBox – digitale Langzeitarchivierung mit Docker und Traefik installieren by goNeuland Let's archive the web podcast https://github.com/iipc/awesome-web-archiving?tab=readme-ov-file#acquisition mention by International Internet Preservation Consortium Mentions on wikipedia (probably spam-ish?): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Le_Bistro/9_janvier_2021#Archivage_Wikiwix whatever this page is supposed to be User:Benjaminikuta whoever this is. Edit: There is also coverage by bigger youtubers: Archive Your Digital Life with ArchiveBox (Self-Hosted Internet Archive) with 12k views by DB Tech (90k subscribers) Homelab Series - Creating an ArchiveBox Server with 4.2k views by sass drew (5.13k subscribers) Agowa (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse the deletion that happened, since the content, tone, and sourcing of the article was very promotional. We have lots of trouble with promotional articles on non-notable topics by contributors with a conflict of interest, and this legitimately tripped a lot of the signals for that. That said, here the contributor has assured us they are not conflicted, are engaging with the discussion here, and are enthusiastic to improve (I suspect rewrite) this. We should encourage that and so no objections to draftify or restore to user space. To the contributor: suggest you read WP:NSOFTWARE, WP:NOTABILITY to help you. Based on what you've written, I don't see enough significant, meaty, independent coverage to warrant an article, but we may be wrong. Martinp (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse as a valid G11. It's also so far from passing NCORP that I'm not sure returning to draft space would even be useful. SportingFlyer T·C 08:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 March 2025

Talk:Besame Mucho (film) (closed)

Talk:Besame Mucho (film) – There is no consensus to do anything about this closure, and very little interest in doing anything about it. Sandstein 14:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Besame Mucho (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) It's amazing that I'm opening up a DRV for a talk page [redirect] discussion, but here we are. I informed the closer why I was requesting the discussion be reopened, essentially because their close comes off as incredibly WP:SUPERVOTE/WP:IAR-ish and, in effect, potentially a misuse of the admin toolset. But, since the closer would not reopen the discussion, here we are. In a nutshell, I think the close was out of line, incredibly POV pushing, and should be either left open or closed by a closer who can better articulate the reason for the closing in a consensus-based manner rather than the statement in the close. Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Closing a contested discussion to keep people from "wast[ing] time" never, ever saves time. Even when you're right. (Because Talk:Bésame Mucho (disambiguation) is still a redlink and shouldn't be created solely to mark a wikiproject's territory, especially not when that wikiproject is the only one that acknowledges that you shouldn't do that. And no, redirecting a page to a title isn't adding content to that title either.) —Cryptic 23:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Comment I'm not sure what's being asked here. Was there, contra the discussion, actually usable content on this page? Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC) No. Three revisions: the redirect left by the move to Talk:Besame Mucho (1987 film), the rfd tag, and a failed attempt to update the tag to point to the discussion's new location when it was relisted. —Cryptic 02:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Nothing to do here So unless I'm completely misunderstanding things, this is an admin civility complaint against wbm1058 who closed the discussion in what looks like the only possible policy-based outcome. There's nothing to do here because the close was right, even if more snarky than necessary. There's nothing for WP:XRV because the close used no specific tools. I may be in the minority here, but I'd suggest (NOT recommend) WP:ANI if you really want to complain about a closing statement being too snarky. If an apology would help, I'm sorry that you got smacked down like that Steel1943, but I don't think there's anything here that will help the situation more than a sincere "Yeah, that could have been toned down" from the closer might. Jclemens (talk) 09:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC) If I wanted to really be snarky, I'd say something like "Steel doesn't have the copper" but if there is indeed only one possible outcome, then super-voting is impossible, and I'll apologize for the snark if he apologizes for the supervote allegation, and let's just call it a day and move on. He wasn't the only editor to annoy me; there's also the one who felt the need to relist this thing which had already been left open for nearly a month. Were they afraid an angry editor might show up on their talk if they closed it? – wbm1058 (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Meh per Cryptic. The close was unfortunate, but not worth overturning. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse. Good outcome, non-good closing statement, bad relist. I see the closing statement as a complaint about the unnecessary relist. —Alalch E. 22:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Relist: there wasn't a consensus to delete, and while I certainly would not have brought this to DRV, I think people do have the right to contest these sorts of shortcuts. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Cakra Khan (closed)

Cakra Khan – Consensus is to endorse the deletion and keep the deleted article deleted. But all are free to recreate it from scratch in draftspace or mainspace. Sandstein 14:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cakra Khan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Rejected REFUND. The singer passes WP:GNG with enough significant coverage in reliable sources apart from WP:NMUSIC as well as having won multiple music awards (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The closing admin has been inactive since February 2024. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Comment Can Sphilbrick shed some light on the 2017 deletion as apparently G5? It's been a decade since the last discussion and over 7 years since this was last brought up, so I'm struggling to see why we would not allow a new article and provide the old as a starting point. Jclemens (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Sounds like there's nothing usable and a risk of copyvio per below, so Start Over with a new article. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC) Nothing to add, the assessment below sounds accurate. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC) Refund to draft/userspace to allow Clariniie to create a “new” article conforming to GNG/NMUSIC. Article was deleted in 2014 with unanimous (but limited) consensus, then speedy deleted as WP:G5, meaning it was deleted due to the principal author being blocked/banned, and not due to the content. Two of the three sources posted above post-date both deletions, meaning it is possible the subject has become more notable during this time. Frank Anchor 13:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Changed to endorse based on Cryptic's assessment of copyright infringement, of which I was unaware when I !voted. Recreation is already allowed as the title is not salted. Frank Anchor 23:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC) I'll endorse the G5; it was created by this prolific sockpuppeteer. The version deleted in 2014, which dated to the very start of this person's career, isn't going to be any help at all in writing a proper article - it consisted of an infobox, his birthdate, stage name, a sentence detailing his education, an extremely promotionally-worded paragraph purporting to describe his career but not managing to actually say anything except that he released one single in 2012, a four-entry discography, and an external link to this. Only the infobox is salvageable, and even that is probably worse than the one you'd end up with if you started from scratch. —Cryptic 17:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Plus, its creator is indef blocked for copyright infringement. I'd certainly believe it of the "Celebrity career" section. Don't restore either version. —Cryptic 17:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse I don't have Cryptic's permissions, but I completely trust their judgement here. Feel free to recreate an article from scratch. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Allow Creation and Review of Draft - The title was not salted, and the requester doesn't need permission to create a new draft. I don't know what the value is of requesting a refund of an 11-year-old draft that didn't satisfy notabiity at the time. I don't know why editors who see that a living person has become notable want to start with a non-starter article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Keep deleted. Need to start from a fresh page here.—Alalch E. 17:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Don't refund, but allow article or draft creation. It seems Cryptic has paraphrased all useful contents of the deleted version above, and the best way forward is recreation from scratch (if indeed subject has become notable). Contra @Robert McClenon, I think that if someone feels they can write an article about a subject, which is (now) notable, it is very natural that they would want to see what can be scavenged from an earlier deleted version. In particular, in general, an earlier version which ultimately did not pass a notability test can still provide a very useful framework for a rewrite which might now source some of the same facts to (say) independent sources that did not exist before. In this case the sockpuppeteer and copyvio issues require more care, but absent that concern, I'd say "here you go, have at it!". Martinp (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 March 2025

Internment Serial Number – Disruptive close was reverted by RangersRus, and the anon was blocked for 31 hours. Nothing else to do here. Owen× ☎ 18:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Internment Serial Number (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) This discussion was closed as "no consensus" by IP editor 2600:1001:B1CE:93F6:9806:438E:34F4:2985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has a total of 8 edits, all of them today. The user also closed 4 other discussions as "no consensus" within a span of 4 minutes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kori King Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mubeen Gabol Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Therinia spinicauda Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elias Hossain (journalist) These closes should be overturned per WP:BADNAC: The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally or has little or no previous participation in discussions. Astaire (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Comment: While the closer is certainly not qualified for closing any of these discussions, taking a (very brief) look at these discussions: ISN: There isn't a consensus, so the closer (while unqualified) was correct. Kori King: Seems to be a strong consensus for Keep, but again, I only took a very brief look. Muben Gabol: Weak consensus on Keep. Therinia Spinicauda: There doesn't seem to be a consensus. Elias Hossain: Delete (has been closed by an admin). Redacted II (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Starship flight test 9 – Closure endorsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Starship flight test 9 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) <There are several reliable sources supporting the details within the article. Original closure did not accept these sources, nor has the deletion nominator. Additionally, while its not required, the deletion nominator failed to notify the relevent Wikiprojects, article creator, or substantial constributors. > Redacted II (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse. (Lots of discussion over at the talk page for the redirect for those just joining.) "The original closure did not accept those sources" because the consensus at the discussion did not accept those sources. Meanwhile, the appellant is suggesting an FCC primary source document and an Ars Technica article that doesn't mention flight 9 as newly available GNG-qualifying coverage, which suggests a misunderstanding of what would constitute newly available information under DRV#3. Starship flight test 8 was scratched just hours ago, seconds from launch, which reinforces the WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL rationales of the AfD participants and will surely push flight test 9 into the future. This topic will no doubt be notable someday but there's not enough evidence of it now to overturn an AfD result based on TOOSOON and CRYSTALBALL concerns that closed just six weeks ago. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC) (For current article "version", see Draft:Starship flight test 9) Significant new information includes the dozens of other sources listed. And a bit of context on the Ars Technica article: its in the section "Impact of Flight 7", and supports the following statement: "Due to the failure of S33 to complete its ascent burn, this was delayed to a later mission" And how does Flight 8 scrubbing impact WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTALBALL? Any delay to Flight 9 from this is going to be a few days at most (this is speculation, but so is the presence of any delay to Flight 9), and the article doesn't violate WP:CRYSTALBALL as far as I can tell. Listing specific violations would be very helpful for correcting them. Redacted II (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Not going to weigh in further because it seems futile after the talk page discussion, but the half-sentence this was delayed to a later mission is not WP:SIGCOV of test flight 9. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse and speedy close. No valid reason to overturn is presented, just a repeat of the appellant's claims at the AfD. Based on his comments on the redirect's Talk page, the appellant believes he is entitled to ignore the outcome of AfDs, and that community consensus doesn't apply to him. He is engaged in what appears to be a war of attrition, hoping to tire us out so he can have his way. His contribution history suggests this SPA, possibly a SpaceX COI, is unlikely to comply with what we decide, so a page protect might be needed. Owen× ☎ 11:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Reminder to Assume Good Faith. (And no, I don't have a SpaceX COI, other that absoloutely hating Elon Musk) Redacted II (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Closer here: I certainly feel war-of-attrition levels of worn down looking at that talk page discussion, but at least from my perspective I think this is a case of truly not understanding notability guidelines, not some kind of COI or ulterior motive. -- asilvering (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Redacted II has gone a long way since joining in April 2023, so we should encourage him to keep improving. —Alalch E. 16:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse while noting that the latest version and the version that was redirected from January’s AFD were sufficiently different and the latest version should not be redirected without discussion (or a subsequent AFD). However, there was a discussion on the talk page and consensus remained that this should stay a redirect based on TOOSOON and CRYSTAL. Frank Anchor 15:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse there's no other way this could have been closed - the consensus is there and the policy for removal is completely correct. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse as correctly stating consensus. The appeal doesn't claim an error by the closer. DRV is not AFD Round 2. It doesn't matter whether I agree with the community, but I agree with the community that the deleted article contained crystal balling. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC) Endorse (involved as I supported redirecting at the most recent AfD). The AfD close reflected consensus and nothing I see in this request or on the talk page convinces me that consensus has or should change yet. I get that its frustrating when working on a topic that will certainly be notable when it happens and appears to meet the GNG already, and AfD says "not yet". But sometimes patience is required. Assuming Flight 8 launches this week*, more sources discussing Flight 9 will appear and an article going live around the time this DRV closes is likely to remain. *Note the contingency still remaining. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 March 2025

Category:People with developmental coordination disorder

Category:People with developmental coordination disorder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted as per consensus involving six people per WP:NONDEFINING. This was because 1) the articles listed did not spend too much time on dyspraxia and 2) because dyspraxia is so common that the person who suggested it be deleted doubted that it could be defining except in severe cases (they went into greater detail in the category talk page but it has since been deleted, here is a link to a screenshot in case it's relevant). While I do not know what articles were originally in the category, I attempted to make a category myself without knowing that the category would later be deleted because of a decision made 4 years ago. As for the first point, in my category there were multiple celebrities who had another disability that did not receive any more focus than dyspraxia and yet they were listed in categories related to the other disability. This includes Tom Hunt (politician), who is listed in the category for politicians with dyslexia despite his article mentioning his dyspraxia more than his dyslexia and Olive Gray, who is listed in the categories for actors with dyslexia and people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]], despite dyspraxia being mentioned the same number of times as either dyslexia or ADHD. There is also Gage Golightly, whose early life section focuses mostly on her dyspraxia, and I would say at the very least, dyspraxia is clearly defining for her. What is even stranger is that some of these people are in categories for people with disabilities, despite dyspraxia being the only disability mentioned in their article. This includes Daniel Radcliffe, who is listed in the category for English actors with disabilities, despite having no other disability mentioned. As for the second argument, that 1 in 20 is too common, first off, how defining a disability is has no relation to how common it is. Second off, by that logic, the categories of people with dyslexia should be deleted too, as dyslexia also affects about 1 in 20 people and there are many people listed in multiple categories for people with dyslexia, and most of them do not seem to have severe dyslexia. This is clear double standards and I would like this category to get undeleted. I do not believe that this would have been successfully deleted if dyspraxia were a more well-known disability and I believe that the fact that dyslexia is well-known and dyspraxia is not is the main reason why there are many categories related to people with dyslexia, but you are not able to create a single category of people with dyspraxia. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately. (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately., arguments such as, by that logic, the categories of people with dyslexia should be deleted too, or This is clear double standards will not help you make your case. If dyslexia falls under WP:NONDEFINING or WP:TRIVIALCAT, then it, too, should be deleted. Fairness and equitability are irrelevant in categorization. This is an encyclopedia, not an agency determining social assistance. If you can show that dyspraxia is an encyclopedically meaningful defining characteristic, the category will be restored. Consensus can certainly change in four years, but I have no reason to believe the unanimous consensus we saw last time would tip over to the opposite. As a list, this already exists at Developmental_coordination_disorder#Public_figures. Owen× ☎ 00:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  OwenX, as a minor point which changed my wiki-life: if you use {{tqq}}, it automatically specifies the |quotes=y for you :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you! That is indeed useful to know. Owen× ☎ 10:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse as the proper reading of consensus. I think that I disagree with the community and the close, but DRV is also not CFD Round 2. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• The close was obviously the only way to read that CfD, but the CfD didn't consider most of the questions raised here, so I think it would be reasonable to allow for recreation and a new discussion. However, I suspect this would have been successfully deleted if dyspraxia were a more well-known disability may be true, and I doubt that much has changed on that front in the last four years. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately., you may have to content yourself with the list. -- asilvering (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
• Allow recreation under WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. There's no killer new fact here, but there is an emerging awareness of some probability that the 2021 CfD consensus may not be so durable or relevant, because, for years since the CfD, the editing practice and tolerance toward similar categories have been more representative of a view that these disorders may be a defining characteristic—dyspraxia included. The Tom Hunt (politician) example is pretty interesting; it is true that he is categorized as "with dyslexia" but the article mentions dyspraxia more than his dyslexia. A new CfD is fair. —Alalch E. 09:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
• I think I ultimately come down as allow recreation.
  I've been meaning to write an essay about CFD in the style of User:Rosguill/New pages patrol is racist, with all the appropriate warnings and labels and acknowledgement that it is absolutely not any individual's !voting, policy-writing, or anything which results in the current state of affairs. The WP:DEFINING test cares about consistent recognition in RSes. If that doesn't exist, we can't maintain the category. Invisible, less well-known groups don't get that sort of coverage. Rarely are you going to see someone introduced as [group] when that would require a digression explaining to the reader what [group] is.
  I think in this case, UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately has made the case that this is a defining characteristic for at least some people, which is what is required for a category. Recreation, with a note that you should only place someone in the category if it is a DEFINING characteristic for that particular person, is a good way forward in this instance. As she noted in her post at the talk page, Gage Golightly, Olive Gray, Tom Hunt, Mel B, Will Poulter, Daniel Radcliffe, and Florence Welch all seem to belong there. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Archive

Archives, by year and month

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2025	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2024	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2023	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2022	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2021	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2020	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2019	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2018	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2015	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2013	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec