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=2024 December 18}}</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=2024 December 18}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2024 December 18|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

17 December 2024

15.ai

15.ai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the AfD was closed erroneously. The reason given was There is a consensus among those editors that the sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability, while those supporting keeping, with one exception, suggest the case for keeping is weak or present arguments that get less weighting. This is insufficient to overcome the weight of editors supporting deletion., but this consensus that sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability was established before the new sources were found, and once the new sources that demonstrate significant coverage were found, the consensus was going the other way. I think it's unfortunate that the discussions had sockpuppets and canvassing, but given the popularity of the subject among younger audiences, it was something that was to be expected. I believe that the subject is notable due to the sources that I recovered in my research.

Initially, with only a few reliable sources available, several editors voted in favor of delete. [1] After a week of discussion, the AfD for 15.ai was relisted for further discussion, and I did my due diligence to do some research to find additional sources that could be used for the article. On December 9, I made an edit displaying the research that I did over the weekend, finding several more reliable sources that would be viable to use to establish GNG, such as sources from United Daily News and a newsletter article from an IEEE-published author. [2]. Ever since that edit, all of the subsequent votes have either been Keep votes or previous Delete votes being stricken. I'm confused by how the AfD was ultimately closed as Delete when it looked like the consensus was heading towards a Keep after the new sources were found. Specifically, after the new sources were found, Schützenpanzer changed their vote from Weak Keep to Keep, JarJarInks voted Keep, Aaron Liu expressed his Keep vote (but didn't bold it), and Sirfurboy struck his delete vote after a discussion with him regarding the newly found sources. Importantly, not a single editor expressed a delete vote after the new sources were found and the AUTOMATON source was considered to be reliable, and the editor who submitted the AfD has closed their account. Thank you for your time. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit: I'm also willing to put in the work to use the new citations in a new version of the article, or at least please reconsider relisting the discussion so that a better consensus of the new sources can be found. After taking a look at the other Deletion reviews, for convenience I've compiled some sources that are candidates to demonstrate reliability and significant coverage as discussed in the AfD (the first three are the new ones): [3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ([12] [13] the SIGCOV of these two were debated, but I feel like they're still relevant to the discussion) GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse A pretty badly socked discussion that has already been at DRV once - I think this was clearly the correct close. SportingFlyer T·C 19:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's unfortunate that the discussion had socks (though I believe they were only "likely" and not officially "confirmed"?), but still the discussion was headed towards a consensus that the new sources found were enough to establish notability, with one of the active Delete votes striking their vote as a result of the discussion. If I'm reading this correctly, the original decision was a "no consensus" before the closing admin changed it to a "close" only after it was brought to DRV. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think there was anywhere close to a consensus those new sources established notability. I also only see one voter who went from weak keep to a struck vote. The fact this was already overturned once also has no bearing on the result of the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think there was anywhere close to a consensus those new sources established notability. But that's what I mean. The first closing decision was a No Consensus, but it was only changed to a Delete after the person who's still casting suspicion of me being a sockpuppet/SPA brought it here to DRV. There wasn't nearly enough discussion about the new sources. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I made one comment about it. In this discussion. Now you're making multiple replies that are WP:POINTy or WP:BLUDGEON. Regardless of sourcing, there's WP:TNT which provides a clean slate for the article. – The Grid (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• As I noted at the close I gave considerably less weight to editors who were not extended confirmed given the socking and canvassing. While GregariousMadness correctly notes one delete was struck after relist, one keep whose basis was the previous AfD by Robert McClenon (which another keep explicitly mentioned) was also struck when he realized there had been socking/canvassing at the first AFD. So not all movement was towards keep. Crucially, the socking that was identified happened after the re-list. If I had been looking at this when Liz did, I too would have relisted and likely with a similar message. This new information, combined with the previous knowledge around canvassing, I think justifies my decision to weight non-EC differently and thus means the delete opinions expressed before the relist weigh in on the overall discussion differently. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I totally understand where the delete votes were coming from, and I thank you for your quick response! I don't blame you at all for weighing their opinions more due to all the chaos happening in the AfD, but I have to point out that those delete votes were why I spent the weekend researching for new sources that could be used for the article. I didn't want the discussion to be derailed by the suspected canvassing and sockpuppetry, so I tried to steer the discussion toward the right direction by submitting the new sources and giving a detailed explanation for each one. I don't think I'm an EC yet, so I don't think it's fair that my research was weighted differently just because of some bad apples (again, which were to be expected because of how popular the subject was among the younger crowd). And despite all that, after my research was posted to the AfD, there were no additional delete votes made. If at the very least, you could grant me some time to edit the article to include the new sources, I can spend the next week editing it further.

Also, I want to note that the socking was around only two accounts, which were likely to be socks, but wasn't officially confirmed. Socking is bad, of course, but two sketchy SPAs shouldn't nullify the entire argument that the subject meets GNG due to the new sources posted. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It was much more than two socks. You can easily be considered a SPA when you have been involved with both AfD and SPI with an account related to the 1st AfD of 15.ai (pinging Ivanvector). – The Grid (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? I was first found as "Unlikely" to be associated, and then a subsequent investigation found that technically at best I would be a possilikely, but I already explained that I use a very generic setup that numerous other people use (and live in one of the most populous places in the United States). I haven't even edited the 15.ai article that much recently. Most of my edits were contributing to the mathematical theory of neural networks and various other mathematical articles. You can see my edit history to verify. Are you telling me that all the other people who voted Keep, including the editor who struck their Delete vote, are all socking? Also, I wasn't even present for the first AfD? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse (3 edit conflicts. 4th time lucky) as correctly within closer's discretion. I thanked Barkeep for the no consensus close and I thanked them again for the delete close. From which you may infer that I was content with either outcome and thought either was a reasonable assessment of the consensus. I would challenge the view that the new sources had demonstrated notability. I was the one who struck my delete vote, but I did not move to a keep. There were a couple of sources that some editors would have accepted as passing GNG. I did not think so, but decided to step away from pursuing the point further in recognition that a less manipulated discussion might actually have fared better. On socks, two socks were confirmed. Others were suspected but not confirmed. GregariousMadness was one of these latter ones but gave an explanation that I personally found very plausible, and to my mind is clearly not a sockpuppet. But in saying they were drawn to the subject by someone else they had met at college, they came a little close to being regarded as a meatpuppet. Yet I think they are here entirely in good faith, and we should not WP:BITE an interested and willing new editor, but not everyone was here in good faith. GregariousMadness may want to look at a page such as Generative artificial intelligence. This does not mention 15.ai, but could support a sentence or two on it (particularly the legal issues that saw the creator take it down). Their knowledge and research might also be useful for other unrelated improvements there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly? I’m just feeling so sad and helpless over all this. I tried my best to address all of Brocade River Poem’s problems with the article last month starting in October, and time and time again other editors have questioned my intelligence or belittled me for not knowing the rules by heart. And even after I addressed the last of her problems over that weekend, she wrote back “Cheers!” and then immediately nominated the whole article for deletion despite me addressing all of her comments and her not saying anything about it at all. I can't even bring up the diff to show that because the whole talk page is gone. Then I gave my case on why the article should stay and did my extra research over the weekend, but because of people who can’t behave that’s out of my control, my arguments are being un-weighted along with those who agree with me, even though I was under the impression that an AfD wasn't a vote. And then when I’m finally proud of the research I did and was on my way to convince people with the new sources I found (because the Teahouse says that a good rule of thumb is 3 reliable articles that show significant coverage to pass GNG, so I thought I did something good), the whole article gets deleted out of nowhere, leaving me confused and sad and not sure what I did wrong or what I could have done better. And Brocade closed her Wikipedia account so I’m left thinking that she made her account just to try to get the article deleted and be all condescending toward me while doing it, but I don’t even know what I can do about it or if anything can be done about it because it’s all speculation.

  Ever since I came back to Wikipedia, it feels like my voice isn’t being heard, and it’s especially hard for someone on the spectrum and juggling grad school, so I just try to edit stuff that I’m comfortable with, and still random people come at me saying that I’m an SPA or a sockpuppet (like the person doing that in this DRV, who was also the person who asked the closing admin to reconsider the "no consensus" decision) and it’s been really bothering me, sometimes keeping me up and night because I’m so anxiously refreshing the page over and over again thinking that I might get banned at any moment. So much happened so quickly and I can’t keep up. I’ve been trying my best to address everyone’s comments but I go away for a week or two and the whole article goes from being slowly improved on to deleted and gone, just like that.

  All I’m asking is that I be given some time to improve the article because I just haven’t had much time lately, and I thought the no consensus decision would give me enough time to do that. I’ve been trying to learn how Wikipedia works but it feels impossible. To me, it feels so obvious that notability is established with the sources since other AfD have way worse sources than the best ones I found, so I’m left feeling like the whole process is random and arbitrary. It makes me so confused when something like Ai_sponge is a Keep but somehow one of the most influential early voice AI projects is a Delete. I want to be able to edit the article with the new sources that I found, but seeing that it’s all gone makes me feel like it’s not even worth re-submitting it if I have to start all over. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'll reply more on your talk page, but just to note, you can request the article be restored to your userspace if the deletion is endorsed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  And Brocade closed her Wikipedia account so I’m left thinking that she made her account just to try to get the article deleted and be all condescending toward me while doing it, but I don’t even know what I can do about it or if anything can be done about it because it’s all speculation.

  The truly ironic part of me seeing this weird conspiracy that is borderline the same accusations the sockfarm were making is that I came back here to say that after reviewing the newer sources you linked, I'd be inclined to change my vote to draftify the article if the AfD were still ongoing. Cheers, though. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 07:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Relist. The AFD never came to a proper conclusion, with people still debating whether AUTOMATON should be considered a reliable source, as well as GregariousMadness's thorough research and discovery of the new sources. The first "No consensus" closure was probably justified, but the change to a "delete" jumped the gun, IMHO. Relisting to determine a consensus on the sources sounds reasonable. UnstableDiffusion (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'm hoping more editors will consider the new sources because I spent a lot of time finding them. Please at the very least, if you are looking through this deletion review, consider a relisting to gain some more consensus on the new sources found. Again, I don't think it's fair that my effort is being overshadowed by the bad behavior of editors who have no interest in how Wikipedia actually works. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 01:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse the close, I was surprised to see that the AfD ended as No Consensus and then switched, but the closer's rationale made sense to me. While I am retiring from the project because I feel I was spending entirely too much time on Wikipedia, I kept my eye on the AfD that I created since I was told people might ask me direct questions. Even if AUTOMATON was a reliable source, that isn't a procedural error. The closer weighed Extended Confirms higher than others and came to the conclusion to Delete. The arguments raised by the Delete cadre was that the coverage provided was trivial. My initial concern about the seeming lack of notability was raised at the Good Article Reassesment, where I was told that the notability should be addressed at AfD, and that is the entire reason I nominated the article and predates any interaction with GregariousMadness. As for the editor who submitted the AfD has closed their account frankly, I do not see how my decision to retire has any bearing on whether the close should be re-evaluated. To my understanding, an article being deleted does not prevent it from one day returning to the encyclopedia, so if the creator wishes to improve it (which is their rationale for overturning the deletion), they can still do so in draftspace and run it through Articles for Creation. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 06:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  The arguments raised by the Delete cadre was that the coverage provided was trivial. The argument had merit before the relisting, but the new sources I found demonstrated significant coverage ([14], [15], [16], [17]) but were ultimately ignored in favor of the EC's opinions, which were made before the new sources were posted. All I'm asking is for my sources to actually be examined, and again it feels like my voice isn't being heard. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse GregariousMadness makes the best case for 15.ai being notable -- though I'd discount the Medium source as our existing consensus is that it's generally unreliable as a self-published source -- but I don't see the coverage as significant and enduring enough to overturn a reasonable close.

CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Endorse (involved) - Deletion Review is not AFD round 2, and the editors participating in the DRV are not closing the AFD, but reviewing the closer's close of the AFD. So the question is not whether we would have closed the AFD as the closer did, but whether the closer's judgment can be justified. If all good-standing !votes are counted equally, the close should be No Consensus. The closer says that they weighed the !votes from Extended-Confirmed editors more than from newer editors. In view of the history of this article, that is reasonable and proper. There is a long history of sockpuppetry associated with this article, the previous AFD, the Good Article review, and the discussions at WP:ANI. The presence of multiple single-purpose accounts is strongly suggesting of off-wiki canvassing. The web site evidently has a fan club on a third web site. The fans may not be familiar with Wikipedia guidelines of notability. I would have preferred to see the closer identify which of the voters were given a higher weighting and which were discounted, but after writing this statement, I see that that is unnecessary, which is why I am striking the Weak from the Endorse. The closer recognized the need to discount editors who were likely to have been recruited for the purpose (or fabricated for the purpose).
  • • I initially cast a Weak Keep !vote in the AFD based on the principle of respecting a previous AFD, and then struck that !vote when I saw that the previous AFD had been corrupted by sockpuppetry, and did not cast a replacement !vote.
  • Approve Submission of Draft for Review - The title has not been salted, and a good-faith editor may submit a draft. The draft should preferably be a clean start for the topic, starting over, without reliance on the previous history that was corrupted by sockpuppetry and other misconduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved), I think this was a fair and accurate reading by the closing administrator, of a discussion which was badly-disrupted throughout its life. Daniel (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - Of the non-delete-!voting participants, several expressed what were admittedly "weak" positions. More still either struck their keep !votes or had rationales "as per" editors who later struck their keep votes. The consensus was not going the other way as the appellant attests. Therefore, this was a reasonable close by the closer. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 20:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

15.ai (closed)

15.ai – Reclosed by the original closing admin. —Cryptic 16:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
15.ai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This is the 2nd time an AfD has been tempered by off-site canvassing. (First AfD) I would have paused even to close this 2nd AfD. I would have thrown any input from canvassed parties into the trash. How exactly were E+C editors weighted here, even if they were self-interested parties? The refs provided skimmed the surface for anyone who provided a thorough source assessment table. Either a better look at the participants is needed or the no consensus result should be overturned. – The Grid (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) – The Grid (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Closing admin here. I will note that the filer didn't discuss this with me before filing the request and so this could have been avoided. I had mis-attributed EC to a couple of editors who didn't have it, which I realized while typing this response. As such I agree there is a delete consensus and have reclosed accordingly. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 December 2024

Cartoys

Cartoys (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This deletion discussion had minimal participation and the nomination did not fully follow the procedures in WP:BEFORE; there are articles in the Wall Street Journal, Puget Sound Business Journal, and Chicago Tribune with significant coverage, not to mention a good number of Seattle Times articles in local archives. I believe this was a premature deletion and the article could be saved and improved. SounderBruce 00:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse, there were two relists where no one weighed in. This was by no definition premature. Did you ask the deleting admin for a copy to improve in draft space? That would make sense if you believe you can improve it to where a G4 no longer applies. Star Mississippi 01:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - Correct interpretation of the consensus. No keep !votes were made in the discussion and the sources brought by the requestor here were not presented in the discussion. The nominator at AfD also does not show any indication of a failure in their BEFORE duties. The closer cannot be blamed for assuming that a third relist would have yielded similar results as the first two. Delete was the only option here. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 03:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Allow a Relist per Extraordinary Writ, preferable to a restore due to involving NCORP (which is indeed a higher bar to meet than GNG). ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 18:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn, with my apologies I saw this, thought that it was absurd, and failed to say so at the time. I can only opine in so many deletion discussions, and mistakenly assumed that other editors would chime in, as this area is not a core interest of mine. I was wrong. The decision is wrong on the merits, no matter who participated and how, and if DRV isn't the right place to say that--what is? Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Restore we now have sources. The Chicago Tribune one is solid. WSJ is light. The Puget Sound ones I can't see, but they look likely to be fine. Closer's close was okay, but now we have sources. Hobit (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Relist. The first relist never actually made it onto the log, so this was really only relisted once. Given the good-faith request above and the low participation, a second relist is reasonable; the sources are decent but not so good that I'd want to just overrule the AfD (especially since WP:NCORP is stricter). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with a relist too. But I note that until and unless N is changed, a corporation can meet GNG or the appropriate SNG, CORP, to be notable. Jclemens (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  As I was writing my comment, I very specifically thought: "if I say that, Jclemens is going to reply that NCORP doesn't override the GNG". I guess I've finally reached the exalted status of DRV regular. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Welcome to the club! :-) Wikipedia works best when we all collaborate despite its imperfections. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Restore based on new sources available and the minimal participation at the AFD. Any user is able to renominate for deletion. Relisting is a good option as well and would be my second choice. Frank Anchor 16:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Restore. I find no fault in how the AfD was closed. However, limited participation in it allows us to treat the outcome as a soft-delete, even if it wasn't spelled out as such, and restore the article in response to any good faith request. Owen× ☎ 16:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse own close. And forgive any confusion, as I just now changed my name back to my old name. It is not the closers' job to do their own research and reach their own conclusion, but to do their best to read consensus. I don't see how, with the discussion that was held, there was a compelling argument made to keep. That being said the technical issue with the relisting and the apparent availability of sources that were somehow not found by the particpants in the AFD is enough to justify another relist. I think this is the first time I've had a close challenged by someone who did not actually participate in the deletion discussion. That would've been where to make the case. I utterly reject the notion that it was premature. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, your close was fine--the discussion sucked and utterly failed to find the sources that existed. I had more obligation, as someone who monitors DELSORT Washington, to go find and list the sources our appellant did, and I failed to. The process was correct, the result was wrong. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  No one here, with the possible exception of the appellant, is claiming that you erred in your close, Beeblebrox. The only question before us is what to do with the page now, seeing as we found new sources. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse and Allow Recreation There is no error in the close. That said, if new sourcing can be added to the article that meet our notability requirements, there should be no objection to recreation by tenured editors in good standing. --Enos733 (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - There is no error in the close. There was no need for the closer to relist the discussion, and there is no need to overturn the close and relist the discussion to allow new sources. It is not necessary to come to DRV to ask for permission to submit a new draft, or to create a new article subject to AFD. Is there some way to advise editors who have found new sources are deletion that they don't need to come to DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would hope that a user with seventeen years of experience on the project would at least try just asking the deleting admin to restore it as a draft so they could improve it and return it to mainspace, but apparently jumping straight to DRV without talking to he closing admin first is the preferred option these days El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 20:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify. If the reasons for deletion can be demonstrated to be overcome, allow mainspacing. This is a higher requirement than overcoming G4. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

12 December 2024

Thamir Muhsin

Thamir Muhsin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not often astonished by closes. Half of the participants in this discussion asked for more time to look for sources (which clearly requires searching sources from the 1970s in Arabic) but it was completely ignored by the closer even though there was more of a consensus to relist than there was to delete (two poor quality delete !votes, one delete !voter who supported a relist, and one delete !voter who is often willing to change their vote if sources are presented (GiantSnowman). While the argument that it's been draftified and nothing more needs to be done could be considered, an open AfD allows for more eyes on a specific topic, and as such I'm asking for this to be relisted. SportingFlyer T·C 00:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'll summarize what I said on my talk. Consensus on the existing sources was clear-cut. Multiple editors wanted time to find sources: they have it, as the article is in draftspace. Recreation is not disallowed, if new sources are found. Relisting achieves nothing except wasting the time of regular AfD participants, who have no evidence to examine, and AfD closers, who would be re-examining the same discussion I did. I don't see a constructive purpose to this DRV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Relisting achieves nothing except wasting the time of regular AfD participants - if I didn't vehemently disagree with this, I wouldn't have opened a DRV. There's a huge difference between shunting something into draftspace and to relisting a discussion. The latter allows for more time for other people to participate in the discussion and look for sources. No one in the discussion asked for it to be draftified, either! SportingFlyer T·C 01:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse close: There wasn't a single keep vote, there were four people who supported deletion for valid reasons. No one presented a reason for actually keeping, except that there simply must be something. More time was requested to find sources, but there wasn't really a good reason not to close the AfD. As mentioned in the close, there's nothing stopping someone from recreating the article. Also, your mention of someone who voted delete supporting a relist is inaccurate, they specifically stated they did not oppose it. You wanted time to find sources, you have it now with Draft:Thamir Muhsin. Frankly I'm astonished that this was brought to DRV considering this is the best middle ground someone could have asked for. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just because there wasn't a single bolded keep vote doesn't mean deletion was unopposed. SportingFlyer T·C 01:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  Deletes don't have to be unopposed. -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  There wasn't a rational given to keep and that's what's important, there's no other way this discussion could have been closed. Regardless, you got the time you asked for by the article being moved to draft space. That's 6 months of no edits before it's deleted, which is why I'm truly astonished that community time is going to be wasted on this DRV.

  Do you wish to address the misrepresention that you made in your statement where you stated half the people there asked for more time? I count two, and one person who said they didn't oppose a relisting. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is a very frustrating close. I'm frustrated an experienced administrator completely ignored the fact participants agreed this AfD would benefit from a relist. I'm frustrated the outcome was essentially to draftify when no one even discussed that option, which is a supervote. I don't want this to be draftified, I want an additional week of discussion where everyone would be invited to do a very difficult source search. And I'm frustrated the rationale to delete was that it wasn't "terribly fair" to AfD participants to leave it open, when two out of the four delete !votes were as lazy as you will see at an AfD, and of the other two one supported finding sources (and is someone who I know would change to keep if good sources were found) and the other did not object to a relist.

  Finally, three out of six participants supported a relist. That's half of the participants. I don't understand why that could possibly be considered a misrepresentation. SportingFlyer T·C 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  To be very clear, I was referring to fairness to AfD participants in general, not those who had !voted. It is not respectful of an editor's time to ask them to read through and participate in an AfD that has functionally reached consensus but is awaiting more evidence that may or may not be found. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  It hadn't functionally reached consensus, though, not unless you overly weight two delete !votes with a combined thirteen words between them. Most of the discussion was a discussion about how sources might be found, and discussion was still active, with most of the discussion occurring in the last 24 hours. SportingFlyer T·C 07:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  One editor saying "No objection to a relist" is not the same as asking for more time. GiantSnowman 16:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse - The closer correctly interpreted the consensus of the participating editors that the article should be deleted. Of the non-delete-!voting participants, the first questions the AfD nominator on their WP:BEFORE check, but does not provide their own specific sources to the discussion that would indicate that the nominator failed in their BEFORE duties. The second (the requestor here at DRV) admits that they cannot find any sources. Both of their comments can be more or less boiled down to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and are therefore weaker than the arguments in the delete !votes. A relist would be have inappropriate as although one of the !delete voters sympathized with the MUSTBESOURCES arguments enough to express a lack of opposition to a relist, they did not go so far as to abandon their position. Allowing draftification is an appropriate compromise that both respects the outcome of the discussion and allows those attesting that sources must exist more time and less stress with which to find them. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 03:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse as a reasonable implementation of the consensus of the participants, except for a detail. The close says Delete, but the actual action was Draftify, which was a reasonable alternative to deletion, and has almost the same effect as Relist. A Relist would have given seven days to find sources. Draftification gives six months to find sources, and longer if the draft is tweaked during that time. Proponents of an article for the subject have a longer window of opportunity to find sources than they would have with a Relist. Maybe the close should be changed on the record to Draftify, which is a mere matter of paperwork. This was a better close than a relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  I see a small but important distinction between a consensus to draftify - typically associated with TOOSOON cases, CRYSTAL cases where the topic is likely to be notable, or clearly notable cases where the article is not policy-compliant - and a consensus to delete, after which the article is draftified as a courtesy to one or more editors. This is the latter case, for me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse per Robert. GiantSnowman 12:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will add - the article was draftified over 2-and-a-half days ago and precisely ZERO sources have been found and added - not even considering all the time during the AFD itself. GiantSnowman 16:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  the article was draftified over 2-and-a-half days ago and precisely ZERO sources have been found and added – I'd say that's mainly because I haven't looked for sources yet. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  OK, so when do you expect to? When you asked for more time, how much did you need? GiantSnowman 13:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11: I have no issue with you taking as much time as you need. Given that it's been 11 days since you first came to the AfD, though, it's a clear demonstration that draftification, and not relisting, was the optimal outcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm satisfied with the draftify outcome, although I was surprised initially with the closure. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse but add a post-closure note with the link to the draft. That way, interested parties are more likely to find and edit the draft. I agree that this close was better than a relist as it gives as much time as necessary to find and evaluate any new sources through the draft/AFC process, rather than a week to evaluate sources that may or may not exist. Worst case here, no valid sources come up and the draft will be abandoned and G13ed, which is a low-level risk. Frank Anchor 14:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  That is a good idea: I will add such a link. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse although I understand SF's frustration because a mainspace article is much more likely to get the attention re: sourcing than one in draft space and systemic bias + pre internet is a huge issue here. That said, there was no sourcing to support retention. While I don't agree that draftification was a supervote anymore than redirect is when the closer finds that ATD, I think in this case it's the better outcome since this otherwise is likely a delete without you and other editors having access to the article to improve it. Star Mississippi 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Closer provided a detailed statement, including an offer to provide a copy of the deleted article to anyone who asked for it. It's a perfectly reasonable close. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 20:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved) - Draftification is clearly a reasonable option in cases where editors are seeking more time to look for sources but deletion is otherwise the clear consensus. Suriname0 (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse in line with the clear consensus. Can be reconsidered when sources are actually presented, as opposed to a vague promise to look for them. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  We ended up finding a lot of possible sources at Draft talk:Thamir Muhsin, so we can probably close this discussion now. I'm still really unhappy with the way this was handled for a number of different reasons. I think the thing which frustrates me the most is just how lazy the AfD nomination and two of the delete !votes were, and I still feel my participation and BeanieFan11's participation was ignored because we didn't explicitly vote in the discussion. At least there's a pathway back to mainspace though. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Why? No sources were located during the AFD timespan, and you've only been able to find sources many days later which appear to be under a different spelling of his name! GiantSnowman 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  The AfD was open for a week, most of the discussion was within 48 hours of the close, the entire nomination was flawed ("non-notable academic" for a former national football team coach!), only one delete !vote even discussed a BEFORE search, and we would have found sources within the second week probably without needing to delete an article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Bruce Hall (musician)

Bruce Hall (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unsure as to why Bruce's page got deleted, I am reaching out as a rep of Bruce. 2601:5CD:C100:DA10:B0AA:52CB:1381:B68F (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse as a reasonable close and the only reasonable close of the deletion discussion. It was redirected in place of deletion because the separate article was inadequately sourced and did not support individual musical notability apart from the band. Any editor may submit a more complete draft for review, with reliable sources and providing information beyond his role in REO Speedwagon, provided that any conflict of interest must be declared. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse A draft isn't necessary, nor is our permission. to un-redirect and expand, provided a non-COI editor wants to do that--and there should be someone willing to. A draft is indeed the appropriate step for a COI editor. At the same time, I question the accuracy of the past AfD--it happened right as REO Speedwagon was in the news for the Hall/Cronin rift and cessation of touring, and I see plenty of Google News coverage for Hall--there's no question in my mind that at the time of the AfD there was an adequate amount of sourcing for Hall's individual notability, and the AfD outcome, though clear, was wrong on the merits. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse - The closer correctly interpreted the consensus of participating editors that the article's subject did not meet Wikipedia's notability policies as an individual, and that info about this subject that is known would be better suited for inclusion in another article at this time. As Robert McClenon states, this does not disqualify the subject from a future article if better sourcing can be found. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 21:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse The reason this was deleted is because we couldn't find enough information specifically on Bruce that was written by a secondary source (non-interviews, for instance) to allow him to have a stand-alone page on the website, but he's notable as part of being in his band, so we've redirected the page there and have included information about him there. If that's incorrect, it's possible a new article could be created if good sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse/speedy close This forum is for challenging the closers' interpretation of consensus, not for just saying "I don't get it and I represent the article subject". This should be closed. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 20:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

11 December 2024

Shakir Pichler – Socks of banned users do not have standing to lodge DRVs. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shakir Pichler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) many new reliable sources have been added to sections to provide clear WP:SIGCOV but need to be structured properly into the References section rather than the further reading section with inline citations added to the biography section to them. Shakir Pichler shouldn't have to be punished with an AFK deletion/redirection decision due to the person editing the pages argumentative comments who will no longer be editing his page ever again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.211.83.46 (talk • contribs) Endorse and speedy close. Looks like Ponyo re-redirected and semi-protected recently after the IP had contravened OwenX's closure of the deletion discussion as redirection. There appears to be conduct--COI and sockpuppetry--issues surrounding this, so I suggest we do absolutely nothing other than offer to educate the COI IP editor: either a clue will be obtained, or a block will, I suspect. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Considerable efforts have been made to educate the appellant, and multiple blocks issued to socks and IPs she's used. This is a SPA who doesn't care about policies or guidelines, and will continue her attempts to restore the article regardless of how we handle this. Technically, the appellant is still banned, but since I'm involved, it would be improper for me to block the IP in the midst of a DRV against me. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) I totally understand your grievances with how I handled the AFD but I've never had one before and at the time, I didn't realise I was 'sockpuppeting' or what that even was. Therefore, I have informed you that there is now that there is a lot of credible references added to provide a good wikipedia entry which was the trigger for the afd to begin with and I am VERY happy to never EVER edit a wiki article again in my life, but as mentioned, I think it's extremely unfair that Shakir Pichler is punished for how I handled things. I honestly wasn't trying to deceive and I thought my role was to in fact argue and try to correct points of contention. And I honestly thought my user account was banned and not me personally, which was later explained. My heart was in the right place, just my skillset wasn't. Would be great if someone looked at the revision with the new links etc added just before afd closed and structured it better or allowed Shakir to find a good editor to take control of the page properly. I do apologise for my handling of the case but again Shakir Pichler shouldn't be punished for my mess-up. If any consolation, he has blocked me too! But Id like to make this right please as I feel terrible. 157.211.83.46 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse Redirect was a reasonable reading of that discussion if you ignore all of the involved editing, and while there's a chance he's notable there's nothing in the sources which makes me think redirecting this was a clear mistake. SportingFlyer T·C 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Speedy Endorse - The appellant admits that they are a blocked user. The close was reasonable, but we should not even be considering the close unless an appeal is made by a good-faith editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC) again, why should the subject suffer the actions of the original editor though? seems unfair. 157.211.83.46 (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Recent discussions

9 December 2024

Pump.fun

Pump.fun (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted due to a lack of sufficient reliable sources. However, new independent and reliable sources have been identified that address notability concerns, including coverage in the Nytimes, Wired, Bloomberg, Gizmodo, and Yahoo Finance. These sources provide substantial and independent analysis of the platform, demonstrating its notability under WP:GNG. I believe the article can now be reinstated in compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiffre01 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Confirming I'm aware of this as the most recent deleter, and see prior discussion on my talk page at User talk:Pppery#pump.fun. I'm going to let other deletion review regulars comment before making a more substantive comment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• An assertion that "sources exist" without providing them is never enough to restore a page, but especially not for one deleted at AFD a week and a half ago. —Cryptic 20:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  There were, admittedly, additional sources in the G4-ed versions that aren't in the deleted version. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I was taking them at their word here that there were "new" ones. Almost all of the ones in the recreation long predate the afd. —Cryptic 21:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• (Original AfD nominator comment:) There are a couple of usable sources in the G4ed article, but there are also several sources that are being laundered through news aggregators. @Chiffre01: Just because something is syndicated by Yahoo! Finance or MSN does not make it more reliable; CoinDesk, CoinMarketCap, and Cryptopolitan are not usable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn G4 and unsalt If there are new sources in a re-creation, it's not substantially identical to the deleted version. Now, if the same user keeps adding inadequate sourcing, that's a user conduct issue, and should be dealt with as such. G4 and Salt are blunt instruments best suited to when many people are trying to re-create and article. Having said that, I have no particular reason to think this will survive a new AfD, and would recommend it be worked on in draft space until everyone's satisfied about the sourcing. While that might not make everyone happy, it's better than out-of-process G4s or repeated AfDs, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy Overturn G4. The deleting admin admitted there were new sources, therefore making the deleted version not sufficiently identical. I share Jclemens’ recommendation that this be moved to draftspace to allow interested users to improve the page to a point in which it would not be deleted via AFD again. Frank Anchor 02:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The temp undelete confirms that relevant content, in addition to sourcing, was added to this version, confirming that the G4 was inappropriate. Frank Anchor 15:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• You (plural) are creating an absurd perverse incentive - deliberately don't include withold some of the sources you have found from the AfD so you can immediately recreate it and force it to go through the whole rigamarole again. We must not allow ourselves to be bound by that. (To be clear, I'm not accusing Chiffre01 of having done so, just pointing out that someone could). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  The solution to our admittedly informal 'rules' being subject to abuse by bad-faith actors is not to not follow the rules, but rather to note that bad faith application of any Wikipedia rule is a conduct issue, not one of content. We can argue that G4 should be changed, although I think it's fine the way it is, but to pretend that adding a new source isn't a substantial change to an article stretching definitions implausibly. Speedy deletions are to be uncontroversial; this one clearly was not. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• What are the new sources? Given this area of the project is very disruptive, jumping to any sort of conclusion that a G4 should be overturned or that this should be unsalted feels plainly incorrect to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've tempundeleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn G4 - The version of the article that was deleted as G4 has information in the article body that was not in the article that was the subject of the AFD. The two versions of the article are not substantially identical. The differences are not just sources. The G4 nominator may nominate the new article for a second AFD, but it is entitled to a second AFD because it is not a repost. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm happy to re-create the article as a draft page/ Any thoughts? Chiffre01 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• New coverage from 3 days ago

Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the pre- and post- AfD versions, it's still a crystal clear delete/salt to me even if G4 is questionable. SportingFlyer T·C 19:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn G4. Good for a new AfD.—Alalch E. 10:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Shay Albert Vidas (closed)

Draft:Shay Albert Vidas – Deletion endorsed. There is not going to be a restoration of the draft to DRV starter's userspace, because they have been indefinitely blocked. (non-admin closure)—Alalch E. 05:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC) —Alalch E. 05:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Shay Albert Vidas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I recently created a draft titled "Draft:Shay Albert Vidas," but it was deleted under G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). I understand Wikipedia’s concerns about promotional content and would like to request that the draft be restored to my user page so I can revise it. The draft was still in the draft stage and not yet published. I was working to present factual information about Shay Albert Vidas and his work in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Unfortunately, the deleting administrator, Bbb23, did not provide feedback on what was considered promotional, and I was not given the opportunity to revise the content. Additionally, I cannot contact Bbb23 directly because their talk page is restricted. I am also unable to post on the Administrators’ Noticeboard due to semi-protection and my account status. I have no way to resolve this issue without assistance. I am committed to addressing any issues raised and rewriting the draft to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability standards. I kindly request that the draft be restored to my user page for improvement. Thank you for your time and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayvidas (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse, having not seen the deleted draft, but trusting the judgment of Bbb23, and being familiar with autobiographies. The originator should be able to reconstruct what he wrote about his own career if he didn't keep a copy on his computer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse but it doesn't hurt for someone to email him the deleted content. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Egregious spam. Endorse and do not provide the deleted content, on the slim hope he'll have to pay someone to write it again if he wants to use it elsewhere. —Cryptic 10:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC) I suspect he did pay someone to write this. The standard of his English seems to vary from one contribution to another. Deb (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse and do not undelete. Vidas or his company may well be notable but nearly every single sentence of that article is unusable because it's 100% promotional (about the only one that would survive is the one about where and when he was born; even the sentence about his wife feels the need to eulogise her.) Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC) we are very known in israel, i can show you a lot of proof i'm not sure how to attach it, can i do another one, and you will tell me now if it will pass or not ? or adleast give me some info on What was wrong, so i will know to change it, i can do another draft and this time just tell me what to modify it ? would it be ok ? it's ok if it needs to be deleeted just to refrain from that happening again and again, can you look at a modified version i will write now and tell me what is wrong with it ? Shayvidas (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC) “I cannot contact Bbb23 directly because their talk page is restricted”. This is a failure of WP:ADMINACCT on the part of User:Bbb23. Userfy or email. User:Shayvidas, ensure that you have enabled email. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC) SmokeyJoe I'm not entirely sure what else Bbb23 is supposed to do when your talk page history includes 57 protection entries from 21 different admins and 118 removals of offensive material via revision-deletion. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC) Me either. Create a special mechanism to flag a desire to talk? Give the DRV applicant some benefit of the doubt? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC) It's a tricky one. I'm sure there's some cunning way of getting around it, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) No, it wasn't a tricky situation even before the editor became auto-confirmed. User:Bbb23 has email enabled. An admin who has semi-protected their talk page and has email enabled has made administrator accountability feasible. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Shayvidas has recreated Draft:Shay Albert Vidas. It is tagged as G11. I'll let another admin evaluate the tag. As an aside, the user is auto-confirmed and could have posted to my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC) the user is auto-confirmed and could have posted to my Talk page - that is incorrect. They are autoconfirmed now, but when they attempted to contact you, they had only 8 edits to their name - two edits short of the number needed for autoconfirmed. They made a genuine attempt to contact you, and when that failed - they tried to get help at the Help desk before bringing it here. Owen× ☎ 16:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC) I appreciate all the feedback and understand the concerns about promotional content in my draft. My aim is not to use Wikipedia for advertising but to provide factual information about my career and contributions to watchmaking i have no reason to lie to you, this is 100% true. I am committed to rewriting the draft to meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and notability. I would be grateful if specific examples of problematic content could be highlighted, so I can address them in a revised version.I dont want to be blocked, as i worked hours on all the text and I acknowledge past mistakes and am seeking guidance to ensure my next draft avoids similar issues can you please tell me what in my last draft was bad as in spacific sentences ?. I oppose providing any conflict of interest editor with specific examples of problematic content. They are asking us to do their work for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I also noticed suggestions about restoring the draft to my user page or emailing it for further revision. I would greatly appreciate this, as it would help me revise the content more effectively and align it with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you friends. --Shayvidas (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) I want to acknowledge Robert McClenon suggestion that I can rewrite the draft with a more neutral tone. I am more than willing to remove or rewrite any sections that were problematic. I didn't suggest that. I am often in favor of and never against rewriting promotional material with a more neutral tone, but I didn't make that suggestion. I said that the appellant should be able to reconstruct the draft without the need for undeletion. They should remember what their own career has been. If it really took them a long time to write a promotional autobiography, they just wasted a lot of their own time. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I did not suggest or advocate restoring the deleted draft. If they forgot to keep a copy of their work, we do not need to do their housekeeping for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC) I also want to address the point raised by User:Bbb23about contacting their Talk page. As Owen× correctly pointed out, I was not yet autoconfirmed at the time I attempted to reach out. I made a genuine attempt to resolve this issue and avoid any misunderstandings. If it’s possible, I would kindly request the restoration of the draft to my user page so I can make the necessary revisions based on the feedback provided. If this isn’t feasible, I would greatly appreciate detailed guidance on how I can approach a new draft that aligns with Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you again for your time and understanding. Endorse No LLM-generated deletion reviews. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC) i actually wrote it myself and it took quit a lot of time. and also talked to friends, revised it over and over and over again and it took hours. i can show proof if needed. Shayvidas (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC) We can easily tell that you wrote it yourself because it only concentrates on the good things about you and your company. That's not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If the friends to whom you showed it were familiar with Wikipedia, they would have been able to tell you that we don't accept promotional articles. Deb (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Comment - Appellant has been blocked. Closure seems in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 December 2024

Category:Beast (Canadian band) albums – Procedural close; restored by the deleting admin. Owen× ☎ 16:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Beast (Canadian band) albums (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The article that was in this category, Beast (Beast album), is not an eponymous article for the category, and the category does not meet the criterion for C2F speedy deletion. The category is for albums by the band, regardless of the title of their albums. If it happened to be titled Beastmode instead of Beast then you couldn’t speedy it? The eponymous article criteria would be applicable if the category was named after the album itself not a general category for any album the band released, like if the only article in Category:American Idiot was the album American Idiot. If the only album Garth Brooks released was Garth Brooks (album) that would not mean the criteria was met to speedy delete Category:Garth Brooks albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC) Comment It's entirely possible I made an error here, and I'm happy to admit it when I do so. I often make mistakes but know that other wikipedians will bring such foibles to my attention. I was away from keyboard last evening, but I'm wondering why in the last day User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars felt it necessary to request another administrator then file here, but chose not to ask me directly? This even after specifically being instructed to do so. Am I a scary figure to anybody? Compared to many older admins, I'm relatively fresh at speedy deletion; I certainly have little experience with categories and in this case responded to what I saw as a good faith CSD tag. MY eyes were focused on the adjective "one". One album in the category, category name same as album name same as band name. I think arguing this was not eponymous is entirely splitting hairs. To extend Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's argument, if Garth only made a single album, (but other than the world being a much drearier place) I wouldn't normally expect such a subject to have 1) an article about him or 2) a category holding that single entry. That's my bias, I'll concede. BusterD (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC) My apologies. I thought I was just following procedure. I requested a reversal of the deletion which you denied so I figured that made you aware of my reasoning. Your denial was followed up immediately by another editor who said my concerns can be taken to deletion review. So here we are. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 13:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC) Would you point me towards my first refusal? I'm not seeing it in my contribution history, and I have no recollection of the exchange between us. BusterD (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC) Question - What was the purpose of this category be, or what will its purpose be? So why is the appellant filing this DRV? It appears that the band made one album, and the album is eponymous, and the band no longer exists. The category is about the band. The article about the band could be put into the category, making it a category with two articles. If we were to overturn the speedy deletion, which appears to be consistent with a precise reading of the guidelines, then the category could be sent to CFD, and there would still be a question of what its purpose will be. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC) This has been restored by the deleting admin. It has currently a single category member. I believe this discussion may now be closed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 December 2024

Category:Hypoiodites – Allow recreation. Unanimous consensus among commenters that bold recreation is fine. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Hypoiodites (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Was upmerged because it only had one member (silver hypoiodite) and proposed that there would not likely be more. Now we also have sodium hypoiodite. And per the other Category:Hypohalites, Hypoiodous acid would go in it as well. This would make a consistent diffusion of Hypohalites. DMacks (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse. Satisfactory discussion and close, noting the previous CfD Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 20#Category:Iodites. Respect the consensus to delete for at least six months before attempting recreation. Two members is not impressive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC) I'm not disagreeing with the close for Hypoiodites from a year ago, but instead that the facts on which it rested have changed, and I think one logical detail was mis-applied. There are now existing three articles that would go in it. Ammonium hypoiodite also appears notable though we do not yet have an article, so that's four. Chemicals containing the ion has been known since at least back to 1900 and there are still current publications covering various of them. Clearly the fact that they are unstable is not an impediment to there being a definable set of related (potential) articles--the notability of them seems in fact to rest specifically on their high reactivity. The precedent/other XfD from 4 years prior is not about the same topic or any of the same articles, despite the similarity of the cat names and resting on the same principle of cat-size at the respective time of discussion. DMacks (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC) I don't have a strong opinion on this, but including an article that's not written yet in the category is a bit disingenious. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC) It addresses the lack of potential for expansion, given "does not seem as if it'll be gaining any more in the near future" were the basis for the nom. I could write a stub in a day or so if that would help. I'm not sure why SmokeyJoe seems opposed to a certain lag-time for cat creation subsequent to new articles existing. DMacks (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC) I misread the year. 11 November 2023, not 2024. If you have new articles that overcome the reason for deletion, which was over 1 year ago, then boldly recreate and see if it gets listed at CfD. DRV is not required to give you permission, and if DRV gives permission, it doesn’t protect the recreation from CfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC) Yeah. DRV isn't needed in a case like this unless and until the recreation is G4'd. —Cryptic 11:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC) Allow recreation. There are three articles, which is fine.—Alalch E. 17:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC) I'd have no problem if is boldly recreated and I'd have no problem if anyone wanted to discuss it at CfD after it was created. It's not that the DRV is pointless but there's not much to do... SportingFlyer T·C 17:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC) What SportingFlyer said. Just do it and let folks bring it to CfD if they desire. Things have changed. Hobit (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 December 2024

Draft:Term Paper BD – Speedy endorse - deletion clearly correct as unambiguous advertising. The author can continue to learn about the rules of Wikipedia via the discussion on their talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Term Paper BD (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I am writing to respectfully contest the speedy deletion of the Draft:Term Paper BD under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which cites the page as unambiguous advertising. I believe this page can be significantly improved to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality and verifiability. Term Paper BD is an educational organization that has provided academic writing support to students since 2013. Over the years, it has completed more than 5,000 successful projects and assisted thousands of students, making it an important contributor to the academic community in Bangladesh. The purpose of the article is to document the history, impact, and activities of the organization, not to promote it. I acknowledge that the initial draft may have unintentionally contained language that could be perceived as promotional. However, everything written in the draft is factually accurate and based on the real achievements of Term Paper BD. If it seems promotional, it is not by intent—it is simply the truth. The information is meant to provide an objective overview of the organization's history, mission, and contributions to the education sector. please give me back my article. I have been working for for the past whole week on this. I have spend many many hours one day. please give it to me back. if you still not convince. please mark my mistake I will figure out how to fix it. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.U Shadin (talk • contribs) 15:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse and speedy close. The draft was not only shameless advertising, it was also a COI - the author and appellant is the company's "Chief Writer & Advisor". The sources cited are all from the company's own website or its Facebook page. DoubleGrazing was right to tag it, and BusterD was correct to delete it. Owen× ☎ 15:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Yes, I am the writer of the article, and I am also the Chief Writer & Advisor of this organization. Our company is not widely known in the media. Although it is popular among students, they are not likely to write about our organization on social media, right? I don’t have any sources that have written about Term Paper BD, so how can I provide sources? But our organization still exists, doesn’t it??? So how can I give external sources if they aren’t available? Should I pay someone to write about my organization??? And regarding neutrality—there is nothing negative about Term Paper BD. No customer has been dissatisfied with our work (except a few), so how can I write anything negative? Everything about Term Paper BD is positive, and I wrote exactly that. Where is the problem? H.U Shadin (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC) @H.U Shadin: this deletion review isn't really the venue for such discussions; let's take this to your talk page User talk:H.U Shadin, I've posted some advice there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Thank you, H.U Shadin; I appreciate your honesty. I think you told us everything we need to know when it comes to the notability of your company, your paid role in it, and the promotional purpose of your editing here. While Jclemens is right that a declared, paid promoter may submit a draft, you admitting that the company is virtually unknown outside your local circle, and isn't mentioned by the media, makes it clear that a draft would be a waste of your time and that of the AfC reviewer. Please heed the helpful advice left on your User Talk page by DoubleGrazing. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours. If you want to have this review closed, just say that you wish to withdraw your appeal. Owen× ☎ 12:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Can't see it, but sounds like an easy endorse. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Same. Don't even see the need for a temp undelete. SportingFlyer T·C 05:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Note that you can start a new, less-promotionally-worded draft as a COI editor without restriction and without restoring the old draft. I'm sure some admin would be willing to email a copy of the deleted draft to you if you really want... but based on what's been said about it, I am not sure that would be a positive starting point for a potential future, better version. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Speedy endorse as nom says I don’t have any sources that have written about Term Paper BD, so how can I provide sources? But our organization still exists, doesn’t it??? so no, the issues cannot be overcome and the company is not notable so restoration would be a waste of their time and the community's before it's ultimately rejected as a draft. @H.U Shadin: that your company exists is irrelevant for inclusion. Please promote it elsewhere. This is not what Wikipedia is for Star Mississippi 13:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Okay, in your word I will not promote it ( although I know I am not promoting). I will figure out I will find ways to provide information from the neutral point of view of my organization as you wanted. But how can I provide external sources??? As I mentioned a very valid reason why I don't have external sources. So what can I do in this? give me the solution H.U Shadin (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Wait until someone else completely independent of your company writes something about it and is published in a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's the short, short version of what's needed to have an article here (the long version is here); being written neutrally and non-promotionally is merely sufficient to not have your draft be deleted on sight. There's no point fixing the latter if the sources for the former don't exist - you'd just be wasting your time and ours. —Cryptic 15:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Listen to this carefully, @H.U Shadin: no one wants this article here except you and your partner. Repeated attempts to introduce it to Wikipedia will only result in you losing your editing privileges. Your company, much beloved by students, does not qualify for an encyclopedic article. But feel free to come back if the company makes it to the news - for example, coverage by Dhaka Tribune about how students got expelled for using your services may improve your chances of an article here. I also note that you still haven't added the {{Paid}} template to your userpage as instructed, which means you are now in violation of policy. I know you don't care about any of that, but you may wish to reconsider. Owen× ☎ 15:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC) What! I have to wait until some completely independent person or media writes about my organization? I’ve told you many times that my company is not well-known in the media. There is very little chance that a well-known source will write about my organization. What can I do then? Where is my fault in this? Can you specifically answer this and provide a solution, please? {{Paid}} I definitely don’t know what that is! What if I read it, understand it, and then add it to my article—will you publish it? I assume you will not. I’m asking for a solution, but you’re not giving me one. All you’re doing is pointing out what I didn’t do, or what policies I’ve violated: “You didn’t follow this policy, you violated that guideline, read this, read that.” I mean, am I in school or something? It feels like, “If you want to publish a simple article, you have to read thousands of pages of rules!” I’ve noticed that whenever I ask a question, you respond with lengthy paragraphs. Why not do this instead? I see you’re answering all my questions, maybe because there’s a rule that requires you to respond if someone asks. You clearly love following rules, right? If you’re already spending time answering these questions, why not write the article for me? After all, you know every policy inside and out. I’ll provide you with all the information you need. I can even give you my clients’ contact numbers—talk to them, and they’ll provide unbiased information. What do you say? H.U Shadin (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC) @H.U Shadin: I don't know what OwenX will say, but I'll say you should stop digging, that proverbial hole is quite deep enough already. Please go and make that paid-editing disclosure now, before you find yourself blocked. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse on the merits, btw. It's my experience that any article that uses the word "journey" as anything but a proper noun or maybe - maybe - a synonym for literal travel is going to be a G11 overall. If you're writing about someone's "educational journey", what you end up with is never an encyclopedia article. —Cryptic 15:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse - I haven't seen the deleted draft and don't need to see it. I can reasonably assume that the tone of the deleted draft and the tone of this request were similar. Reading this request indicates that the author/appellant is acting in good faith but is advertising without understanding what Wikipedia means by advertising and promotion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Comment to User:Cryptic - It appears that you are saying that a reference to an "educational journey" is marketing buzzspeak. Marketing buzzspeak should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Speedy endorse. This is a new COI editor situation, and the editor has received enough correct advice.—Alalch E. 17:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 December 2024

Controversy over Baidu (closed)

Controversy over Baidu – Deletion overturned. I will send the page to draftspace (Draft:Controversy over Baidu) for the time being, as suggested by several editors below. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Controversy over Baidu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I am a course instructor supervising students writing and translating articles here for 10+ years and this is the first time I've seen a properly translated article (with references, interlanguage links, etc.) subject to speedy deletion (under strange rationale - G10, attack page). The page in question was just a translation of criticism of Chinese company Baidu from Chinese Wikipedia (zh:对百度的争议 - wikidata:Q10956638), perfectly normal for large companies - see Category:Criticisms of companies and articles like Criticism of Google or Criticism of Starbucks. It is simply the main article for the subsection present in our article at Baidu#Controversies. Now, the name should probably be Criticism of Baidu rather Controversy over Baidu (although we also have MSNBC controversies or Controversies of Nestlé - some name standardization of entries in this category may be in order...), but there is no good reason to speedy this. If someone dislikes the page, WP:AFD could be used, but I am pretty certain the article would be kept, per numerous precedents (dozens of articles in criticism of companies category). With all due respect, whoever speedy tagged it and deleted it needs a WP:TROUT and a refresher of policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Comment. Could the page be undeleted for non-admins to review? I don't see any reason that a page about controversies related to a company would automatically be considered an attack page, but I didn't see the content of this particular page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC) If an admin could either temp undelete this or confirm it's an attack page that doesn't require undeletion, that would be fantastic. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10 I don't need to see it, I've disagreed enough with Piotrus in deletion discussions over the years to know that he knows what is and isn't an attack page, so it can go to AfD if someone disagrees. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10 assuming good faith that it is a faithful translation of the Chinese page, this shouldnt have been speedily deleted. If there are other concerns, send it to AfD and let the community decide if it should have a place here. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Now that the page is visible, which it was not at the time of writing, I do not have to make assumptions about the content. I still stand by that this was not a G10 candidate. If there are notability concerns about the coverage of the controversies as a whole, send it to AfD, however, an overview a summary of controversies in a psuedo-list is a copyediting problem rather than a notability issue. The language used is strong and literal, however, that is inherited from the phrasing of the source language, and an artifact of it being a translation of another article. To me, this means draftify for further copyediting, but an attack page it is not. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse. After reviewing the deleted page, I completely understand the action of the deleting admin. The page is not like the other "Criticism of ____" pages mentioned by the appellant. It does not attempt to place these controversies in appropriate context or treat them encyclopedically. It's just a laundry list of negative content about the company, and it appears to be based on original research as the sources presented describe individual instances, not covering Baidu-related controversies as an overall topic. (As a translation, it has several significant defects as well.) I think there's probably some room for interpretation here; another admin might have reasonably decided this didn't meet the definition of an attack page, but given what's here (content that exists primarily to disparage...its subject) a G10 is definitely within discretion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC) This matches my thinking when I tagged the page for G10, including the "another admin might disagree" bit which is why I didn't use my own admin tools to push the delete button. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse I do think that was a G10 within discretion. There are also salvageable parts, so a draft might be a good idea if it's allowed, but it shouldn't be in mainspace as is. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse per Dclemens1971 comments above. The fact it is a translation from the Chinese WP is irrelevant, the existence of an article in another language WP is not a guarantee there should be a similar article in the English WP. --John B123 (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Endorse It sure looks like the only purpose of that page was to disparage its subject. --Here2rewrite (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Comment (nom). Having read the comments above, I am sure we can remove any parts that are based on weak sources/OR if such parts are tagged, and rewrite content that is not neutral if it is likewise tagged (and feel free to be WP:BOLD and nuke stuff). I don't think this is bad enough to be WP:TNTed, however, and the topic seems notable per coverage (ex. [18]) --Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Comment (nom). I've notified WP:CHINA and WP:COMPANIES about this discussion.--Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here 03:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10. I don't think it was ready for mainspace, but I don't think this could reasonably be characterized as an attack page. The fact that it came through the translation process without sufficient encyclopedic context for EN readers is an important concern but doesn't make it speedy deletion material. I think draftification (or re-userfication) would have been a more appropriate remedy. As a professional translator and occasional Wikipedia translator, I think I understand what went sideways here. IMO Wikipedia translation is best approached as transcreation, and by the same token a faithful translation is mostly wasted effort; it's better to just use the source article as a jumping-off point so you can focus on the challenges of the target wiki-culture rather than on the challenges of the translation process. I am not here to cast aspersions on anyone who is willing to contribute such an enormous amount of necessary and important work. But much of the content of even the best translation, especially of a substantial article like this, will need to be removed or reworked before it can survive in mainspace on EN wiki. -- Visviva (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn speedy and send to AFD. It was not unreasonable to tag this for speedy deletion, or to action that tag. Absent context (and there was none provided in the article), it does seem to "exist primarily to disparage" and raises various other questions. But SD is for uncontroversial, clear deletions and this is not the case here. In particular, it seems there is content that is salvageable. So send it through normal processes to figure out what best to do. No trouting for anyone needed, just people acting reasonably (in creating, tagging, and deleting) and now needs sorting out. Martinp (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10. Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial and clear cases, which this is not. It can go to AFD if needed, but it is clear that the uncontroversialness criterion isn't met. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn speedy I can understand why it was deleted as a G10, but per Stifle, this isn't clear enough to be a speedy. It does lack needed nuance in places, but that's fixable. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10. This does not come off as "exclusively" an attack page. Individual sentences that come off as attacks can be removed via editing. Frank Anchor 17:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn. G10 doesn't exclusively cover BLPs, but the wording of WP:Attack page makes it pretty clear that they're the priority juridstiction for the criterion, implying that the bar should be very high for other pages to be deleted under it. This article is pretty bad (it's translated worse than Piotrius makes it out to be, and seems to include of WP:NOTNEWS content) but in terms of prose or sourcing or severity of allegations its no worse than other Criticism of <corp> pages. Mach61 00:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10, draftify. Seems more like NEGATIVESPIN than ATP. Rather more detail than seems necessary in many of the subheadings. The only bit that seems more like an attack that criticism of poor quality control is the final lvl2, ==Title==: there's already a critic quoted elsewhere in the prose referring to the company by the unkind pun 百毒; we could just explain it once and move on. Folly Mox (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10. I really don't see how this qualifies for WP:G10, which only applies when pages serve no other purpose than to disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity. And there is a purpose to that page—controversies surrounding a large company, like Baidu, may well be encyclopedic, just as we have Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Tesla, Inc.. The telos of this page is not to attack; even if it is a spinout of material that doesn't reflect well upon the subject, that doesn't ipso facto create an attack page when the primary aim of the page is to cover encyclopedic content. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Overturn G10. It looks like WP:NEGATIVESPIN explicitly allows this kind of article. It also looks like, as Folly Mox pointed out, G10 is aimed mainly at BLPs. A lot of this article is cruft cited to social media with no lasting significance, and those parts should be removed, but the topic is clearly notable and appropriate for the encyclopedia. Toadspike [Talk] 21:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

Rafael de Orleans e Bragança (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to know if the page can be reinstated as draft since new sources presented in the discussion were ignored. Svartner (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Endorse own close Just so we're on the same page here: This process is for contesting the closers' reading of the consensus of the discussion. It is not the closers responsibility to evaluate sources, but to gauge consensus, which I believe I did.

Your remark was there for a week without being replied to, so seemingly it was not found to be compelling by the other particpants.

Of the other comments in favor of keeping it, one made arguments not based in policy, one baldly stated that better sources exist and did not follow up on that when asked to, and one was self-identified as "weak".

Commenters supporting deleting or redirecting made more valid, policy-based arguments than those favoring keeping it, so deleting and redirecting seemed the most reasonable course of action. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

New sources were presented that were simply ignored. If the page was just redirected it could be improved in the future, but the deletion made no sense at all. And in this case, I'm just asking to make it a draft since I think it's possible to work on it in the coming months. It's quite reasonable. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you aren't asking that, as I tried to explain. You are asking to overturn the close. If you wanted it restored as a draft so you could work on it, you could've just asked me to do that for without opening a DRV and I would've done it, and none of this would be necessary. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• The AfD which runs a long time and where consensus is delete, but the very last vote is a keep !vote with sources, is always a bit difficult. At the same time there was also plenty of time to evaluate these sources, and no one bothered to. I think the close was generally fine, but the question is really whether the sources show that the consensus that GNG was not met was incorrect. These are foreign language searches about a topic I'm completely unfamiliar with, and one is paywalled, but I am not convinced this is a clear keep based on the three sources in the AfD. If it were up to me alone I'd endorse the close and draftify the page to allow more sources to be added, but I'm sure there will be others here more confident in their source analysis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  While this can be taken to a tendentious extreme, yes, a solid posting of additional sources invalidates all prior !votes on a notability basis, until and unless those editors come back to reiterate their !votes. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily agree with that - plenty of times at AfD you will see someone posting sources which don't actually meet GNG, and then you'd rely on the closer to make a source analysis, which could potentially lead to supervotes. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hence my saying solid posting, which I'm not saying this was. Some editors, Cunard and Daranios being two that come to my mind, will post what amounts to an annotated bibliography, including quotes and detailed rationales. In this case, these were untranslated bare links--a world of difference. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that the distinction you describe does exist. There was no depth to the final comments made by the appellant here, "here's some stuff I found" is not that compelling if you don't explain more clearly what it is. That fancy tool that generates an analysis table is pretty nice for this as well. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse the close, if this is an appeal of the close. The new sources were presented after two relists, and the closer had no obligation to relist a third time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Restore to Draft and allow review of draft. When the consensus at an AFD is Redirect, the article is usually Blanked and Redirected, so that the deleted article remains in the history. In this case, it was Deleted and Redirected. Is there a specific reason why it was deleted this time? I don't think that the appellant is making an unreasonable request to have the article restored in draft. They will be well advised to expand the article to summarize what the additional sources say. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Restore history to redirect, which would allow any user to create a draft from the prior version. The redirect close was correct, but I see no reason to have deleted the history as a blank and redirect would have had the same effect. None of the AFD participants made any objection to retaining page history (which is very common in a redirect and, in my opinion, the greatest benefit to having a redirect). Frank Anchor 05:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  We should really get rid of the delete-and-then-redirect as a common practice. It's great for copyvio, attack pages, or other abuse, but for run-of-the mill NN content, it's both overkill AND makes it more difficult for someone to come along and repair the deficiency later. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn to NC. Or relist. There's no good reason that after a relist, when the only editor commenting after the relist posts sources and opines keep, an admin should find a consensus to delete. Admins don't all have to defer to each other's relists, but that doesn't pass a sniff test. I've commented on other issues above, but that's the heart of the policy-based reason I find the close problematic. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse close which is consistent with the discussion. If we're going to raise issues not raised in the deletion discussion, then I will point out that this article and its companions are magnets for cross-wiki LTA. Simple wikipedia article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Spanish article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, French article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Afrikaans article created by a globally-locked sock puppet, etc. etc. All this talk about needing the page history: it's here, where it's been since the last deletion discussion. The content is insignificantly different from all the other times this content has been blanked, restored, deleted, recreated, redirected, and argued over. DrKay (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to Redirect without history deletion. There was no valid reason to delete the history, and indeed, none of the Redirect !voters suggested it. The Redirect !votes were for an alternative to deletion, not for a grave marker. If any revisions contain copyvio or attacks, those specific revs can be deleted. Owen× ☎ 11:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I felt the decision was spilt between those calling for redirecting and those calling for deletion, which is why I made the decision I did. It may not be what every other admin would have done in this case but I believe it was within the realm of admin discretion when determining consensus. I also really don't think using hyperbole like "grave marker" is helpful, or even makes sense in the case of a redirect, which is a more like a signpost if you want to use metaphors. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks to User:DrKay for providing a link to the deleted content. It seems that the deletion of the history by the closer didn't delete the history because there are two or more versions of the article with different linguistic forms of a preposition, a form of gaming a title. The appellant can copy the deleted article to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to Redirect without history deletion While a close of redirect was within the discretion of the closer, there was no reason given during the discussion that suggested the history was problematic. --Enos733 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse but restore to draft (or restore the history under the redirect, no preference). JSS' close was correct, but no reason not to allow requestor to try and improve this in draft space. That's why I lean that way vs. history restoration but either way fine. Star Mississippi 01:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to NC, or at any rate restore history, since there was plainly no support for the unusual step of delete-and-redirect. I am troubled by the closer's statement above that a lack of replies to a !vote indicates that the other participants did not find it persuasive. By that standard none of the delete !votes were persuasive either -- indeed even less so, since more time had passed. In this way and others, it seems clear that the closer took it upon themselves to pick away at the rationales for keeping without applying any comparable scrutiny, or apparently any scrutiny at all, to the rationales for deletion. Indeed the closer does not appear even to have weighed the rather obvious problem that the AFD nom failed to make a valid argument for deletion in the first place (improperly basing the claim of non-notability only on sources present in the article).
  But setting all those quibbles aside, even by the most favorable application of WP:DETCON, there was simply no consensus -- that is, reading the AFD discussion as favorably as possible to the close, the best that can be said is that both sides raised plausible arguments that were neither conclusively refuted nor found persuasive by their opponents. Looking at Svartner's sources I don't see anything that would justify rejecting them out of hand. (I can imagine that people with deeper knowledge of the subject matter might find reasons to do so, e.g. maybe these particular outlets are unreliable in this area, but nobody suggested that in the AFD.) IMO the best argument for deletion is the one raised above, that these articles are part of a larger program of promotional abuse, but that is not an argument that was raised in the discussion or considered in the close. -- Visviva (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I did not reject those sources out of hand. I didn't even look at them. That's not the closers job, I was there to read consensus, not sources. And the very first comment after the nomination does in fact mention the broader issues with this subject area, although it didn't seem to gain much traction. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 04:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Restore to draft, or (no objection to) restore history under redirect. We struggle with situations where a discussion sputters, then someone brings up potential sources, and .... crickets (i.e., silence). Did others evaluate the new sources and find them lacking? Or no one looked at them (since foreign language, or people were just tired of this discussion?). Layer on a topic area with history on wp, and I don't fault any decisions made. But sending to draft, as requested by appellant here, seems a sensible way forward. BTW, I agree with the commentary above that closers should be careful about delete-then-redirect closes. A preponderance of !votes arguing for either delete or redirect should not imply delete-and-redirect is necessarily the consensus outcome; it's quite possible many of the delete !votes merely mean "should not be a standalone article" and would not object to a redirect instead, exactly as the redirect !voters are saying. BTW, I know nothing about independence of various sources in Portuguese, but the sources provided at the end of the AFD seem not unreasonable. Martinp (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn I think NC and redirect were both valid outcomes based on the discussion. This was not. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
• Just to re-iterate what I've stated above, I was not asked to restore it as a draft before this drv was opened. If I had I would've done so. I'm pretty much always willing to do that, as are most admins, but drv shouldn't be the method for asking for it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the page should be restored to draft. The three sources presented by the appellant are weak, and likely won't survive AfC or a second AfD anyway. Your Redirect close was correct. It's the history deletion I and others here find questionable. Self-revert that deletion, and we can probably close this DRV with a broad endorsement. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not that I necessarily disagree but I'd rather let an uninvolved admin close in the usual manner. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse. It was not unreasonable to find a rough consensus to delete, and the specific "delete and redirect" outcome is just "delete" with the deleting admin noting that they are also creating a redirect (which anyone else could do). "Delete and redirect" may look unusual, but that does not matter when it's really just a "delete" close. The real "redirect" outcome as an ATD was certainly an option but it was not a requirement; I particularly lean toward not seeing it as a requirement when a BLP is concerned, and in the AfD it was said that the content is weak due to poor sourcing and that there is recycled information from articles about other people, which really makes for something I'm fine not using an ATD on. The "new sources" are bad and I don't like the idea of a draft, as no amount of drafting can make a non-notable topic notable. Still, restore to draft, per the usual practice in this situation.—Alalch E. 02:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Despite DrKay's disturbing revelations about this subject on other wikis, no serious issues have been raised about this article in this discussion yet, so deleting and redirecting was highly inappropriate. I don't particularly care what happens in this case but I am shocked to hear from JSS that they deleted and redirected simply because a few people !voted delete and a few people !voted redirect. Unless a CSD applies, delete and redirect is never a valid alternative to deletion. Never! Toadspike [Talk] 21:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• My first choice would be to relist (even though third relists are frowned upon) and ping the previous !voters; I can't see a consensus to delete when unrebutted sources are on the table, but I'm not sure no consensus would be a fair closure in this situation either. At a minimum, though, overturn to redirect—deleting the history when no one has offered a reason why is neither policy-based nor a good idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. Deleting and redirecting is not unheard of, and especially for regular targets of aristocracy fans simple redirection just makes it easier for LTA accounts to recreate the article in the future while avoiding NPP. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • For the benefit of any would-be spammers reading, articles created from redirects do go back into the NPP queue—there's no getting around it quite that easily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse. It is not the closer's fault that possibly relevant sources were offered too late in the discussion to sway consensus. The two other "keep" opinions offered no policy-based arguments, and none of the "redirect" opinions makes an argument for why the history should be retained. The "delete and redirect" closure therefore reflected rough consensus in the discussion. As ever, all are free to recreate the article if proper GNG-compliant sources are found. Sandstein 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not the job of the redirect voters to explain why the history should be retained, as that is standard practice for a redirect. However, as several people brought up already in the DRV, no voter brought up a valid reason to not retain the article history. Frank Anchor 18:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

8 November 2024

2024 Duki coal mine attack (closed)

2024 Duki coal mine attack – Closing early as the applicant has been blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet. Socks don't have standing at this venue. Per a couple of comments below, there is some level of support for allowing recreation as a draft (Draft:2024 Duki coal mine attack), and if any established good-faith editor wishes to do that, they can find the content of the article in the history behind the redirect. (non-admin closure) Daniel (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2024 Duki coal mine attack (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Firstly, AfD is not the right forum for MERGE or REDIRECT discussion. Let me also remind that it's WP:NOTAVOTE. Secondly, the over a dozen references within the article itself assert notability while fulfilling and meeting the WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:NEVENT which reads: "Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." Thirdly, at the expense of being called out for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'll still say that having articles on street brawl and stabbing incidents in the West but not one on a terrorist incident that occurred outside of an active warzone in the Global South is a pure example of WP:GEOBIAS. — Mister Banker (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Weak endorse Restore/allow recreation First, AfDs frequently result in outcomes that are short of deletion, such as merges or redirects. Second, I agree with you on the WP:GEOBIAS. However, I'm not voting to overturn for two reasons: first, consensus was generally against keeping by a 2:1 margin, and second, it's difficult to distinguish this from an event which doesn't qualify for its own page, because WP:LASTING was not clearly met. I don't think it's that far away from a keep, though, and it can be merged into the target article and spun off again if additional coverage is found. SportingFlyer T·C 00:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Where does it say that WP:LASTING is a mandatory criteria that must be met? — Mister Banker (talk) 06:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NEWS: Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. "Enduring" is often the key word in deletion discussions for articles about temporal events. SportingFlyer T·C 18:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC) I've updated to "restore/allow recreation." There's nothing wrong with the AfD, but I'm satisfied there's been enough continued coverage that this no longer fails WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Endorse. AfD a poor forum for a merge discussion, but is not the wrong forum. AfD is the right forum on whether to turn a page into a redirect. Sources can assert notability but that notability, i.e. real-world notability, is not wiki-notability. There was a rough consensus to stop the article from being live, redirecting was a valid WP:ATD, and the closer noted that the content can be merged from history.—Alalch E. 01:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC) As far as the consensus is concerned, there were 4 Keep, 2 Merge and 2 Delete !votes (excluding the nominator) before @Liz: decided to re-list the AfD discussion for the second time on 28 October. So, there was a rough consensus to Keep the article at that point in time. — Mister Banker (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Youre actually admitting there was not consensus to keep at that point. This is based on numbers and not looking into the reasoning (since AFD is not a vote). Four keep !votes and five delete/WP:ATD !votes (including the nom) is not consensus. A relist at that point was a reasonable choice. Frank Anchor 13:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Endorse. It was a poor nomination, people should not go to AfD with a vague merge proposal. And doing so is usually a train wreck. However, in this case the discussion recovered and I agree that it is a consensus to redirect. AfD is not not good for merges, but is perfectly good with redirection. Elements in the discussion were strong on the points that the article should not continue, and that there is no great ongoing need to merge anything, as the content is already at the target. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Endorse. AfD is the perfect place for redirect discussions. For poorly sourced articles that have a natural redirect target, a redirect is the best outcome. Once you discard the VAGUEWAVE !votes in this AfD, the redirect result reflects consensus well. Owen× ☎ 11:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Care to clarify how the article was poorly sourced? — Mister Banker (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC) I would gladly do so if this were AfD. But this is DRV, where we are asked to review consensus among AfD participants, not to rerun the AfD. Owen× ☎ 07:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Endorse. Many of the keep !votes were weak while the redirect/merge !votes were more based in policy. Consensus to not keep appeared to form after the final relist. Frank Anchor 15:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Question for User:Mister Banker - What is the right forum for redirect discussions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC) In my opinion, the article's talkpage. This attack has also received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, thus merits an article. (see: ANI, DAWN) — Mister Banker (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC) I personally think those articles clear the continued coverage issue, and would vote to restore. SportingFlyer T·C 18:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Endorse - Nominator's statement Where does it say that WP:LASTING is a mandatory criteria that must be met[19] makes it clear to me that they do not understand that routine events like this do not have or get enduring coverage, AFD is often the venue where the consensus for merging/redirection emerges so the closer was correct in redirecting this article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC) Speedy Endorse - Appellant has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but ... Allow Submission of Draft by a good-standing editor for review, using additional sources listed above. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
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