Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 January 7}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 7}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 January 7|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

6 January 2025

STONEX India

STONEX India (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It seems a bit too early to close this discussion, especially when three relatively new editors, who may not be fully familiar with the notability guidelines, have voted to keep the article with very vague rationales - "plenty reliable sources are present", "added two books that provide significant coverage." (which do not actually provide significant coverage), and "I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping the page on Wikipedia." While I suspect UPE activity, that is a matter for another day. Requesting a re-list of this discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Relist - doesn't seem an appropriate close for a non-admin. Seems to me there are legitimate questions about the sources on the page and whether appropriate sources exist to meet the notability standards. JMWt (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Relist. This is a bad NAC.—Alalch E. 20:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Relist can be speedily overturned by an admin. SportingFlyer T·C 22:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Relist, not so much as a bad non-admin close, as a mistaken close. An admin also should have relisted. I have no opinion on the merits of the article because I have not assessed the sources or viewed a source assessment table.With new sources added late in the first week of discussion, the closer should have relisted to allow for comment with the added sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Relist This is not a WP:BADNAC, but comments supporting a keep position are not well articulated per nom. A relist would be a much stronger action at this point in the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment If any admin is interested before I take this to SPI, here is another instance of the closer being involved in a very very similar AfD with three vague votes from new editors(all blocked for advertising now). Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 21 / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connecteam Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• It stinks By the numbers, the close is right. On a cursory inspection, the edit history of 2 of the 3 keep !voters is concerning to me and does not appear consistent with a normal editing trajectory. I endorse all appropriate investigation referrals. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Mink (manga) (closed)

Mink (manga) – Appears to be resolved. Lullabying, please reopen the DRV if that is not the case. Sandstein 12:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mink (manga) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mink (manga) shows that the article was deleted in 2009 due to lack of sources establishing notability. I have since found some sources for the article, such as reviews from Anime News Network (1, 2) and Da Vinci (1). I have also found an old interview from 2000 from the creator of the series here. I have done a full rewrite as a draft. The admin who deleted the article has not been active since May 2024 and the person who nominated the article for deletion is no longer active on Wikipedia since 2010. lullabying (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC) You don't need our permission. We can show you the old version if you want; it was mostly a plot overview, but the lead and infobox might be useful. —Cryptic 03:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Oh! So I can go ahead and recreate the article, correct? I just wanted to make sure. I actually rewrote the entire infobox, lead, and plot in my draft, but I will still check. Thank you! lullabying (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC) That's correct. I've userfied the old article to User:Lullabying/Mink (manga); I was just going to email the last version to you, but it turns out there's some longer ones in the history. Please tag it {{db-u1}} when you're done. —Cryptic 04:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 January 2025

Donald President – Procedural close: No reason given for close challenge. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Donald President (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Consensus has been reached, but could use review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2025 2601:483:400:1cd0:a1a4:fd62:9508:f4eb (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 January (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 January 2025

Raegan Revord (closed)

Raegan Revord – I relisted it as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity per WP:NACD. Owen× ☎ 16:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Raegan Revord (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) While I'm suspecting that the result of closure will not be changed, I'm asking that an admin review the closure, as its the manner is troubling in two ways. This was a non-admin closure on a discussion that was not uncontentious, with, in addition to the original deletion request, my !vote for delete and Gråbergs Gråa Sång, who did not !vote, arguing that the article did not meet WP:GNG The closure explanation begins "I would say that judging by the votes below, she just about passes the notability criteria." which suggests that the closer was treating it as an actual vote and that they feel that the arguments paint the subject as not actually passing the notability criteria, which suggests a misunderstanding of "consensus". Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC) Overturn and Relist - This was a possibly contentious closure by a non-admin. After one week, a relist was reasonable, and the closer's statement is a little too much like a vote or a supervote. I see no need to vacate the close and let an admin close it when we, Deletion Review, can decide that it should be relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Fulbright Scholars

Category:Fulbright Scholars (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion page shows a problem. The reasoning given for deleting this category was that it's nondefining for a scholar--that if they receive this, they're already alumni of the school that awarded it. See https://fulbrightscholars.org/ for Scholar and Distinguished Scholar awards, and https://us.fulbrightonline.org/fulbright-us-student-program for the studentships that the original nominators for this category deletion confused for the Fulbright Scholar Award.

A Fulbright Scholar Award or Distinguished Scholar Award goes to senior academics and practitioners, and is career-defining--the kind of thing that goes in one's obituary. It is not the same thing as a Fulbright studentship which is scholarship money awarded to grad students who would be listed as alumni of a given school. While a scholarship would typically be money granted to a grad student and a fellowship would be for senior academics, it's the opposite here. Typical Fulbright Scholars include James Galbraith, Donald Regan, Robert Rotberg, etc.

There is already a partial of notable Fulbright Scholars but it's serving as a backdoor to this now-missing category. The Fulbright Program page includes it, along with a clear distinction between the two main categories of Scholar grants and Student grants.

Fulbright Study/Research Fellows or Students (those younger grad students the original deleters of this category were speaking of) typically would not have Wikipedia pages or be notable yet. Some extremely notable Fulbright Scholars and Distinguished Scholars don't appear on that page, such as Richard Rosecrance, John Lewis Gaddis, Shaun Gabbidon, Alejandro de la Fuente, and so forth. This list should also include the incomplete list found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fulbright_Distinguished_Chairs.

It would be a service to this wiki to include Fulbright Scholars and Fulbright Distinguished Scholars via category rather using the original name of "Category:Fulbright Scholars" than in the scattershot way of hoping someone had listed them under the notables on the original page.

RubyEmpress (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. The close correctly reflected unanimous agreement at the CfD. The appellant says that some Distinguished Scholar Award recipients are notable. This is true, but does not contradict the claim that most award recipients are not notable, and that the award itself is non-defining. In fact, of the three examples of "Typical Fulbright Scholars" examples she gives, none mention the award. The appellant has not presented significant new information per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. This is just another kick at the can. Owen× ☎ 08:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow deletion process. It is not a venue for re-arguing the deletion discussion because it did not go your way. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Question - Are deletions of categories different from deletions of articles as to when they can be reviewed? Are deletions of categories effective for five years or ten years or forever rather than six months? Is that why need a Deletion Review? Or is there some way that Consensus Can Change? Are we really locked in to a three-year-old decision? Is taking another look at a three-year-old decision really another kick at the can?Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  The lapse of time itself is irrelevant, if no significant new information is presented. This appeal only claims that the CfD participants erred in their assessment, which isn't a valid DRV claim, not to mention that she hasn't even established the veracity of that claim. Based on the argument she presents here, there is no more of a case for keeping that category today than there was when it was deleted three years ago. Owen× ☎ 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Question - Is this an appeal to overturn a three-year-old deletion decision, or is this a request to create a new category three years after the category was deleted? This appears to be a request to create a new category three years after the deletion. Do we need Deletion Review for the purpose? Can the appellant just do it? Is DRV unnecessary? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse It's difficult to endorse an old discussion with only three participants, so I'm treating this DRV more like a new CfD because I'm not sure what else to do - but I do agree it's non-defining especially per Owenx and that it would be deleted again if it were re-created for the same reason it was deleted before. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment This isn't policy but for practical purposes, I've found that CFD decisions are considered valid forever. Unlike article deletions which have a Draft space where editors can work on improving the content of a recreated article, that possibility doesn't exist for categories. I've seen categories CSD G4'd from decisions that occurred years and years ago. I'm not a frequent participant there any longer but my perception is that CFD decisions are rarely reviewed and reassessed. I would like this to change because CFD decisions are usually determined by a very small number of editors and shouldn't last forever but I'm not sure that if this discussion would be setting any precendent for the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Yeah. In my experience, G4 is enforced far more strictly and for far longer for CFD than for any other deletion venue. (I'm reminded in particular of my exchange with Pppery at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 28#Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nuis.) —Cryptic 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it should change. G4 should apply indefinitely, and recreation should be allowed via DRV provided some new fact, and changes of the PAG landscape, of recent practices, examples of other categories kept at CfD in the meantime can also be significant new facts. —Alalch E. 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Liz that there needs to be an appropriate venue to review CfD discussions, but Alalch E.'s comment highlights the problems with using DRV to do so: Everyone's opining "nothing has changed" which may be true, but does not consider "was this even the right decision in the first place?" Three people opined, and the closer and some other number of people looked at it and didn't participate. That doesn't seem to be enough discussion to make a category G4-able forever since, unlike articles, categories cannot be changed to be not substantially similar to what was previously deleted. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. Everything the DRV nom states was the same at the time of the 2021 CfD, so there are no new facts based on which to allow recreation consistent with WP:DRVPURPOSE#3.—Alalch E. 17:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse as a correct reading of consensus. I feel the same way I did in the DRV Cryptic linked: "I'm sympathetic to the argument that editors should be able to 'test' an old consensus every once in a while (along the lines of WP:CCC), but in this case it's very clear to me that a new CfD will lead to the same result, so I think !voting to [allow recreation] would be an exercise in futility." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• No Opinion at this time. The idea that category deletions last forever makes things problematic. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)