User talk:OwenX

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics, and sign your entry by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Thank you.

Click here to start a new topic.

Agastya Nanda

Ikkis released. The previous issue was that this film was delayed and never released. The article could be restored potentially. DareshMohan (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to start a discussion about this on the redirect's Talk page, pinging Mpen320, S0091, Jahaza, Vikram maingi, and Vanamonde93. If there's consensus to do so, Vanamonde93 or I will gladly remove the page protection, allowing for reverting to the pre-redirect version. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking back at the last AfD, the main issue was it did not meet GNG but if there are new qualifying sources, happy to take a look. So yes, @DareshMohan, please do start a discussion and provide a couple sources or so that meet GNG. And while I'm here, thank you Daresh for noticing these things and all the work you do to cover Indian cinema. S0091 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@S0091: thanks I'm not the only one who edits Indian cinema but it's nice to see my work getting appreciated. I always wonder what I would do in my free time had I not edited here although I find it odd telling non Wikipedians that I edit/or if they find out. DareshMohan (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Merge target for Transgender disenfranchisement in the United States

I was getting ready to perform the merge, but that page is a complete mess of a WP:KITCHENSINK that should realistically be pruned down to the topic of transgender rights as it relates to the United States. Merging this will just make it worse. I've just spent considerable time reading the actual literature on the topic of the subject, and it is entirely related to disenfranchisement that impacts transgender people due to intersectionality with issues of housing insecurity, sex work, minority status, socioeconomics, etc, which are all impacted by the same issues, i.e., voter ID laws. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like you have your work cut out for you, Revolving Doormat... As a first step, I would suggest just copying over a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE précis of the disenfranchisement page into a new section at the target, with all relevant sources, and BLARing the source page. Merger can then continue from behind the redirect, while you and others continue to clean up the rights page. Posting in the relevant WikiProject page will likely get you others willing to help with this cleanup. Let me know if I can help with any admin tools. I believe this page falls under WP:CT/GENSEX, so we can probably ECP the page if needed. Owen× ☎ 20:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Our days at AfD.... Thanks. I'm working on some edits while it's still its own page first, as I plan to cut the lower portion that appears to have been AI generated and attempted to be fixed. No reason to bring that baggage along. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

No kidding... On the plus side, the Merge result gives you a carte blanche to remove anything that doesn't belong there, with minimal opposition.

I really appreciate your continuing participation at AfD. Your opinions often help focus the discussion and lead to a better outcome, not to mention making my life as a closer easier. Owen× ☎ 20:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so. These become more difficult when the article clearly needs WP:TNT, but the subject matter is actually notable and could be a good article if properly sourced. I find myself wanted to vote delete on every single AI article because the mess being created feels like an avalanche of shit. In this case, there are actually good sources on the topic and maybe there's a spinoff from that article that includes various aspects of it that could work better and turn out better in the long run. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I think your assessment here is spot on. This merge provides a perfect opportunity to "TNT" the slop, keeping only what's worth keeping. And I agree, at some point, after we have a solid section about disenfranchisement at the target, it could be time to discuss a possible spinout back to a solid, well-written standalone article. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Not too shabby, if I do say so myself: Transgender rights in the United States#Disenfranchisement. Also, started a conversation on Talk:Transgender rights in the United States, but there's a couple of things I've identified that if no discussion comes about seem that they would be non-controversial. Revolving Doormat (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Good job! Your version already reads better than what we had behind the redirect. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Human-generated wins again! Revolving Doormat (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Question on an AFD you closed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello- you closed the AFD on 2025 Hammonton mid-air collision as delete. Your closing comment was "Although mid-air collisions aren't commonplace, I see consensus that their rarity does not confer inherent notability". This is arguably true, however a couple of people within the AFD discussion raised the point that more than enough sources on this specific incident exist in order to establish notability. Another suggested draftification; I was hoping that would be the outcome of this. Point is I believe the concerns in the AFD could be addressed properly. I'd like it back as a draft if that would be possible; I'd run it past other editors before it ever went back to mainspace. Thanks. Electricmemory (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and just made a new draft for it. Electricmemory (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Electricmemory,

The concern at the AfD was that sources did not establish the subject met our notability guidelines. Nothing you can do with the article itself that would address that. You and others already presented the best sources you could find on the subject, and consensus was that they aren't enough. Moving the draft into mainspace with those sources would just result in it being deleted again, regardless of how well it is written. Owen× ☎ 08:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@OwenXWith all do respect, I don't think that's true; notability was not sufficiently demonstrated with the sources in the article as it was. However, someone else in the AFD discussion presented a small list of additional sources that could absolutely be used to demonstrate enough notability. It is rather common for a previously non-notable subject to become sufficiently notable through the addition or discovery of additional relevant sources. Electricmemory (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

It's also quite common for aircraft accident articles to be vastly improved once accident reports are released to the public, which usually takes a few weeks at minimum. Electricmemory (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

So basically, you disagree with the consensus reached at the AfD, and believe your opinion, supported by one other participant, should overrule that of the community. Got it. No, I am not going to discard consensus just because you refuse to accept it. Feel free to appeal the case at WP:DRV. Owen× ☎ 15:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

No. The AFD consensus is mostly correct as it stands right now. These things can and do change. I am permitted not to agree entirely with everything stated by the Delete voters. No reason to get so agitated. Electricmemory (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

A few of the Delete voters took issue with the fact that notability doesn't seem to be demonstrated currently. That can and has changed before. Another commenter or two blantantly claimed it fails WP:GNG, which is just false. Electricmemory (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Even your own closing comment is relevant: "I see consensus that their rarity does not confer inherent notability". That does not mean notability cannot be proven through the addition and expansion of the article. Electricmemory (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A joke page from way back in 2005

Hi Owen, I'm just letting you know about [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Silly Things/Hamsteria because you closed the 2005 AFD discussion by moving the page to BJAODN. Great to read that you're still editing, and still closing AFD's to boot! Graham87 (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Question about vote rationale regarding WP:NEWLLM and/or WP:OR

Are we not supposed to be using these as part of our decision to determine if an article should be deleted? My first concern was that it may qualify for speedy deletion as it was clearly entirely generated by AI and a lot of the content didn't match what the sources said. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure, we use NEWLLM, OR and SYNTH to determine whether or not to keep an article. But if the subject itself is notable, and can be rewritten in a way that doesn't violate those policies, WP:ATD-E and WP:PRESERVE instruct us to rewrite rather than delete. With WP:Articles for deletion/Does God Exist? (2025 New Delhi debate), notability was missing and the content itself was poor, so the choice was clear. But otherwise, rewriting LLM/OR content should take precedence over TNTing it. Owen× ☎ 17:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I do understand that. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding that you didn't mean that no discussion of the content should be had. I didn't feel strongly enough about the notability to vote keep, as I felt the article so poorly represented the material that its notability was rather ambiguous. Revolving Doormat (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, thank you! Revolving Doormat (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

My pleasure! Owen× ☎ 18:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

P&G

To what does "P&G" refer here? --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:P&G. Owen× ☎ 16:25, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian–Chetnik War

I wish to revoke my vote. Can I please do that? It would be deleted either way. — Sadko (words are wind) 20:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you may not go back and retroactively remove opinions that were used in arriving at the outcome, even if you were the one who voiced those opinions. If you want, you may add a comment on the AfD's Talk page that you now retract that opinion. Owen× ☎ 21:16, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.V.L.P.S Puthenkulam,(Devaraja Vilasom L.P School)

I note that only 1 !vote was for redirect, the rest for delete. In fact, 2 of the delete !voters explicitly opposed a redirect. Would you reconsider? LibStar (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done - overturned to delete. I'm not convinced the page would have been deleted at RfD if taken there, but it's an unlikely search term, and I saw nothing worth saving in the history. Owen× ☎ 22:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you LibStar (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for Truncated triangular pyramid number

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Truncated triangular pyramid number. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

@OwenX I have added a request for the above subject on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2026_January_19

I am adding this on your talkpage as per what I understood from the "Deletion Review" process page - hope I am doing this correctly - thanks and request for your review please. Jn.mdel (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Owen× ☎ 09:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@OwenX I am not sure whether it is correct on my part to request you that the article may kindly be "temporarily undeleted" - only for DRV participants - because I feel currently the reviewers in Deletion Review are possibly giving feedback without having the opportunity to read the article content as it stood on 16-Jan - and/or also compare with new synonymous content identified for "truncated octahedral number" at wolfram mathworld - which is point no. 3 in my request for Deletion Review.

But I think it would be appropriate on my part to say here that I would not edit the article further - till a consensus emerges in Deletion Review - so that the baseline version of 16-Jan for Deletion Review is maintained unchanged - which I think is necessary for a fair process - hope I am thinking the right way here. Jn.mdel (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Temporary undeletion is sometimes requested by participants in a DRV who haven't seen the deleted page, and wish to consider its contents before forming an opinion. You, Jn.mdel, have seen the page, and none of the other participants in that DRV seems interested in its contents. I chose not to participate in this DRV, but you are welcome to post your request for temporary undeletion there. Owen× ☎ 17:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for showing direction - I will post the request on DRV forum - though I personally think that article "temporary undeletion" with no-edit restriction should have been an auto-requirement for a fair DRV process.

I respect your decision for wanting to be neutral - though other earlier participants have now started joining the discussion. Jn.mdel (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@OwenX I am currently being forced to reply one-to-many as till now the article version of 16-Jan is not available even in read-only for reviewers to read for themselves and then form opinions. And so I have added this request on DRV page too - "I respect your wish to remain neutral towards this discussion - however, I feel you should not remain aloof towards the fair requirements of an equal DRV process - meaning the reviewers here should have the chance to read the article as it stood on 16-Jan - because the DRV request is based on "significant new content" besides the "procedural review" requested as the two post-relist votes were not able to stand scrutiny."

I do not understand how as a process - one can expect the reviewers to be able to give a fair opinion on something which they have not even read - specifically when the DRV is based on "significant new content" - and thus, read-only access to deleted article for such a DRV review is a mandatory auto-must I feel. Jn.mdel (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Spirit (upcoming film)

Sorry for the edits. I am actually new to this field, so I felt a little happy when my article was circulated over the internet, but I didn't know about the rules and guidelines. It's my fault that I didn't try to read them. Once again, I am really sorry; I want to know more about this field, and I am so excited and eager to learn. I would truly appreciate your guidance and support as I move forward. Cammy 18 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

No worries! We were all new here at one point. Check out WP:Teahouse, where you'd find lots of experienced Wikipedians happy to guide you through the steps of editing articles here. There's a lot to learn, but as long as you collaborate with others here, things tend to work out well. Happy editing! Owen× ☎ 19:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you relist this AFD?

The nominator rationale and many delete and redirect voters was that it was a non-fatal crash, but there was a fatality two days before the AFD close. I provided sources but only got one response from one editor who had already voted redirected. Could you do a relisting of the AFD so there can be more evaluation of the sources?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IndiaOne_Air_Flight_102 Zaptain United (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Everything was addressed by the overall stronger non-keep votes, even after the reports of the fatality. I don’t think a relist is warranted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zaptain United,

I'm afraid Aviationwikiflight is right. Even if we ignore the off-wiki canvassing for Keeps, I see 11 valid !votes against keeping this as a standalone page, versus 3 to retain it, with the main argument on the Keep side being that someone was killed. I am usually amenable to relisting marginal AfDs to garner a clearer consensus, but this was nowhere near marginal, and relisting would be a waste of community time.

You are, however, welcome to merge content from the history behind the redirect into the target, and if warranted, start a WP:SPINOFF discussion on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 14:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 January 23. —Cryptic 04:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Your recent close

Hello, OwenX,

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roshan Shanavas as Delete. The page had been substantially improved (by me) after the last vote and given the number of D/K votes and the policy-base arguments made for retention, a relist seems to be a good way to make consensus clearer. Can you therefore please relist the discussion and invite voters to examine the newer version in your relisting comment, please?

Thank you very much. ~2026-47538-0 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

None of the movie reviews you've added as sources offers significant, in-depth coverage of the actor. The result would not change by relisting the discussion. More importantly, they were all already mentioned in the discussion 15 days before it was closed. Adding those sources to the article changed nothing in terms of notability. Owen× ☎ 06:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.

Ask yourself then: was my close neutral or is it a supervote?

I am sorry but. what are you saying is a bit disrepectful of my work and, more importantly incorrect: from what I remember, of all the 6 ( more ?) sources added, maybe 2 only -correct me- are presented in the debate. (I obvioulsy cannot check it since you deleted the page), -nor did, obviously the improvements in terms of prose made according to the guideline inviting to improve the page during afds- they were therefore not mentioned (let alone addressed by the sole voter who voted after some sources were inserted in the discussion but before other and new content were added to the article, nor by the other delete voter) when the last vote was cast.

1) They prove in a much clearly way that the actor had 3 significant roles in notable productions, which is one more than the main requirement of wp:nactor.

2) wp:basic states that ”when the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.”

Those reviews are certainly more than trivial coverage. But NACTOR does only require verifiably significant roles in notable prodcutions, anyway. You will note that the nomination and the 2 votes are just stating that NACTOR is not passed. And that that is verifiably false.

Please relist the page, as it is common practice when the 1) unclear consensus is based on only 4 votes evenly distirbuted (2/2...if we omit the nominator), 2) when arguments and evidence are not satisfyingly addressed by the majority of votes and/or 3) pages are vastly improved.

The result might very well change with a relist, absoluly, yes and you have no real reason for asserting the opposite.Thank you, ~2026-47538-0 (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but once my neutrality is questioned, the only remaining option is to take this to WP:DRV. Owen× ☎ 08:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, ~2026-47538-0 (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I have therefore asked for a deletion review of Roshan Shanavas. ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Notice

Hi, just a heads-up, there's a post at WP:REFUND#Khant (caste) that warrants your attention as the closing admin of WP:Articles for deletion/Khant (caste). Left guide (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Access to copy of The 50

Hi, can you please provide me the access to The 50 content so that i can use it for reference for creation of new draft/article supplementing it with verifiable sources. Thank you Imsaneikigai (talk) 07:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done; I moved it to your userspace at User:Imsaneikigai/The 50. Owen× ☎ 14:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

That has now ended up in the main article space, at The 50 (Hindi TV series), despite the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 50. What do you make of this, OwenX? (Sorry, too early morning for me, haven't even had my coffee yet!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, DoubleGrazing! I G4'd it as identical to the version deleted at the AfD, and SALTed the page. Owen× ☎ 12:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I'd already forgotten this (brain like a sieve!), thanks for taking care of it. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Access to copy of The 50 (Hindi TV series)

Hello, please provide me the access to The 50 (Hindi TV series) content so that i can use it for reference for creation of new draft/article with verifiable sources. This show is started from 1st feb and now updates are coming as shooting is started so it require to publish as soon. Thank you Sarthak Sai Mohapatra (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Less than a day after you moved the page to mainspace without making any improvement at all, forcing me to delete it under WP:G4? This trick only works once. Owen× ☎ 22:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not Kidding, to whom you provided the copy of the page, not made a single edit after that. You can see the edit history in which I made a lot of edits with much references as the updates are coming. Please make deletion review of this page. I move the page to mainspace that I want to public it earlier with latest update. Thank you Sarthak Sai Mohapatra (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

If the trick only work once so please suggest me how I create this page easily again. The informations in that page was lengthy and if i will make it newly it's time taking. And may be some updates are missing. Sarthak Sai Mohapatra (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Submit a well-sourced WP:STUB to WP:AFC. If accepted, I'll gladly restore the deleted history, so you can use it to expand the stub into a fleshed-out article. If, instead, you try WP:TITLEGAMING to circumvent consensus, you may end up losing your editing privileges. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Editor has now been blocked from mainspace after another attempt to recreate the article in mainspace, forgoing Owen's advice to 1) stop trying to recreate the article or 2) publishing the article through the AfC process. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Significa liberdade! Owen× ☎ 17:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Your recent close

Hello, OwenX, In your closing statement of Articles for deletion/Karagar you stated : The result was redirect to Sadika Parvin Popy. I find the arguments that the film inherits its notability from the actress to be without merit. The distinction between a movie and its actors is not "splitting hairs". Discounting those !votes, I see a clear consensus not to keep this as a standalone article, with a redirect satisfying both ATD and the main claim for notability brought up here. I am sorry but not a single !vote indicates that "the film inherits its notability from the actress". Not one. All Keep voters indicate that the film can be considered notable per the award received for the actress's performance in the film, nor by the presence of a famous actress. So why discount them? Please consider having a second look. Thank you. ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. The award was received by the actress. Just because !voters didn't use the term "inherit" doesn't change the basic claim made, namely, that the film is notable because an actress won an award playing in it. Owen× ☎ 18:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not about the term inherit. It's about award vs. actress. That is very different. You yourself said The distinction between a movie and its actors is not "splitting hairs". Well, there's also a crucial difference between a person and an award received for a performance in a given film, not for being herself. And your closing statement does not indicate at all that you found the argument "that the film is notable because an actress won an award playing in it" irrelevant but what I have quoted in my first message and which is essentially different. The guideline indicates a film can be considered notable if it received a "major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Further information on how to establish notability based on awards is listed below.aspect of filmmaking". Is acting not a part of filmmaking? And are films that received ANY major award except the best film (like, say, for Best music, cinematography, editing, director and so on) not considered notable per that specific section of the guideline? Are you really sure? If so, you might want to make sure the guideline's wording is changed to make that clear. ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome to open an RfC to amend the guideline, clarifying whether or not an acting role in a movie constitutes "an aspect of filmmaking". Owen× ☎ 19:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure but in the meantime, would you please have a second look at your closing statement and that debate? Thank you again. ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I went over it again, and I can't say it any better than CNMall41 did: Filmmaking and acting are not the same. Your wikilawyering attempt to conflate an acting role with the notability of a movie has not convinced any of the participants in the discussion who adhered to our conventional interpretation of NFILM. Sorry, the close stays in place. Owen× ☎ 20:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"My" "wikilawyering" -it's never a good sign when one needs to be offensive to defend their own actions- ....to state, as did various other users, that acting is part of filmmaking? And that the award confers notability to the [subject of the] page? And, again, despite what you said here again and in your close, no one is "conflat(ing) an acting role with the notability of a movie", which is an absurd wording. Award is the keyword. It was totally and strikingly absent of your closing statement. And what you call a "our conventional interpretation of NFILM" is not. Maybe you personally share that interpretation (you do, apparently) but that does not make it the correct reading of the guideline. ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

One thing I will add that the keep votes never pushed back on (an IP fails to address here) is that even if it is conceded that the award was for the film, that is NOT automatic notability. It is just an indicator. It still needs significant coverage and there is none (which was conceded by at least one of the !keep votes). --CNMall41 (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, the registered user is absolutely correct regarding the fact that the award does not confer "automatic" notability. Nothing does. But, as always, any SNG pass can be enough for notability on Wikipedia, regardless of GNG pass/fail. It is certainly more than an indicator. Multiple discussions have already firmly and repeatedly established that. The mere existence of SNGs is sufficient proof of it. A few users wish to have pages that meet any given SNG also meet GNG but that is a very, very restricted minority, to which the registered user apparently belongs. It's anyone's right to believe that opinion is the right one but it's not the predominant view nor what the guideline says stricto sensu. Still, that is hardly the issue in the administrator's close. (Not sure what ...never pushed back on (an IP fails to address here) is that... means but I assume a word is missing). ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

"No consensus" closes

You recently closed a couple AfD discussions I started as "no consensus". I don't disagree, I was just wondering how long(if ever) until it's appropriate to start another discussion without it begin considered rude. Thanks. –DMartin (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here! We generally follow WP:RENOM: two months after a no-consensus close, and six months after a Keep. In some cases when I close as N/C, I ask for a specific delay until renomination. Owen× ☎ 22:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Mongolia, London

You made a redirect to the wrong target (a person). LibStar (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Oops! Thank you for catching this, LibStar! Owen× ☎ 00:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Review of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicole_Junkermann_(2nd_nomination)

Hi. I would like you to review the deletion of the article about Nicole Junkermann as many new articles about her have appeared after the publication of the Epstein files:

https://in-cyprus.philenews.com/local/epstein-barak-cyprus-company-emails/

https://cyprus-mail.com/2026/02/03/epstein-complained-that-using-cyprus-to-avoid-tax-is-silly-and-dangerous

https://www.lasicilia.it/news/attualita/3016722/lady-brachetti-peretti-negli-epstein-file-cosi-aspirava-a-dargli-un-figlio.html

https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/ausland/internationale-politik/id_101114238/epstein-files-nicole-junkermann-war-seine-deutsche-vertraute.html

https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/plus6983173bd23aaa4b0d2d75ed/epstein-akten-die-brisanten-deutschland-verbindungen-zu-promis-in-medien-wirtschaft-wissenschaft.html

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2026/02/01/epstein-files-dossier-milan-elliott-email-contatti/8276260/

https://www.sabah.com.tr/trend/galeri/yasam/epstein-adasindaki-gizli-kapak-gun-yuzune-cikti-cesetler-denize-mi-atildi-dehsete-dusuren-cinayet-yazismalari/53

https://www.latestata.it/news/arte-cultura-e-spettacolo-news/epstein-e-woody-allen-visita-privata-al-museo-dorsay/

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/epstein-files-reveal-relationship-uk-billionaire-blavatnik

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/newly-released-epstein-files-reignite-scrutiny-over-network-high-profile-contacts/3821822

https://www.ontheditch.com/irish-firm-involved-in-ex-israeli-prime-minister/

https://lovinmalta.com/news/local/the-epstein-files-reveal-maltas-role-in-his-post-conviction-plans/

https://www.diariodejerez.es/jerez/Ferdinando-Brachetti-Nicole-Junkermann-Alburejos_0_1473153105.html

https://www.iltempo.it/roma-capitale/2019/03/19/news/in-vaticano-il-battesimo-dell-anno-1118997/ 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Which of those sources do you believe offers significant, in-depth coverage of Junkermann? Owen× ☎ 23:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

She is the main subject in 4 new articles and she's mentioned extensively in more than 10:

https://www.lasicilia.it/news/attualita/3016722/lady-brachetti-peretti-negli-epstein-file-cosi-aspirava-a-dargli-un-figlio.html

https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/ausland/internationale-politik/id_101114238/epstein-files-nicole-junkermann-war-seine-deutsche-vertraute.html

https://www.diariodejerez.es/jerez/Ferdinando-Brachetti-Nicole-Junkermann-Alburejos_0_1473153105.html

https://www.iltempo.it/roma-capitale/2019/03/19/news/in-vaticano-il-battesimo-dell-anno-1118997/ 8ZeitundZeit8 (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done - I restored the article, and procedurally renominated it. Feel free to present the sources you found at the AfD, or add them directly to the article. Owen× ☎ 23:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Please check

Hello Owen, can you please check for similarities between other deleted versions of Charles Odii and the current newly created "Draft:Charles Odii" (intentionally didn't link). I am investigating in re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alkherly1993/Archive. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm on the road right now, but I'll do it as soon as I'm back at my desk. Owen× ☎ 15:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Vanderwaalforces! The new draft is better fleshed out, adds the Awards and recognition section, and includes sources that weren't in the deleted version, including to reliable ones from The Nation. I didn't check if there's enough there to meet BLP or GNG, but it doesn't qualify for G4. Owen× ☎ 20:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Owen. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Always a pleasure! Owen× ☎ 20:23, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of Casino.org

Hi Owen,

I'd like to discuss your deletion of Casino.org following the deletion discussion. I had provided significant evidence and feel as though the deletion discussion was heavily biased towards a dislike of gambling vs an actual case for lack of notability. I still feel like there are significant improvements I can make to the page for a fair review. Can something be done?

Hannah Hbrennan91 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hannah,

When I closed that AfD, I knew I'd be hearing from you. I agree that the comment about "encouraging gambling" is irrelevant, and was discounted as such. But there was clear consensus that the sources you presented offered evidence that Casino.org is a reliable publication, but not that it is a notable one. There is nothing to improve with the page. The problem wasn't with how the article was written, but with its subject not meeting our notability guidelines. I'm sorry I can't offer any more help. Owen× ☎ 13:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Owen. Thanks for coming back to me.

How long would I have to find more evidence of notability before the page can not be restored? Is there a timescale there?

I'm obviously misinterpreting the notability piece and I've read the page a few times and I don't want to waste your time. I have examples where Casino.org has been referenced on New York Times, Washington Post, The Nevada Gambling Commission website, etc, that are clearly not promotional that I feel satisfies this: "Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."

Could you advise please?

Thanks, Hannah. Hbrennan91 (talk) 13:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no set waiting period for this. As soon as you find sources that provide significant, in-depth coverage of the subject, you can submit a fresh WP:DRAFT to WP:AfC for review. Once approved, the draft will be moved to the main article space. It could still be subject to another AfD, but the reviewer approval will put you at a better standing. These reviewers are also better than I am at explaining the intricacies of our notability guidelines, and can help you through the process. Note that the AfC process is voluntary, but if you try to skip it, your odds of surviving another AfD are substantially lower, and may result in the page being WP:SALTed to prevent recreation attempts. Owen× ☎ 14:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

No consensus

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/André M. Levesque, I don't disagree with that closure necessarily but I think the nature of the arguments (!keeps and !deletes) changed a lot over time. It might be worth relisting for one more week to get a firmer consensus on the final debate: whether notability for AfD can be accumulated through lower level knighthoods.

If I renommed it in a few months, there's no guarantee the same editors would be able to participate. OrangeWaylon (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

If anything, it was trending towards Keep, with over three times as many participants after the 9-Feb relist arguing for Keep than for Delete. I suspect many (most?) closers would have closed it as Keep, not N/C. If you believe it should be deleted, your odds of success are far better with a fresh AfD two months from now than with this one being relisted. But if you still want me to, I'll be happy to relist it. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair, I get tunnel vision when I think I see something out of place. Take it easy! OrangeWaylon (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

No problem. Always good to bounce ideas off someone else. Owen× ☎ 02:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Seeking advice

In the recent deletion review for Manish Kejriwal, you said "I'm also puzzled by the admin's demand this be brought to DRV. There is no policy requirement to submit to DRV a rewritten article that was previously deleted at AfD. WP:DRVNOT #2 makes that very clear." I honestly thought deletion review was exactly for situations like this, per WP:DRVPURPOSE #2 which states it can be used "if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed." To me, it was essentially the same article as before except that a number of questionable citations that seemed to be WP:REFSPAM had been added. The article's editor thought it was rewritten sufficiently, I thought it wasn't, so wouldn't that be when to go to DRV? --SouthernNights (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for quickly resolving this DRV, SouthernNights! Yes, DRV is the correct venue for appealing speedy deletions. But your comment to HibaShaikh sounded like you acknowledged that they created a new, expended version of the article, and needed DRV to have it accepted, which isn't the case.

I think we've all been there. A previously deleted article is recreated, REFBOMBed, and our first instinct is to speedy it and save us all a pointless AfD. However, for good or for bad, G4 has been tightened over the years, and now we can use it only for substantially identical copies of the AfD'd page.

I agree with you that the editor is wrong in claiming that this was rewritten sufficiently to pass our guidelines, but it was rewritten, and is no longer substantially identical. Yes, this is more than likely a waste of time in our case, but this needs to go through AfD--again. Owen× ☎ 14:29, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you sharing all this, in particular how G4 has been tightened. I've been an admin for a long time but the last couple of years my levels of editing and admin work were relatively low. I'm now getting back into the swing of things and your feedback will help me do better on speedy delete. Best, SouthernNights (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

My pleasure. You and I got sysopped literally days apart, back in October 2005, when you were still going by "Alabamaboy". And like you, I went through a very long period of limited admin activity, and had to re-learn our common practices when I got back into the swing of things a couple of years ago. You're right - twenty years ago, we had a lot more leeway in what we could speedy, with G4 being the main tool to enforce AfD results. For better or worse, things are more stringently regulated these days. Owen× ☎ 16:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I remember that and appreciate the kind words. And you are absolutely correct about having to relearn common practices. And on a side note, I now feel so old! I was trying to remember how long I'd been an admin and it didn't click until now that it's been 20 years! My face if currently doing Edvard Munch's The Scream. Anyway, if there's ever anything I can assist with, just let me know. SouthernNights (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Deleted page question

Hi! I was suggested to ask you about this by an editor here [1] A draft or my user space would sufficient. I do not need an DRV to change your closure, because I have no issues with your closing. What do you recommend?

As you can see, I made a interesting analysis of over 14 pages that were draftified. I would like to review this one, as it seems to be involved in multiple problematic discussions. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#c-Mainecoon1111-20260221202600-User:MightyRanger and WP:BITE

It was not a redirect and I cannot see the history. Article in question: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skild AI

I was called a sock puppet by mistake in connection to page I made, so I am interested. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Julien Casey Mainecoon1111 (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here, Mainecoon1111. I'm not sure what you mean by "review". Is your goal to ultimately have this published as an article here? If so, you'll need to find sources that establish the notability of the company. At the AN/I, you said, it seems there are many sources available. If that's the case, you should have no problem submitting a well-cited one-paragraph WP:STUB with the three best sources you found. If accepted by WP:AfC, ping me to undelete the history, so that you can use the content of the deleted version to improve the new one. If the sources you found are insufficient to establish notability, this is all an exercise in futility.

If, on the other hand, your goal is to build a case against User:MightyRanger, then I don't see how reviewing the deleted article would help in any way, and the issue should be decided at AN/I anyway. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@OwenX Oh, no, you can see that I am not building a case against MightyRanger. My review suggested that 10 out of 14 pages were unsuitable for Wikipedia, and all 14 likely do have some form of COI/UPE. I was 100% against the mass revert that the anonymous complaint suggested. The anonymous complaints called for a mass revert and a “massive review” of edits made by MightyRanger, so I conducted the much demanded review myself. (including detailed evidence on 14 pages)

Regarding the article on Skild AI, it appears to have been purposefully excluded from the anonymous complaint for some reason. I can only see the source assessment, but I cannot view the article itself since it has been deleted. Since most of the complaints concern this article, reviewing it made sense to me. I did not want to bother requesting the deletion review, but I wanted to ask about the possibility of userfication. Whatever you suggest. Mainecoon1111 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I see. If the only purpose is to serve as evidence at the AN/I, then I will leave this for whoever handles the AN/I. We generally do not userfy pages just to help in a case concerning user conduct, but any admin at the AN/I is welcome to override this decision. If you do decide to revive the article for encyclopedic reasons, please follow the route I outlined above. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 20:03, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@OwenX Got it! Thanks! I don’t really have time to create the article, I mostly edit existing ones. But for what it’s worth, I’ll save it on my talk page along with your suggestions in case I do feel like it should be revived. I feel like there might be some notability. Mainecoon1111 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• OwenX: FYI that User:Mainecoon1111 turned out to be a sockpuppet of WestwoodHights573 and has been blocked.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zvi Yaakov Oppenheim

What makes the merge argument strong enough to have consensus, and how would merging his biography be WP:DUE? Jahaza's argument was "Probably is notable, but in the absence of sufficient sourcing, merge to Telz Yeshiva, of which he was one of the founders" -- and I presented sources which he did not respond to. Bearian offered no reason at all to merge, Kelob2678 offered a NOPAGE argument which I rebutted, while 4meter4's argument hinged on it being poorly sourced, which I addressed, and then he did not have any reply to my ping about it. Could this perhaps be relisted? I added a few decent sources to the article and there was virtually no discussion of it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

So, as usual, you want the closer to discard everyone's opinion except your own.

Nota bene: no one owes you a rebuttal at an AfD. Having the last word does not mean you "win" the debate. Four highly experienced participants disagreed with you. None agreed with you. You don't get a veto. Owen× ☎ 18:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Look, two editors never responded to my sources, and one of them even said the article was probably notable and that it should be kept if any sources could be found (which happened). Kelob was a VAGUEWAVE that offered no explanation at all, as was Bearian. 4meter4's argument was This has been unsourced for 20 years, and tagged for sourcing problems for 17 years. That demonstrates longterm problems which are not likely to be easily solved, which is exactly what WP:BURDEN and WP:NOPAGE are getting at. If this weren't a longstanding article I might agree, but it has been two decades. Time to verify this or cover it elsewhere – and so I verified it, pinged him about it, and he never replied. And how would merging be DUE? No one was able to come up with an explanation for that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Once again: no one is obliged to respond to each and every one of your comments or questions at an AfD.

DRV is that-a-way. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I would have closed this exactly the same way. Whether we maintain a standalone page has more to do with the quantum of information available than the number of sources, and there was clear engagement with and consensus on that matter. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jahaza and Bearian: Do you both still oppose the retaining of this article, given that sources were found and added? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I really need to be pinged like that; I follow hundreds of articles and discussions. I'm fine either way (merge or keep) as long as the sources are there. A merger is an editorial decision, not a deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gigamon

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gigamon. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TechmanTom78 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not involved

please read the policy before casting opinions around that I have acted against policy. You are welcome to disagree with my approach but it's fundamentally wrong to accuse me of acting with unclean hands Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Your closing comment for the second AfD made it clear it was based on the opinion you formed when closing the first AfD. The two discussions were not closed independently, which they likely would have if a fresh admin closed the second one.

The first thing I do before closing an AfD is make sure I didn't close any of its previous incarnations, so as to avoid any possible appearance of a systematic bias, and to let participants feel they got a fresh shot at the topic. I agree that your situation isn't the same as closing a DRV about an AfD you closed. But still, one week after closing the previous AfD? Policy or not, you don't see anything unsavoury in not letting a different admin take a fresh look?

Your closing statement for AfD #2 sounds like you felt people were trying to get around your previous close, and you took it personally. Once you take something personally, you are no longer uninvolved. I never said "unclean hands", and I have no doubt you acted in good faith. But there is at last an appearance of a bias here, which needlessly complicates an already loaded situation. Owen× ☎ 18:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

If you don't have a problem with the second AFD then the problem is actually you too Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You do know by the way that I closed the first AFD as keep and that was aligned with the second discussion. In what way would I be upset by the direction of travel. Please explain how I'm involved by policy? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking whether I have a problem with the nomination of the second AfD? I think it could have been worded better, but otherwise I see no problem with it. It was a procedural nomination to allow the original discussion to continue, unimpeded by socks. Your speedy close of it prevented that, with no valid reason. The three "speedy keep" votes should have been discarded, and real discussion allowed to proceed. And then closed by someone who doesn't feel the nomination is a personal affront to him.

Not sure what you mean by the problem being me. I didn't take part in either of the two AfDs. Owen× ☎ 18:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)