Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
 |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
- if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions include creation protection and title blacklisting.
Deletion review should not be used:
- to request undeletion of a page deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion. Place such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
- creation protection – request removal of the protection from the protecting administrator or, if the administrator is unavailable or non-responsive, request at Wikipedia:Requests for page unprotection.
- title blacklisting – file a delisting request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist.
- 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);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- to request that copyright violations, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content be restored.
Instructions
Steps to list a new deletion review
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. - Be aware that requests which appear to be written by large-language models will normally be summarily denied. Write in your own words.
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
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.
The usage of large language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{temporarily undeleted}} 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, 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.)
Early closes
- An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as if it were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
- Where the deletion discussion has reopened or changed, either by the closer of the deletion discussion or by an uninvolved administrator who has vacated a procedurally invalid non-administrative close,[a] and nobody has endorsed. In this case, the deletion review may be speedily closed as overturned or relisted as appropriate. The closer should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV has withdrawn their nomination, and no one has recommended any outcome but endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so for them).
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion acknowledges that their close was wrong, and no one has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Discussions may be closed without result if they are entirely disruptive. (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, repeated nominations of the same page, a large language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".
- ^ Challenges regarding whether a non-admin closure was contentious or correctly assessed consensus should be addressed through Deletion Review.
This user is an extremely active LTA, having been WMF banned just a week ago. Not all of their socks use obvios usernames such as "Astro is banned", given that their modus operandi also involves creating sleepers that are sometimes only revealed in range checks from their SPI. The fact that Astrawiki3203 seems to want this LTA page means next-to-nothing- Grawp also wanted his LTA page, but it was found that does not mean that WP:DENY overrules all the reasons to have a subpage for an active LTA- not only that, but users that got their LTA subpages deleted due to WP:DENY, such as Johnny the Vandal and Willy on Wheels have sometimes become even MORE prolific, due to the Streisand Effect and the inherent infamy in a user becoming so annoying that Wikipedia tries to remove any trace of their existence. In solidarity, PokemonPerson (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- What are you asking for? The page was deleted G5 as created by banned user and then create protected. Are you asking for it to be undeleted? That doesn't align with your nomination so I'm confuzzled. Spartaz Humbug! 04:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. (1) From the information available to me, this would appear to be a valid G5 that should certainly not be overturned. (2) Making a page exist again after a previous, G5-eligible page at that name was deleted never requires overturning the G5, and if undeletion is sought, as opposed to recreation, the question is always—why. (3) The nominator did not talk with the deleting admin. (4) LTA pages should not be treated as any other page and should not be brought to general forums including DRV; instead, the status of these pages should always be discussed more "internally", among the users who work with those pages the most, and only if there is some serious dispute concerning the deletion policy should such pages be brought up for discussion.—Alalch E. 09:25, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Valid use of the deletion criteria, and I cannot ascertain an argument here for why it shouldn't have. This absolutely did not need to rise to the level of DRV, at no point was this discussed (or even notified properly) by the filer on the deleting admin's talk page. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse This is a clear G5. – LuniZunie(talk) 15:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse - Deletion rationale was clearly correct and I see no good reason for that page to be retained from the time of its creation. ~SG5536B 15:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
2026 Open Araba en Femenino (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
There was no clear consensus to keep here. Essentially, we can presume that the nominator is still in favour of deletion, since they never withdrew. The one 'keep' argument cited a Wiki Project guideline page, which itself says This is a WikiProject advice page on notability. It contains the advice of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest. This page is not a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. In my opinion, citing this as a sole reason to keep an article is a very weak argument. There were no other editors in favour of keeping at all. The AfD was closed by a non-admin with little experience in closing AfDs. It may even have been a WP:SUPERVOTE rather than a proper neutral close, in which case they should have registered a keep !vote instead of closing the discussion. I would prefer for this close to be vacated and the discussion reopened. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:21, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Deleted in January 2021 due to lack of notability. Since the deletion, a variety of sources cropped up. Here's a list of the reliable ones that I've found (per WP:VG/S):
Please undelete and draftify the page. Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 15:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article Cornel Stan. Please excuse if my English is not perfect, as it is not my native language.
I believe the deletion discussion was closed improperly and the closing administrator (Cactus Writer) did not correctly evaluate the arguments. The discussion was highly focused on statistical metrics like the h-index, which does not reflect the full real-world impact of a German professor in engineering, where practical cooperation with the automotive industry and specialized book publications are often more important than pure citation scores.
The deleted page was not up to date. Important recent achievements were completely missing. For example, his latest book "Energy Scenarios for the Future" (Springer, 2025) was not even listed (https://www.springerprofessional.de/energy-scenarios-for-the-future/27420642). Professor Stan's specialized textbooks have a massive international reach and are held by some of the most popular academic institutions worldwide, including the US Library of Congress, the Princeton University Library, and the University of Sydney Library. Additionally Prof. Stan was for example President of Scientific & Technical Committee of following International Congres: https://siarcongress.eu/index.php/amma/2025
I kindly ask to restore the article so it can be improved with better independent sources, or at least to allow a relocation to the Draft space (Draft:Cornel Stan) so I can work on it properly. Thank you for your time and understanding. Thermodynamics01 (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse and
SALTECP. I see one participant arguing for retention, and four against it. All arguments are based on guidelines. How exactly is the appellant suggesting the closer should have evaluated these arguments to reach an outcome other than Delete? The SPA (and possibly COI) appellant has ignored AfC before, and based on the tendentious presentation here, will likely do so again given a chance. I oppose draftification. Owen× ☎ 10:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)- @OwenX, I was typing my comment below as you posted yours. Salting and opposing draftification seems excessive to me. Making sure you noted timestamps - the article does seem to have not passed AfC per appellant's user talk page, but that was 5 years ago. After being moved to mainspace, it was marked patrolled there and sat there until now. Martinp (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Martinp: Considering the appellant's single-purpose history and their tendentious, borderline dishonest presentation here, I see no reason to assume they will abide by AfC any more than they did five years ago. The appellant is not here to build an encyclopedia. They're here to promote Prof. Stan. If an experienced, non-SPA, non-COI editor offered to work on the draft, I'd be more than happy to follow your recommended course of action. Owen× ☎ 10:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Salting is entirely unwarranted as a first response to a reasonable objection, even if unsuccessful, even if by a SPA, to an AfD not going the way the appellant wanted. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- @OwenX, I was typing my comment below as you posted yours. Salting and opposing draftification seems excessive to me. Making sure you noted timestamps - the article does seem to have not passed AfC per appellant's user talk page, but that was 5 years ago. After being moved to mainspace, it was marked patrolled there and sat there until now. Martinp (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse delete close, but restore to draft. Close was only reasonable read of the discussion, which failed to find sufficient evidence of notability. The appellant's additional sources aren't at first glance persuasive (publication of a book, even a notable book--which is not clear in this instance--is not enough for its author to be notable, nor is an organizing role for an international conference) enough to overturn that conclusion based on new sources. That said, I see no reason why not to refund to draft and let someone improve it and try to make a better case for inclusion into mainspace. A gentle reminder to the appellant, who is new to en.wiki, that we do have conflict of interest policies. Should they have a conflict of interest, for instance as a friend or close professional collaborator of the subject, or employee of the subject's institution(s), they need to disclose and should work on the article in draftspace anyway. Martinp (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Noting I misread timestamps, and not that new. If there is a COI, draftspace/AFC is mandatory. That said, reaffirm that I have no objections to draftification. Martinp (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Reviewing since the discussion is still live week later. I stand by my earlier recommendation: endorse delete close, restore to draft as requested, remind appellant of COI guidelines. Do not salt; have no opinion on ECP. Martinp (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
- Noting I misread timestamps, and not that new. If there is a COI, draftspace/AFC is mandatory. That said, reaffirm that I have no objections to draftification. Martinp (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. The new information is not significant, and draft work cannot make a non-notable subject notable. The reasons for deletion cannot be overcome by changing/adding something in a draft based on the information available in the AfD and this DRV.—Alalch E. 10:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse I don't see why (at this momement), the article needs to be salted. I do agree that the sourced provided by the appellant are far from persuasive that an article should be recreated. Publication of textbooks and committee work are not reasons for a stand-alone page, we want to see independent book reviews (multiple) and independent news coverage of committee work where coverage of the work is significant and in-depth. Editors in the discussion suggested that the subject was not close to meeting NSCHOLAR, so we will need to see how the subject meets GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse clear consensus to delete, and I do not see significant information here that would impact the subject's notability to even suggest restoring the deleted version to draft. I oppose salting at this time. Frank Anchor 15:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus or relist Neither the nominator nor the 3 delete !voters made strong arguments. Specifically, 2 of 3 cited h-index, which is specifically NOT an NPROF criterion:
Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others.
At the very least, restoration to draft is appropriate, since credible arguments are made that the article as discussed was less than the best possible portrayal of this individual's career. Jclemens (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC) - Endorse as the only possible reading of consensus. The appellant says that
the closing administrator (Cactus Writer) did not correctly evaluate the arguments.
. The closing administrator was not responsible for evaluating the sources, or the arguments by the participants, because DRV is not AFD Round 2. The closing administrator did assess the consensus, which was to Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)- There are different amounts of sodium chloride. Admin protection is usually the wrong answer. It creates busywork either for an unprotecting administrator or for DRV.It also encourages misspelling of the name, and the use of unnecessary disambiguators. Extended-confirmed protection, which permits a draft to be accepted by a neutral reviewer, is sometimes useful. Is it necessary in this case? In my opinion, only if the deleted article is restored to draft space. It isn't clear whether OwenX is recommending full protection or ECP protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Fair point, Robert. I guess ECP would be enough in this case to prevent another ill-advised skipping of AfC. Owen× ☎ 21:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- There are different amounts of sodium chloride. Admin protection is usually the wrong answer. It creates busywork either for an unprotecting administrator or for DRV.It also encourages misspelling of the name, and the use of unnecessary disambiguators. Extended-confirmed protection, which permits a draft to be accepted by a neutral reviewer, is sometimes useful. Is it necessary in this case? In my opinion, only if the deleted article is restored to draft space. It isn't clear whether OwenX is recommending full protection or ECP protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse the AfD, properly run and fair. Draftify so that Thermodynamics01 (talk · contribs) and others can work on it. Use WP:AfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- While it could have been closed defensibly as “no consensus”, I think it was better much closed as it was, as a good rough consensus reading by the admin closer. Admins are charged with calling a rough consensus because endless discussions are costly. I don’t agree that the delete !votes were “horrible”, but two of them cited my heavily disputed WT:PROF suggestion that no one with an H-index under 20 can be considered to pass WP:PROF (but feel free to try passing the WP:GNG). SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- week endorse and Draftify. I think this could easily have been closed as "relist" or "NC"--the delete !votes are horrible. That said, the discussion under the keep !vote is enough for me to buy we reached the right outcome. But I think allowing a draft is fine though I'm not seeing the subject as over the bar set by WP:PROF or WP:N. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Only reasonable close Katzrockso (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
Appellant relitigating AfD
|
|---|
WP:PROF Criterion 5 (Distinguished Chair): He held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution (Westsächsische Hochschule Zwickau): https://www.whz.de/kft/organisation/institut-fuer-kraftfahrzeugtechnik/ehemalige-professoren/stan-cornel/ Academic Impact & Circular Reference: His academic work is foundational enough that English Wikipedia itself relies on his textbooks as a core source in the bibliography of major engineering articles, such as Mixed/dual cycle. Reliable Sources (Non-English): While much of the comprehensive biographical coverage is in German and Romanian, high-quality academic profiles exist that detail his career in English (e.g., pages 1–3 here): https://www.ingineria-automobilului.ro/reviste/Ingineria_23_en.pdf Support from other editors: As noted by Martinp during the discussion, the article stood unchallenged for nearly a decade. Furthermore, Jclemens rightly stated: "At the very least, restoration to draft is appropriate, since credible arguments are made that the article as discussed was less than the best possible portrayal of this individual's career." Given this significant, previously unconsidered evidence regarding WP:PROF, I kindly ask the closing administrator to reconsider, or at least allow a draft move to let us update the article with these strong sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thermodynamics01 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 21 July 2026 (UTC) |
- Weak endorse concur with points above that delete !votes were very weak (assessing the misapplication of guidelines or policy is inevitably part of a closer's ambit) - but the keep !vote was fully refuted. Support draft space resurrection and ECP. (Feel free to uncollapse the above if anyone disagrees with me doing so). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
This article passes WP:NCORP and there was no consensus to redirect. Keep votes outnumbered redirect votes but were dismissed by the closer for being "less grounded in policy"
despite being "valid and logical"
.
Two redirect votes claimed the article lacked in-depth and independent sources, which is false when you look at the article. None of the sources are affiliated with the company, and plenty of them contained significant coverage. G13 vs G14 (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Weak endorse. There is a 3-3 split between retaining and not retaining the article, but AFD is not a headcount. The keep voters asserted a pass of GNG/NCORP without presenting sources to back up their claim, while the nom and redirect votes provided more P&G-based depth. Frank Anchor 16:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus. I agree with Frank Anchor that the bare claims of passing NCORP carry little if any weight in the face of critical source analysis. However, Nathannah readily admits that
The entity passes NCORP
, weakening her own Redirect !vote. Despite the popularity of WP:TNT, there is no policy support for deletion as means of improving a poorly written article that isn't subject to CSD. Phrases such as,WP:TNT is needed
are contradictory to policies like WP:ATD-E and WP:EP. This leaves us with a solid nom, and HighKing's Redirect, both well anchored in P&G, but not enough for a consensus to do anything in the face of multiple objections. This wasn't an easy AfD to close, and I applaud Gommeh for doing a thorough job of weighing the different arguments. I wouldn't call this a BADNAC. I'm sure there are many admins who would have closed it the same way. Owen× ☎ 17:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC) - No opinion here; I am ok with whatever happens here, but
I do stand by my decisionAFD is not a headcount (there's a reason why when speaking, you're supposed to pronounce "!vote" as "not-vote"). In my eyes, the redirect !votes carried more weight in terms of consensus. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 18:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC) - Endorse. I think Nathannah's comment is not contrary to policy and should be given some weight. If nothing currently in the article is appropriate content then redirection is a valid editorial decision even if a full rewrite is possible. Also no user who asserted that NCORP was met identified which sources met the criterion. Redirect is a better read of the discussion than No Consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse I suspect if an actual admin had closed this then there would be less dispute and this is a challenging afd to close. I don't see anything fundamentally off with it so would endorse as in discretion but would suggest to the closer to leave ones like this to an ain as after all, we get the big bucks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus. I commented in the discussion but did not vote, IDK if that makes me involved or not. The votes for redirect did not explain how it failed NCORP except asserting that it did, and it was otherwise exactly even; poor arguments all around. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, one of the redirect !votes substantively argued the topic passes NCORP… —Alalch E. 21:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- You don't need to provide evidence that it fails a notability guideline; instead the onus is on editors who wish to keep the article to prove that it passes the guideline, which they failed to do. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- That isn't true. There is no such onus. On top of there not being such a thing, and more importantly, articles can be deleted or redirected or kept entirely agnostically to the issue of notability. Notability is advisory (roughly so, because its criteria are a very imperfect, rough approximation of the application of core content policies) and an optional consideration. Consensus is not. —Alalch E. 21:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- I never said consensus was optional; on that I think we agree that it's clearly not. I'm done with this conversation, as I think if I continue explaining myself here it might go in a direction neither of us would really want it to, and it's likely better for my mental health anyway since I've had a long day. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 22:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- That isn't true. There is no such onus. On top of there not being such a thing, and more importantly, articles can be deleted or redirected or kept entirely agnostically to the issue of notability. Notability is advisory (roughly so, because its criteria are a very imperfect, rough approximation of the application of core content policies) and an optional consideration. Consensus is not. —Alalch E. 21:59, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- As I said, poor arguments all around. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- You don't need to provide evidence that it fails a notability guideline; instead the onus is on editors who wish to keep the article to prove that it passes the guideline, which they failed to do. In solidarity, Gommeh (talk 🎮 sign) 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, one of the redirect !votes substantively argued the topic passes NCORP… —Alalch E. 21:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn WP:BADNAC (vacate). The discussion was contentious and the close was likely to be controversial. An admin should close according to that admin's reading of the discussion. —Alalch E. 21:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn to No Consensus, not as bad non-admin close, but simply as a close that doesn't reflect (the lack of) consensus. I disagree with the closer's discounting of the Keeps; I don't know exactly what further coverage would have been needed. Sometimes there isn't a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sarcastic question - Spartaz says:
I suspect if an actual admin had closed this then there would be less dispute
. Is there any other sort of admin? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)- oooh that's excellent pedantry! Bravo Robert. Lol. Spartaz Humbug! 22:07, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus Note my vote was a redirect, not a deletion or keep, where I felt it met NCORP if sources could be found and I stated my hope for such (especially after the CourtTV acquisition which usually draws WP:TV interest in a RESCUE, but is muddled here because this product is mainly online), but we really only had a couple of other edits to the article from the review nominator that did add those sources after my vote, and usually I'd think that someone would come along and add more, but that didn't happen, and I am always receptive to changing my vote if an article is properly rewritten or a better target is found. This could've done with one more AfD relist cycle, though I don't know if we would've gotten any more movement, but I didn't feel there was enough consensus to decide on a redirect. Nathannah • 📮 22:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. It was a BADNAC, being tough call, being contentious as proved in hindsight by this DRV, but it was the right call. It should have been left for an admin. I hesitated only because of
- “Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2026
- which is very very short a !vote, but when I look at the edits between nomination and closure, it’s just fine detail tracking of the company activities, no commentary, not good enough.
- User:Nathannah undermined their own !vote, but User:Timtrent and User:HighKing were clear and correct. The article does not deserved the benefit of “no consensus” given the reference bombing of churnalism, exactly as per Timtrent’s nomination. If anyone wants resurrect the article, take it to draftspace and read advice at WP:THREE.
- - SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I follow @Bearian:'s comments closely as their analysis is usually on point and a good pointer to where the actual policy sits. Spartaz Humbug! 16:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I did not undermine my vote, I simply asked for more sources to prove this met NCORP and that the article needed help. Nathannah • 📮 17:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Asserting “The entity passes NCORP” without evidence or explanation makes you look like a verbose variation on “Keep as under WP:NCORP its notability is beyond question. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2026”. That might be harsh, but the question of NCORP was asked and went unanswered, which left your !vote looking at least confusing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I still don't see how there is a "reference bombing of churnalism". Everything seems reasonably cited to me. There's not more than 2 refs on any statement; how is that refbombing? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- 45 references, including “Dan Abrams launches LawNewz website”. Reference bombing and churnalism are obvious. It was flooded with uninterested referenced information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- 45 references does not equate to churnalism or refbombing; how does this match anything at WP:REFBOMB? I don't see any problem with saying that they launched a website, though that specific article might not be sigcov. Not every single reference has to be "interesting". If interestingness is a requirement for GNG I never got the memo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- 45 references, including “Dan Abrams launches LawNewz website”. Reference bombing and churnalism are obvious. It was flooded with uninterested referenced information. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I saw that between June 22, when this two-day-old article was nominated, and July 1, when I popped in, it had been very much improved. Thank you, Spartaz, for your support. I'm not going to go through every single edit, but overall it's much better. I don't recall that any other non-BLP requires every single thing to be perfectly sourced. I'm the first editor to call out an organization that has a badly written and sourced article. It's not a big deal for me. However, I do want to give kudos to the editors who tried to rescue this. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- You also have my support. I also thank those who “tried”, but my advice to them: when the rationale for deletion starts with reference bombing and churnalism, adding more material of low significance and more sources is not persuasive. When the best NCORP-meeting sources aren’t good enough, more worse sources doesn’t help but hurts. Instead, focus on what is good about the two or three best sources, or other NCORP claims. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Again, what is refbombing here per WP:REFBOMB? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Reference bombing is putting in many references sourcing non-significant content.
- Reference bombing appears like a WP:GAME to intimidate reviewers, although I don’t believe it is actually true. I think the problem is that newcomers are not told clearly enough that it is the two or three best sources that establish that the topic meets the Wikipedia-threshold, and that if the best three sources aren’t good enough, more worse sources won’t help. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Again, what is refbombing here per WP:REFBOMB? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- You also have my support. I also thank those who “tried”, but my advice to them: when the rationale for deletion starts with reference bombing and churnalism, adding more material of low significance and more sources is not persuasive. When the best NCORP-meeting sources aren’t good enough, more worse sources doesn’t help but hurts. Instead, focus on what is good about the two or three best sources, or other NCORP claims. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn Per Alalch E. as too contentious per a NAC, and per OwenX on the merits. Good discussion. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Weak endorse When someone advocates for not retaining a page based on a lack of appropriate sourcing, some effort ought to be made to rebut the assertion. It is helpful for editors who advocate to keep the article to point out 1-3 sources in the discussion that meet our standards (especially if the nominator points out that the references in the article are simple press releases). And second, while all comments need to be evaluated fairly, trends after a relist are important too. In this case, the only comment after the second relist was to redirect the article, so while that comment should not be over-emphasized, it does align with the overall direction of the discussion. My weak qualifier is that this wasn't an easy discussion to close and probably should have been left to an admin. --Enos733 (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse Even without the more liberal interpretation of implied WP:NOPAGE we appear to be moving towards in assessing AfD discussions, this was a reasoable close - keep arguments were little more than waves. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Nonsensical CfD outcome. Target is a container category and the outcome does not align with any of the !votes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Wadanohara and the Great Blue Sea (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think there's arguably a decent number of sources to justify the page being recreated, even if basically all the good ones are primarily about the manga adaptation. Smileghozt (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I came upon this AfD in a different context and did not participate in it, but the close to me does not seem like a fair and accurate summary of the discussion. Overall 7 editors argued keep, 9 argued delete. Most keep voters mainly argued that the sourcing was sufficient, most delete voters thought sourcing was not sufficient. The strongest case for 'keep' was made by Beccaynr who noted that there were 16 sources at the time (10 more sources were added by Beccaynr during the course of the AfD), and specifically referenced 7 of them in their argument, the strongest 'delete' argument was by ZDRX, who said that 5 of the 7 presented sources failed NEWSORGINDIA, but whose argument was weakened by Beccaynr's source analysis which found that the sources do not actually fail NEWSORGINDIA. Sources were also discussed in the previous AfD in 2021, where the article was kept (5 keep votes all of which thought sourcing was sufficient in 2021, we only have more sources since then; 3 of these 5 also participated in the 2nd AfD, all 3 voting keep). As such, I find the close bizzare in that it found that the "contention that sourcing isn't quite there hasn't been effectively refuted." As Goldsztajn noted in the discussion with closer, this seems like a supervote. The result of the discussion seems more of a "no consensus" close to me than what it was closed as (a redirect). Overturn
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
As I understand, when a notable topic is considered under G11, correcting and replacing the promotional language should prevail before elimination. Tecnoprima (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The closing admin closed the discussion with a Result=Delete using "there seems to be rough agreement that the only article doesn't belong" as his reasoning. However, there is no such thing as a "rough agreement" for closing delete discussions: we operate on the basis of consensus, and on whether there is consensus or there isn't. His "seems" qualifier is further evidence he wasn't himself sure about "agreement" one way of the other. We operate on the basis of consensus and, when consensus isn't clear, the delete request should be relisted to seek greater participation in the discussion. That wasn't done either. Third, all the projects involved should be notified as well as ancillary projects (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean and Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America, just to name two), so the discussion can get greater exposure and other editors are given an opportunity to chime in, but that wasn't done either. Fourth, the last comment made was made on 06:13, 8 July 2026 and the closing admin closed the discussion on 00:37, 9 July 2026, less than 24 hours from the last comment. That would not allow sufficient time for additional discussion to occur and, in effect, it cut off off everyone with a different opinion from providing a rebuttal. In summary, the closing admin failed to follow common and expected practices. Mercy11 (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |