Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 June

Vittorio Mancini (wrestler) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed by a non admin as redirect, discussed here. I believe the consensus here is delete not redirect. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinging AfD participants: @Let'srun, @UtherSRG , @Gjb0zWxOb , @Kingsif LibStar (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Revert and delete - consensus was to delete. Closer should get a trout. I haven't checked, but if this is has happened before by them, upgrade the trout to a haddock and pban them from AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  This is not the only controversial close I have seen from this non-admin. While I believe they are working in good faith, I would encourage them to step back from closing close AfD's. Let'srun (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. Redirect is a valid ATD for Olympians and this outcome has occurred probably over a thousand times by this point. I don't see why this is necessary, or why it shouldn't be redirected. And suggesting the closer deserves a pban for this is utterly nonsensical. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Revert and delete (involved): Consensus was clear to delete the article based on a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  I would also be okay with a revert and relist. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorseish. No reason for not redirecting was articulated, so the outcome is correct. But a relist or an admin closure would both have been preferable to a borderline NAC. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse as per Jclemens, because this would have been a valid close by an admin. However, as a non-admin close, the optics are wrong. It looks like the non-admin is trying to make a close that they can make. A Relist, which they also can make, would have been more prudent. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment from closer: Unless someone can explain why the redirect is invalid, I see no policy-based reason to delete and then create a valid redirect. That is needlessly hiding page history and obstructing editors looking to re-create the article should the subject become notable in future. I would have closed this the same way even if I had the ability to delete, and I believe any responsible admin should have done the same. Toadspike [Talk] 06:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Since you are not an admin, you should not be making any controversial closures (especially since you couldn't close it as delete). There were 4 votes to delete while only one to redirect, so closing as redirect is effectively a supervote. The redirect vote came after the 4 delete votes, thus either a relist (to ask the other delete voters regarding how they felt about the proposed AtD) or a delete closure by an admin should have been the only considerations here. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Not so. There's no consensus for delete there, just a nose-counting plurality. That's not how a rough consensus works. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse Where a valid alternative to deletion is presented, it doesn't need to have the highest !vote count - any closer can determine that. Kingsif (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Technically, this was a BADNAC, since deletion was a possible outcome, therefore it should have been left to an admin to close. That said, with a valid ATD proposed, those calling to delete must provide a compelling reason to erase the history, not merely outnumber the minority ATD !voter(s). I see no argument about the page history violating policy, nor any argument that would stand up at an RfD to remove this useful redirect. Toadspike shouldn't have closed this, but the close itself is correct. Owen× ☎ 09:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Shouldn't it have been relisted at the very least to ask the four delete voters how they felt about the AtD, especially since the redirect vote came very late in the discussion? Especially since, as you noted, this was a bad NAC? Let'srun (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Not necessarily, because consensus is not required to perform an ATD instead of deletion. If the four delete !voters strongly feel the ATD is inappropriate, then they are welcome to list the redirect at RFD. Frank Anchor 15:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Let'srun: fair point; a relist would have also been acceptable. Personally, I don't see any valid reason to erase the history behind the redirect, but if any of the AfD participants (all of whom were pinged here) can see such a reason, they (or anyone) are welcome to present their argument here, or as Frank Anchor said, start an RfD. I see no harm in keeping the history behind the redirect in place while we debate this. BADNAC or not, I see no reason to undo a close just to redo it by an admin. While I respect the process, the correct outcome takes precedence. Owen× ☎ 16:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, but that decision could have simply been made through a relist and (at least temporary) restoration of the article. It appears that the community wishes to endorse the close, and I respect that, but I hope that the closer understands WP:XFD#CON when closing discussions. Let'srun (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse per the above. Redirects are pretty much standard for Olympians at this point and no compelling reason for deletion of the history was presented. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. No argument was made against redirecting and consensus is not required to use an WP:ATD as opposed to deletion. Frank Anchor 13:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. WP:ATD is policy, and the AfD nominator was at fault, failing WP:BEFORE for not explaining why a redirect should not be done. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse probably best left to an admin, but absolutely the correct result. SportingFlyer T·C 15:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse The close should have been left to an admin, but WP:ATD is policy. As OwenX says above "I see no argument about the page history violating policy," so there is no need to delete the underlying history. --Enos733 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - not seeing the problem here. JMWt (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse unless anyone can elaborate on why they need the history revdeled. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse No delete !vote discussed why a redirect was inappropriate. If there is some reason, bring it to RfD. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. I would have closed this as redirect, and I'm honestly pretty irritated to see people calling this a WP:BADNAC. Let non-admins do things they have the tools to do. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. With regards to this close being a WP:BADNAC,I didn't call it one in my initial comment above and I don't think it is one under policy, but it is a close that I probably wouldn't make myself as a non-admin and wouldn't really encourage other non-admins to make. Partly, that's because of the (unfair) criticism that comes with making even clear calls against pure numbers at AfD or non-admins exercising even correct judgement when deletion is a possible (but clearly inferior) alternative close, but mostly it's because closing this kind of discussion as a non-admin is actually often counter productive. It's bound to be challenged and brought to DRV even though you were perfectly correct, so closing it actually creates more administrative backlog than leaving it open for a admin to evaluate would. It is a frustrating part of wiki culture, but it is definitely real and worth understanding. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse - Even speaking as someone who tends to disagree with "everything gets a redirect", I honestly don't see the point of this review. FOARP (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by medical condition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as a clearly inappropriate supervote. The closure claims that the UCoC clause "People having a particular physical or mental disability may use particular terms to describe themselves" somehow preempts this discussion, however deleting categories in no way stops people from doing so, and the rest of the closer's lengthy argument is their own opinion that should have been in a !vote, not a closure. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy overturn NAC supervote based on the UCoC is not OK. The people who're trusted to make such interpretations are the admin corps. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• As I just explained to Marcocapelle here - I used my good judgement as a human that can see non-uniform application of rules and that given the existing treatment of other such categories existing and somehow singling out Wikipedians with medical conditions/disability from not having one (and having read some of the explanations from users explaining why such categories can be relevant) is a clear mistreatment of a group of people. I cited the UCoC, because they conveniently even spelled it out. I don't believe the close is a supervote as I carefully considered the existing practice and therefore the nomination as it stood on the basis of singling out a particular characteristic group, rather than saying "we should delete all Wikipedians by X" falls in lack of Mutual Respect/discrimination territory (Also just to clarify, I don't think there was any malice on the nominators part, just a missed observation or accident in noticing it), so in the interest of the community, a procedural close looked entirely appropriate.

However as I explained in the longer response to @Trilletrollet when they asked about the CfD from last year, I think you will be very hard pressed in light of the user groups around religion, gender, ethnicity and co and the social norm of these having existed for a long time around this. To use maybe the most polarizing example - Religion was nominated for deletion in 2007 and the closer noted that, that category could have been deleted based on the arguments, it was still kept because there's a lot of people who feel strongly about their religion and voted because they don't like the idea of their category being deleted.

So my close was founded in the established social norm of these usercats of defining characteristics of Wikipedians existing with the history of that the standard for such characteristic groups are condoned, and such CfDs have typically been popularity contest, it can't be in the interest of the editing community to waste time on discussing any such sub-section of "Wikipedians by X" flavor of the day every couple days/weeks/months/years.

If you want to change the project-wide norm and standard that no such categories exist, that's a matter for a WP:CENT RfC. But when it's a nomination of a marginalized subgroup, whether because someone may not like it individually, or by oversight, and the rules are not uniform, then you're by definition in discrimination territory (intentional or not).

Given that I closed this, and still firmly believe, that the heart of this is one of mistreatment/"different treatment" of a group, I did so on those grounds procedurally. The history of these discussions have either been a popularity contest, or it needs to be a separate discussion - there is no "yeah we're fine deleting this group because we don't like it", but "that other one is fine because it has a large enough following to steamroll any rationale based points".

Due to that DRV is not the right venue of this and you are welcome to argue why singling out of this group is okay in your opinion to U4C if you believe that that is a good use of stewards time, rather than taking the opportunity to take a step back and realize that maybe the WP:USERCAT guidelines could indeed use an update to lay out the uniform application of established project-wide norms of such usercats and avoid the re-litigation of such repeated cases. Raladic (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy close and overturn. What on earth? That close in no way represents a consensus; this is a WP:BADNAC and an admin should undo it in their individual capacity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn procedural close and leave for an admin to close. The closer has made a plausible argument as a vote to Keep the categories. At the same time, an argument can also be made that the UCOC does not require keeping the category, only allowing users to self-identify, and I think that argument is stronger. So the closer's argument, while a valid vote, is a seriously incorrect procedural close. The closer says that DRV is not the right venue for this, but I don't see a suggestion as to what the proper venue is. It appears that the closer does have the right to appeal to the U4C, but only by arguing that the English Wikipedia is refusing to enforce the UCOC, and we are not refusing to enforce the UCOC, but interpreting it as not mandating the category and so not requiring the procedural close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - The closer is probably right that the applicable guideline should be reviewed. That doesn't validate the closure or invalidate this DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment to User:Raladic - Thank you for filing the RFAR. I don't think that filing an appeal to the U4C will be a useful idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn and relist – the closer's rationale is a completely inappropriate supervote. Whatever their opinions on the UCoC, they should be presented and discussed as a !vote, not used to speedily shut down a rational, policy-based discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 12:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse on principle I would be happy with getting rid of user categories completely, to be honest, but I actually agree with the closer here in the sense this is a rare instance in which the code of conduct applies and as such the discussion should either be reverted and advertised more widely, or moved to a different forum. CfDs are low participation discussion areas. SportingFlyer T·C 15:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn on the basis that the NAC makes no sense. It seems clear to me that there's a debate to be had regarding userpage badge choices and whether every user is aware that this means they'd be put in a searchable category. It may well be that users should should be able to self-identify in various ways under the UCoC. That doesn't mean that therefore the category should have to exist. JMWt (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Eh, it's a poorly formed CfD ("What do you think?") with a number of related-but-unrelated categories, and the UCoC argument is a valid one that I would have missed. Honestly I would have closed as a no consensus trainwreck and let anyone immediately renominate specific categories. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  By my reading, the closer is suggesting a larger discussion with many more categories. In contrast, you're suggesting smaller nominations of specific categories. (I'm not trying to sway your position, just to point out that, if the close is upheld, the next step would be unclear to me.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  The next step as I suggested in the close and follow up comments, and made here would be that a discussion is held to address the points I raised. Some people (even some who voted overturn here) have suggested/agreed that maybe an outright deletion of all such user cats is one of the possible outcomes. Or the other alternative being that the community workshops an update to the current usercat guidelines that creates a framework for uniform (non-popularity contest) rules with regards to "Wikipedians by X" type usercats.

  Since the point I raised with my procedural close has now been acknowledged/agreed by several other editors, I believe the reasonable next step is that CfD discussions on the "Wikipedian by X" are paused/injunct until the community either had time to vote (probably most appropriate in a RfC, given the possible project-wide impact) on which of the two options we should go, or maybe someone has another third or further suggestion to get away from the current state of affairs that has resulted in a shotgun approach and basically popularity vote on retention of such categories, which is not in the interest of the project (like I pointed out above with the Religion one as an example - the closer's hand was basically twisted, while other categories that may not have had such a big following get randomly nixed).

  So, I believe my procedural close was correct as I effectively identified a gap in guideline and uniform enforcement thereof. So we should let the wider community now go from here and decide which path to take to fix the problem to update/clarify the guidelines to bring their current non-uniform treatment for such categories out of conflict with the UCoC, which are policy level, and thus, the policy takes precedent per WP:POLCON - As a temporary measure, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence. - so for the time being, CfDs for such "Wikipedians by X" should be paused, the community address the issue, and then we go from there.

  Would it not be for my procedural point and closure, I would also agree with SportingFlyer on the point of the CfD in question itself had a rather scatterball mix of categories in it, some of which may very well be deleted, but that would be incredibly difficult for a closer to discern if editors suggested "keep X, Y, Z, delete A, B, C" for any closer to come to any better close than a likely no-consensus WP:TRAINWRECK that even @Pppery mentioned on the actual CfD discussion, so arguably, someone may even procedurally just decided to close it preemptively on trainwreck grounds, invoking WP:COMMONSENSE, rather than wasting editors time for a week on a quite-likely foregone conclusion close. Raladic (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  My interpretation of that reply remains that you do not favor breaking down the existing nomination into separate discussions for each subcategory but correct me if I'm mistaken.

  I reached on your talk page partially to better understand what changes to WP:USERCAT you were contemplating hoping that we could maybe write a draft to reword it away from the back and forth. I'm not sure if that would work because, in some places, it sounds like the the CFD nomination process itself is what's being objected to. But I'm willing to try, and the offer still stands. I'm always happy to collaborate here, there, or wherever.

  But, since we don't currently have any affirmative proposals to discuss at an RFC, if the close is upheld the next step would be unclear to me. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  You’d be somewhat correct that I don’t think it is fruitful right this very moment to break down this CfD as I think the systemic question is more relevant right now. But thereafter, I’d say that yes breaking it down would be the right path (and I can totally see that quite several of the cats in the original proposal won’t see the light of day). So to clarify in case it wasn’t clear (getting thoughts out of my brain and across effectively is sometimes/often tricky as I’ve learned over the years and is still a work in progress, but that’s a story for a different time in the future) - I’m not objecting to CfD as a process itself in general or that any and all such categories should exist, but the current guidelines in particular to the “Wikipedians by X” type are too fuzzy as past discussions have shown and were subject to the wit of the moment).

  And with regards to your comment on my user talk page, I’ll see if I can come up with a starting point in regards to that and get back on that when I find a moment. Raladic (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Westlake, Washington (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Westlake is a former incorporated settlement and now has a paragraph in the Moses Lake article. Most uses of the term still refer to the former town rather than the Seattle neighborhood. SounderBruce 04:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Relist given the limited discussion, for you to make that argument. SportingFlyer T·C 09:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• [Closer's notes] The outcome was a Retarget. I closed on 27th, and mention was added at the redirect's previous target article on 28th. Appellant didn't discuss with me regarding the close. Jay 💬 09:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  • My apologies. I was directed here when I asked for some advice on how to undo the decision (as I did not have time to respond to the discussion due to an extremely busy week). Next time I will just contact the closer directly. SounderBruce 18:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Relist. There was limited discussion and not a quorum to do anything. The nom statement that there is No mention in article [Moses Lake, Washington] has been addressed with the addition of sourced content. A relist would allow this content to be evaluated. Frank Anchor 11:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• No action. This could have been resolved with the appellant directly contacting the closing admin, who is responsive and receptive to such requests. While this isn't strictly required by policy, I see no reason to waste the community's time on something that could have been settled within minutes between the two of them. I doubt relisting would achieve a clearer consensus than what we have, but Jay is welcome to relist and administratively close this DRV as moot. Owen× ☎ 12:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Relist I am convinced that a relist is appropriate in this situation. I don't think the close was wrong, but per deletion review point 3, new information has come to light, that should be evaluated by the community. --Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - There is something wrong with the listing of the RFD log. When I view the RFD log for June 18, I see Westlake as the last entry in the Table of Contents, but I don't see it when I view the log. I do see it when I edit the source for the log, and it isn't obvious to me what has made it invisible, and I don't have time for a few hours to search for the misplaced commands and fix it. I think that the listing should be corrected regardless of the outcome of this DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the problem is with this RFD log, because I am also seeing MFD listings disappear. I will be inquiring at the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse as the correct outcome; the Westlake neighborhood in Seattle would be the PRIMARYTOPIC no matter how you slice it. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

List of Dance Dance Revolution songs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Admin who closed the AFD doesn't reach back to users who have concerns about an AFD result, so hence why I'm using this route. I was under the impression that an AFD wasn't decided on "popular vote" or "opinion poll" or survey, rather than all sides all heard, and if one side (especially if the arguments seem like hit and run posts etc.) has incorrect arguments, due to the minority side having the correct arguments, then at best case, the minority site is correct, and then at worst case, the AFD needs to be relisted. etc. Article was deleted per AFD, but I totally disagree. Article falls under Wikipedia guidelines as a list article. Correct sources for the page have been added. Is part of a very popular Video Game/Music/Media franchise (Dance Dance Revolution), doesn't fall under WP:NOTDATABASE as it doesn't contain trivial information, rather music/songs/tracks (licensed or otherwise) are an integral part of DDR history. Article was nominated rather quickly after article was reworked and organized much better, with added sources. The consensus argument on deletion was mainly that it was an unencyclopedic database article, which is not true, and also featured drive by/hit and run votes on the AFD discussion.☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Admin who closed the AFD doesn't reach back to users who have concerns about an AFD result Where did you give Liz a chance to explain the close to you? Per this note, you stated you were taking this directly to DRV. In any case, endorse as the consensus at the AFD was quite clear. -- Whpq (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

In that argument that I should have waited for the admin in question to contact me, you have a point, but I also have a point, by looking at the admins talk page history, and seeing handfuls of users who reached out to them in regards to an AFD result or resolution, with radio silence respectively. I mentioned this on the admin's talk page, that if it wasn't for their history of not reaching back to users over AFD concerns, I would have possibly talked it over with them first, but I didn't see a point, I humbly apologize. So supposing my situation wouldn't have been any different, and I messaged the admin with a gripe/concern over the AFD and heard nothing, we would be down this avenue anyways.☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Endorse. While a late “keep” can sometimes trigger a relist so participants can engage with the rationale, there was already a robust consensus and the appellant’s argument was a greatest hits list of WP:ATA. Liz’s close was correct. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse - Not entirely sure what the appellant is saying, but either a Delete or a Relist were valid exercises of judgment by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. This falls into the "But no one came back to refute my argument!"-category of appeals. The appellant's main argument at the AfD was WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which means that there was a unanimous P&G-based consensus not to retain the page. Owen× ☎ 07:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse clear consensus for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 09:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• I might have relisted it, but I can't really fault the close. I would certainly have relisted if Phrasia's comment came in right near the end, but it was up for a few days and no one felt a need to agree with it, so. -- asilvering (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

List of music considered the worst (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a serious re-evaluation of "List of music considered the worst" in this Deletion Review, as the article continues to raise fundamental concerns that have not been properly addressed in the multiple prior AfDs. While editors have repeatedly pointed to the presence of reliable sources, that argument has continually overlooked the key issue: the article violates core Wikipedia content policies, specifically WP:NOR (No Original Research), WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View).

Key policy concerns:

• Synthesis and Original Research (WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR)

The article compiles negative opinions from individual reliable sources and presents them as if they form a cohesive, broadly agreed-upon classification of certain songs or albums as “the worst.” However, no source makes this comprehensive claim. The list is a synthesis of disparate critical takes, which produces a conclusion not explicitly made by any cited source. This is a textbook case of original research, violating Wikipedia's core content policy.

• Minimal, Subjective Sourcing (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE)

While the sources used are mostly reliable, many entries rely on only one or two subjective reviews, often rooted in :personal taste or cultural context. This minimal sourcing does not support the wide-reaching claim implied by inclusion in a list of "the worst." Moreover, music criticism is inherently subjective and genre-sensitive. What may be negatively received in one context can be valued in another. The article gives undue weight to isolated critiques while ignoring broader audience reception, fanbases, or historical re-evaluations.

• Lack of Defined Inclusion Criteria (WP:LISTN, WP:V)

The list does not adhere to any clearly defined or consistently applied criteria for what qualifies a work as one of "the worst." Some entries are based on critical reception, others on commercial failure or online memes. This arbitrary inclusion makes the list editorially driven rather than encyclopedic. Without explicit inclusion standards and consistent application, the article fails the basic standard expected of a list on Wikipedia.

• Non-Neutral Framing and Presentation (WP:TONE, WP:TITLE)

The framing of the article, both in its title and its narrative lacks neutrality. Declaring works as “the worst” carries an implicit judgment that Wikipedia should not make. Even if retitled to something like “Music that received negative critical reception,” the article would still need to demonstrate balanced coverage and contextual depth, which it currently lacks.

Conclusion: This article has now gone through six AfDs, but none have adequately addressed these foundational policy issues. Repeated survival at AfD does not override persistent violations of Wikipedia's core content guidelines. The presence of a few reliable sources does not justify a synthesized, judgmental, and inconsistently sourced list. I respectfully urge deletion or, at minimum, a formal consensus to require a full rewrite in strict adherence to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:LISTN standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GogoLion (talk • contribs) 14:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Please read up on what WP:DRV is. It's not the place to continue a (years ago closed) deletion discussion or start a new one, its to discuss whether or not prior deletion discussions were closed correctly, which none of that appears to even begin to address. Sergecross73 msg me 15:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural close. The appellant is aware the article has survived six AfDs, but doesn't seem to dispute any specific one of them. Instead, they hope DRV will invoke a form of certiorari to somehow vacate the consensus reached in the AfDs. They are doing this instead of renominating for a seventh AfD as a form of forum-shopping. This is not what DRV is for. Like it or not, the community has spoken clearly and repeatedly about this type of list. Owen× ☎ 15:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Procedural Close - This isn't an argument that there was anything wrong with the 2019 deletion discussion, but that the article should be deleted. The arguments made in this filing are a good case for another AFD, but this is not Articles for Deletion because it is Deletion Review.
  • I don't see an earlier 5 AFDs. The article may have had other names for the earlier five AFDs. However, that doesn't matter at DRV, because this is not a proper DRV filing.
  • There has been a history of edit-warring. That doesn't matter at DRV.
  • In 2019, a DRN request about one entry in the list was filed at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_174#List_of_music_considered_the_worst, seeking moderated discussion among 21 editors when an RFC had already had No Consensus, was declined.
  • This article has a long, controversial, and weird history. I do not know whether or where there is a forum to discuss it, but DRV is not that forum.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've watched over the article since stumbling upon it a decade past. It's a constant magnet for arguments, with editors either mad music they like is on there, or mad they don't have the sourcing to add their personally hated music on there. But that's not a reason for deletion in itself, and the community has been consistently against deleting it (and similar articles covering films, games, etc) so I've focused on mediating disputes and watching over proposed changes. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, the comment about "editors being mad" was in reference to various etalk page discussions over the years, not GogoLion, who has seemingly taken offense to the comment. My only problem with GogoLion is their repeated failure to handle things at the correct venues. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse and speedy close. Clear consensus to keep in five separate AFDs, plus a sixth that closed as no consensus. Appellant is making arguments as to why the article should be deleted rather than addressing concerns with the AFD result. The correct venue for these arguments is a seventh AFD. Frank Anchor 16:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Irrelevant Question - What are the other five AFDs? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Here you go:

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in English labeled the worst ever
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (3rd nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (4th nomination)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in English labeled the worst ever (5th nomination)

  Owen× ☎ 18:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse and Speedy close with a non-trivial sanction for wasting our time, not once but twice, with this AI bullshit. I'm quite willing to listen to a case for deleting that article, if anybody actually wants to write one, but I have zero tolerance for those who expect Wikipedia's editors and administrators to serve as gimps for their stupid robot. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Backyard History (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't believe there was thorough consensus; a nominator somewhat erroneously categorised the sources as irrelevant but there was functionally no votes except mine (as author) to "Keep", and two attempts to re-list the XFD resulted in a single vote each, one that was Keep but changed to Delete and one that was Merge changed to Delete - leaving a total of three votes. I'd appreciate fuller review before deleting the article on one of the most prominent New Brunswick media outlet/projects that is widely syndicated in 10-30 newspapers, resulted in three non-fiction books under the same title, a podcast and a television show, etc.

Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - The deletion discussion was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backyard History. The appellant did list the deletion discussion, but it doesn't show up in the listing. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Relist - After a discussion of redirect targets and a change of a vote, more discussion and more viewers would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse Sorry, but Cunard is one of our more thoughtful and thorough AfD contributors, well versed in alternatives to deletion, and to the extent that Cunard was eventually unpersuaded to support such an ATD suggests that a delete closure was well within administrator discretion. Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. Properly deleted. There was a consensus to delete. There is no need for a “thorough consensus”, whatever that is. There is, however, a need to bring deletion discussions to close after a reasonable amount of time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse Sorry, there was indeed a consensus to delete the article, and the appeal doesn't make clear that there were missed sources. I also agree with Jclemens - Cunard is one of our best at finding sources, though sometimes I disagree with them about their interpretation of the sources, the fact they settled on a !delete vote in a limited discussion is a decent indicator that there weren't enough sources for a complete encyclopedia article on the subject. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse Consensus was clear at the end. Hobit (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Debangshu Bhattacharya (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article "Debangshu Bhattacharya", which was deleted after an AfD discussion in September 2024. Since then, several major developments have occurred: he was fielded as a Lok Sabha candidate by the All India Trinamool Congress in the 2024 general elections, which received extensive national media coverage (NDTV, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Business Today, Times of India, etc.).

I have rewritten the article in my userspace, ensuring a completely neutral tone, strict sourcing, and a stronger focus on encyclopedic value and independent notability (especially around his role in popularizing the "Khela Hobe" slogan, and his role as TMC IT Cell head). Kindly review the new version and consider undeleting or allowing resubmission.

Draft: User:KXM26X/Debangshu_Bhattacharya

KXM26X (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the 2024 AFD and its close, but see also:

  Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted

  . Either submit the userspace draft for review, or don't submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I took a look at the discussion about the article Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza and I mostly disagree with the arguments presented, which seem biased to me. I would like to know how and where I can reopen this discussion so that the article can be rewritten and with new sources (which I provided, by the way).

I don't know if I should argue here, but in case it's useful: the mere previous existence of the article and the discussion about whether or not it is relevant due to its connection to the former Brazilian monarchy are proof that the topic of the article is, in fact, relevant. After all, it's been almost 140 years since the fall of the Brazilian monarchy, and its heirs are still being discussed. The argument that initiated the deletion process seems to me to be entirely based on the fact that the republic is well established in Brazil and the monarchist movement is weak, but I don't see how that is relevant to the topic of the article, whose purpose is ultimately to inform. Furthermore, I disagree that a person cited in so many international and mainstream newspapers such as The New York Times, ABC, Estadão, G1, El País, etc., and who lives in an old imperial palace in the middle of the Brazilian republic, is so totally irrelevant that he doesn't deserve an article.

And as I mentioned, based on the arguments for deletion, such as the lack of sources that are directly about the person in the topic, in this case Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza, I took care to add new sources specifically about him and that are reliable, for example:

• ^[1] This one from Vanity Fair about his marriage.
• ^[2] This one from about the dispute for the headship of the House of Orléans-Braganza.
• ^[3] This one had already been mentioned in the pre-deletion article and used in the argument for deletion as "it's about the sales of historical objects that Pedro Carlos made", and it's true. What the argument tries to expose is that it's from a mainstream Brazilian newspaper, O Globo, which calls him "Dom (D.)", which is an honorific, recognizes him as a member of the imperial family (extinct or not) and says that he lived in the former imperial palace of Grão-Pará. Three points that, together, make the topic of the article, the person of Pedro Carlos, worthy of note, at the very least.
• ^[4] Finally, this source was already mentioned and the argument for deletion goes as "Prince Pedro Carlos visited a museum". This clearly demonstrates his notability, since there would be no news, or even an article, about a visit by a non-notable person to a museum in the official media of the city of Juiz de Fora. It is worth remembering that Pedro Carlos is not a historian or museologist, so his notability comes from his ancestry and this does indeed confer notability on the individual.

Von Burgundy (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy close (changed !vote, see below). No valid ground has been advanced to overturn the prior deletion decision. However, the discussion was four years ago and not particularly well-attended; the title is not salted and the page may be recreated if the appellant believes sources will support standalone notability. I would recommend that @Von Burgundy use the articles for creation process to minimize the chances of a return trip to AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The Vanity Fair article is alright, but the second and third sources are passing mentions and the fourth is a non-independent governmental source. If you choose to refund this article you'll need to find more sources of significant coverage directly of Pedro Carlos himself, and covering more than just his wedding, to get to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

What's GNG and what's the criteria for which sources are alright or not? I obviously avoid/would avoid biased sources or sources from unreliable sources. But regarding sources that only cite the person in the article, in this case Pedro Carlos, and are not "per se" about him, I don't see why they are any less valid, especially when there are so many of them, which is a clear attribution of recognition to their relevance. Especially given the context of these sources; he may not be the central topic of the articles, but his name is not mentioned "en passant" either. It is relevant, in the sources, who he is for the text presented. Von Burgundy (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources containing significant secondary coverage of the subject. Brief mentions, quotes, citations, etc. do not count towards GNG, even in aggregate. We need in-depth discussion, sustained over time, to be notable. JoelleJay (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Question - Is the appellant asking to overturn the 2021 AFD, or is the appellant asking to overturn the 21 June 2025 G4? The failure of this appeal to say what the appellant wants overturned appears to be the reason why Dclemens1971 calls for a Speedy Close, and I agree with that unless the question can be answered in a timely manner. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't see the G4 in the logs until you pointed it out and was going off the appeal, which only noted the 2021 discussion. If the article is substantially the same as the 2021-deleted one, the G4 should stand, but a different article would not be G4 eligible. Obviously I can't see the histories of the two to know. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm asking to overturn the 21 June 2025. I re-created the article providing some new sources and it was promptly deleted again arguing about its previous deletion in 2021. Von Burgundy (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Von Burgundy: Looking at the version comparison supplied by @Cryptic below, you had several passages that were copied nearly verbatim from the previously deleted version without attribution. Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution to the original creator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Well, I copied parts of the text of the former deleted article, yes. Partially because my point is that that article shouldn't have been deleted to begin with. Either way, how shall I credit the original author? I kept his sources, though. Von Burgundy (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Von Burgundy See here for instructions: Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution_to_the_author_and_the_page. If deletion is overturned, you can use a WP:DUMMYEDIT to add attribution through an edit summary. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Temp undelete, please so we can assess whether the mos recent version is eligible for G4. Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I concur with the request for a temporary undelete, but would also advise the appellant that submitting a draft via AFC may be an alternate useful approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Diff from the version deleted at afd. Endorse and blacklist. —Cryptic 04:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Overturn G4 and list at AfD. Separate from the attribution failure mentioned above, this is not a valid G4; the articles had some shared passages but were not substantially identical. This article needs to go through a new round of AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Use AFC strictly G4 shouldn’t be used for good faith attempts to try again but its clear from this discussion that a) there are inadequate sources to avoid BLP1E and b) that if the Nom doesn’t understand what the GNG is then they lack the experience to handle a BLP sensitively. AFC ensures that if barriers to recreation are overcome there will be some oversight of what gets published. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

AFC is not mandatory, so while I think it would entirely reasonable to specify some cases where AFC might be made to be mandatory in the future--and this might be such a case--I think it's premature to have such expectations in this specific case. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn G4 and send to AfD, which can not only consider the sourcing, but whether, if deleted, create protection should also be imposed to forestall future issues. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  "future issues" being people trying to argue on why the article is worth to be listed in an encyclopedia? Don't you think that's too harsh?

  My point in trying to re-create the article four or almost four years after its deletion is that, precisely. I didn't simply returned the former article from the dead, I created a new one, with differing content and sources (while keeping the original ones I thought useful). Von Burgundy (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  I am not stating there are issues the should lead to create protection ("salting"), but noting that DRV, here, is not the place to assess them. A new AfD should. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn G4. Not even close to being sufficiently identical to the version deleted at AFD, including several sources which were published after the AFD closed. This can be taken to AFD if desired. Frank Anchor 12:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse G4 per Cryptic's diff and salt. This would not be kept at a new AfD and pretending otherwise is a waste of everyone's time. SportingFlyer T·C 09:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• So, this has multiple paragraphs moved around, zero words of new reliably-sourced content, and a single new prima facie usable source - which last is something, but it doesn't verify anything in the article. It was even identified, correctly, as copyright infringement by a bot. If this is the standard for significant change, then you're going to have a hard time finding any deletion labelled G4 that you'd approve of. I'd suggest going to WT:CSD to remove it from policy is a better approach than trying to annul the policy piecemeal at DRV. —Cryptic 08:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Send to AfD. Which is not the same as "overturn G4", because if this is enough to invalidate a G4, as Cryptic says, well, AfD won't know what hit it. This is well over my own G4 bar and I think I'm one of the more conservative folks handling CSDs. (As irritated AfDers have made clear.) These paragraphs are basically identical! What's been added is "dynastic position", etc, which are not things AfD participants have much sympathy for at all. But heck, if we've got a bunch of AfD regulars saying to send this to AfD, we can send it to AfD. You'd all better vote, though. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse G4 per Cryptic's analysis above, or, if there is not consensus here to do that, send to AfD again. However, that would be a waste of community time: I closed the original AfD and can't see a new AfD come to a different conclusion. Sandstein 09:43, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I see Cryptic's articulation as more confincing here. I expressly disagree with Asilvering's comment before; sending this to AfD would necessarily involve overturning the G4 as the two are inseperable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse G4 (involved). Per Cryptic's diff, the education, career, dynastic position, marriages and family, and ancestry sections are the same as in the deleted version. The only additions to the article are further family relationships (which does not establish notability per WP:NOTGENEALOGY) and an "Honours" section which only lists self-awarded and unofficial orders sourced to royalark.net (which is deprecated per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Self-published peerage websites). So, these "honours" are not actually honors and therefore do not establish notability. DrKay (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Randy Cooper (Model maker) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this discussion as "delete", but have been challenged by the article creator on my talk page. As a deletion review is a better location for this, I am bringing the discussion here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think there is a consensus for delete. There are 3 Keeps and one draftify to 5 deletes. Most of those deletes came after the 3-week mark, after I had asked 2 administrators to close, but neither one of them did. Most of the deletes come from inexperienced editors. I said that, and the administrator decided to punish me. I was not bludgeoning or insulting anyone, just disagreeing. I was very much doing that within limits. Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. "Everyone should have the chance to express their views within reasonable limits. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building." Orlando Davis (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  The deletion nomination for the article was kept open longer than the ideal amount of time. And it's hard to know if there wasn't vote stacking going on. The Randy Cooper article includes a source from Fine Scale modeler and the Evening Independent that are both highly reliable and independent. Additionally, it has many interview sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Most of the deletes come from inexperienced editors.

  Delete !voter edit counts: 265810, 25756, 14476, 138, 1659, 84573, 10645. What exactly is your threshold for "experienced"? A cutoff of 10000 edits would leave us with 5 delete to 1 keep and 1 draftify... JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough. In my view, it is a combative move to even participate in an AFD unless it's your article. Why do it unless you enjoy arguments? The person who wrote the article should be given some slack from a bunch of people ganging up on him or her. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's how to treat someone whose spent many hours working for Wikipedia for free? Orlando Davis (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Another thing. We don't have any subject matter experts on model making here. That is essential for a fair review. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  I did not "punish" you. You're bludgeoning here like you bludgeoned there. Endorse close and consider sanctions for @Orlando Davis if the disruption continues. I'm just maintaining the articles that I have already written and this is the only one I really need to do. is not an attitude condusive to collaborative editing. FWIW, to my knowledge I've had no interaction with them prior to my relist of the AfD which was normal log clerking. Star Mississippi 00:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe they should sanction you also since you don't really keep a cool head yourself. I don't think you are understanding what bludgeoning is or isn't. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Feel free to open a discussion if you think I should be sanctioned @Orlando Davis Star Mississippi 00:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• As a participant of the discussion, while I appreciate his input, I don't believe Randy Kryn's status of being 20 most active editors gives his opinion or, more pertinently, interpretation of the policies and guidelines, any more weight than mine, Theroadislong's, Oaktree's or Reader's, as Orlando seems to want to. Perhaps a mere ten thousand edits isn't much these days, but I'd like to assure everyone that my input is carefully considered when I offer them. The outcome of a deletion discussion is not punishment, nor are deletion discussions a grand battle between deletionists and inclusionists. Or, at least, they are not supposed to be treated as one.
  Finally, deletion discussions are not an admin suggestion box. Administrators, when closing a discussion, are empowered to exercise judgement to disregard or reduce the weight of arguments that contradict policy, are based on personal opinion only, or show no understanding of the matter of issue. The closing administrator does not have the discretion to disregard comments they find to exhibit deletionist bias, or to ignore our policies and guidelines. I would endorse both Star Mississippi's valiant (though unfortunately ultimately unfruitful) attempt to keep the discussion rooted in the relevant PAG as appropriate administrative actions, as well as Ritchie's close as the only possible close supportable by a reasonable interpretation of the discussion. There is no other closure within an allowable level of discretion. I will leave the discussion of conduct to another venue if Orlando wishes to continue it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Alpha3031, I'm one of the 20 most active editors? Didn't know that, is there a list somewhere. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure edit counts really matter in this discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I think the mistake is that it's 200, not 20. And of course the number of an editor's edits don't matter in background discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. A clear consensus to delete is ultimately present in the discussion. A "No Consensus" close might have been reasonable at an earlier point, but relisting was not an abuse of discretion. The majority of the contested sources look like interviews, and there is a reasonably broad consensus that those count less for notability than non-interview profiles. The close is not so manifestly in error that I can recommend an IAR, restore. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse as the correct close. None of the Keeps addressed the issue of SIGCOV, and some didn't bring up any P&G-based argument. After five rejections at AFC, I see little point in sending this back to draft yet again. The repeated, combative moves into mainspace are a form of edit-warring, and should be handled as such. If Orlando Davis isn't happy with our existing tagging system, they are welcome to start an RFC to change it. Disruptive editing to make a WP:POINT isn't helpful. Owen× ☎ 20:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for your response. I concede that the consensus thus far is for delete. However, I resent being told I was combative, when I had every right to bring up the article myself as an extended confirmed user and never had any obligation to take it up to the Articles of creation any of the other times. I initially preferred that route as I was trying to not be combative and work out issues in private space. I took it up myself to articles of creation over and over again when I never had to. How is that edit warring? Denial at Articles of creation is no big deal since many articles are rejected and later accepted by other editors, sometimes with little change, despite multiple rejections, as opinions between reviewers vary. I've had a couple of editors reject me and another accept me several times. This time I ran out of patience and preferred to bring it up myself since improving the article had peaked in my opinion.

  Wikipedia is in itself very combative as many media sources have pointed out unfair bias in Wikipedia, and one of the founders of Wikipedia has left due to its bias. So there must be something to my point of view. I don't want to dedicate the time to an RFC as I only came back to Wikipedia for this article. I no longer edit Wikipedia very much. Orlando Davis (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  I resent being told I was combative, when I had every right to bring up the article myself as an extended confirmed user - the fact that your account technically allows you to engage in disruptive editing does not mean you have "every right" to do so any more than I have the right to use my admin tools to force my view in a content dispute. WP:BRD applies as much to article creation as it does to revising. The extended confirmed bit, like the sysop bit, can be revoked if it is used to bypass collaborative editing. Your interaction with the other editors involved was decidedly combative. And your declaration that you only came back to Wikipedia for this article presents you as a WP:SPA - not a good look. I strongly suggest you do not abuse your privileges as an extended confirmed editor, and start working with other editors instead of against them. Owen× ☎ 21:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not a single purpose account. I'm just maintaining the articles that I have already written and this is the only one I really need to do. That's not the same thing. You go ahead and do what you gotta do. I really don't care anymore. Orlando Davis (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse as clear consensus to delete. Electing to relist the discussion is well within the scope of administrator action, the fact that 2 admins elected to do so indicates an independent consensus to continue the discussion. The "experience of editors" is irrelevant to the substance of the argument put forth, which is concerns regarding whether the sources are sufficient to meet GNG. Suggestions of "vote stacking" are WP:ASPERSIONS at best. Also of note is the WP:IAR argument brought up during the discussion by some keep !voters, in which case the WP:ONUS is on the argument maker to demonstrate why an exception should be made for WP:GNG. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 21:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Additional note: those seeking to overturn should look into conducting an independent source review, addressing WP:GNG concerns would go a long way in convincing others the page should be kept (or for a non-disruptive recreation of the page, as noted by Owen). — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 21:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. Keep arguments clearly failed to convince the majority of !voters that the topic meets our notability requirements. We have 6 policy-based delete !votes including the nominator (and discounting one drive-by), plus a comment from an admin that reads as additional opposition to keeping. Meanwhile one keep !vote carries no valid rationale at all and the other two assert sufficient sourcing without demonstrating such. JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. Had I participated in the discussion, I probably would have landed on a "keep" based on WP:NFILM WP:NCREATIVE _{(typed the wrong damn policy)} (and I'm surprised no one brought it up), but this is not AfD round two and there is no defect in Ritchie's close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse as a reasonable reflection of consensus. Stifle (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• endorse as the only possible outcome. @Orlando Davis: your conduct here and on the AFD was so suboptimal that I am suprised you were not blocked for disruption. Take heed of this warning please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  I have to answer multiple times because I don't think of everything at once. For example, I just now figured out, thanks to DClemens, that Cooper qualifies based on NP creative. Also, that it matters that there are no subject matter experts on model making in this forum. What difference would it make if I got blocked? This forum doesn't care about a word I have said, and I don't get paid. And I doubt that would happen; it's an empty threat because I have done nothing wrong. If I go to a restaurant and get treated badly, I can give a bad review. I can give Wikipedia a bad review for treating me badly, too. Any smart organization knows not to offend since bad reviews can be destructive.

  I am being bated into an emotional reaction by being accused of bludgeoning, so if I am, well, that is what set that in motion. Being accused falsely. The majority in this forum is wrong, and it is a fallacy of the majority to assume otherwise, which is why I have the right to debate disproportionately if I am in the minority. If Wikipedia rules don't allow for that, they should. Within reason, as I have done. I never used insults or said anything that wasn't logical, nor did I answer more than necessary to adequately make my points. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Orlando Davis, you have indeed verged toward bludgeoning in this debate. No one is trying to bait you to do anything. You could simply WP:COAL, knowing that you have already expressed your views. You do not have the right to debate disproportionately if [you are] in the minority, since WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL are core policies. None of us are getting paid to be here; we are here because we think this is a valuable project worth our volunteer time. And while I do think there was a case for notability for the subject, not everyone would likely agree with me. Instead of trying to overturn a valid consensus, you could rewrite a draft using reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of Cooper's roles in the production of notable films, then submit it using articles for creation. The independent review there can improve the article and help it avoid deletion in the future. However, I strongly urge you to avoid WP:ASPERSIONS like being accused falsely before you exhaust the patience of others in this discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Please don't say I am bludgeoning because this is new information. I did more research and found out additional information. Here is an article about how Randy Cooper and his friend worked on the Iron Man 2 models. https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_15025239 Also, I found another movie credit of him in Gentleman Broncos by a suitable source. https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/737404/gentlemen-broncos#overview] I have others by IMDB and fandom that I was told by the articles of creation are not usable. I also found out that Boss Films was nominated for an Oscar for Alien 3, and Cooper worked on that film for Boss Films. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse - A valid conclusion by the closer. I cannot recall AFDs or DRVs where repeatedly stating the minority position has been useful. Pinging the participants in the AFD and the AFC reviewers: @Theroadislong, Oaktree b, Agnieszka653, Alpha3031, Randy Kryn, Moritoriko, BD2412, Dorsetonian, and Stifle: @Jamiebuba, Dan arndt, Anuwrites, RangersRus, and Timtrent: Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon I don't recall reviewing this and cannot find it in my logs. I have no opinion nor insight to offer I am afraid. I concur with your second sentence. Doing that is generally unhelpful. Those who say the least in defence of an article often make the most impact in its favour. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  User:Timtrent - The history shows that you draftified this on 10 February 2025. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon So I did. Thank you. It had no sources. I did not follow out after that so cannot comment. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved). Orlando Davis, you put up a good defense for the page, commendable. I favored keeping because of the detailed extent of Cooper's work, which seemed to be enough for GNG, and the fact that publications in his field of endeavor interview him as a peer. But a move review takes into account only the close to determine if it is a reasonable and accurate summary of the discussion. A move (deletion) review is not a rehashing of the arguments but a judgement call on the close. In this AfD it is a valid summary, hence the number of endorsements here. As you settle into Wikipedia the ropes, nudges, and cooperative nature of the volunteers becomes more obvious, and knowledge of things like Move Review play a part. Thanks, and hopefully there will be fuller articles and accolades and the article can be brought back at some point (Cooper's work is memorable and some of it is almost iconic, but it takes more than a few editors on this website realizing that, but unimpeachable sources which echo his notability). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  User:Randy Kryn - This is a Deletion Review rather than a Move Review. The two processes are similar in that they review the judgment of the closer and are not rehashes of AFD or RM, so your points are applicable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Robert McClenon, my main experience in close reviews is with moves and not deletions and came on your ping, hence the mix-up. And thanks for the pings, not everyone does that. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

  p.s. Robert McClenon, I think you inadvertently deleted Orlando's post. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (involved). I am not sure why my reply did not go through so I will repost. I will follow Randy Kryn's lead and concede that the close was a reasonable and accurate summary of the discussion even though I also believe Cooper's work is notable and iconic but the results are beyond my ability to change. I would like to thank everyone involved in this discussion for their patience, as it is only my second AFD discussion, and I am still learning. Orlando Davis (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I saw this article was up for deletion and added it to my watchlist before it was closed. I considered commenting in favor of its deletion. There seemed to be such a strong consensus for deletion that I didn't feel it was necessary to pile on. The editor who is making about a dozen comments in a discussion when most people are making one is definitely bludgeoning. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Several editors already made allegations of bludgeoning. So over and over again I am being accused of bludgeoning. I would consider that to be group bludgeoning which is also bludgeoning. I already endorsed deletion. Give it a rest. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, based on the comments of many editors, it would appear that there is a strong consensus of obvious bludgeoning behavior. One way to react to this consensus, other than continuing to bludgeon, would be to refrain from further problematic behavior. This does not require a further response, as this would just be further bludgeoning. Thank you. Asparagusstar (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse - Very clearly a correct call, including the closing comments and the guidance given by the relisting admin. The suggestion that those !voting delete lacked experience is disingenuous. There was one delete !voter who did indeed lack experience and no evidence that the admin gave any weight to what was essentially a vote on their part. It was a clear delete all the same. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  I am responding to sirfurboy. I have to apologize for that. That was something I said in the heat of the moment. However, I was referring more to article writing than the number of edits and ratings of those articles. For example, to me, an editor who has written several featured articles has in some cases done more than an editor who has made thousands of edits and no articles or articles but none of them are featured articles. It depends on context. It varies. That's not to say that the volunteer work that editors do isn't valuable, but that was what I was talking about. However, I myself am not a very experienced editor. So that was not something that made sense to say. So again, I apologize. I don't think you should ignore the things I said that do make sense because that statement didn't. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

  Again, I apologize; I should have been better than that. But this conversation was closed due to a lack of civility, but this whole AFD process is a disgusting lack of civility towards the subject of the article (I don't know him, never met him). And as far as lack of civility, I wasn't the only one. Star Mississipi's condescending tone at a point where the conversation was very civil escalated the argument. And Moritoko made fun of my writing and implied that craftsmen are not as important as designers. Orlando Davis (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse – The delete arguments are stronger in both quality and quantity. Quantity has been addressed above. In terms of quality, the keep side did not adequately address the superficial coverage noted in the nomination, nor the niche nature of the sources — a concern raised later in the discussion. gidonb (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  And since the consensus is obviously delete, I ask that this article be deleted quickly. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  You're responding too much. Sit back and learn how to respond to AfDs — and when not to open deletion reviews. Take a deep breath and learn from your mistakes. Just the other day you closed an AfD yourself that you had opened, without allowing a third party to summarize at closing time. People make mistakes. If you learn from them this reduces the waste. gidonb (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  It's a free country. I can respond however much I want to. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia operates by community consensus and established guidelines. We try to be patient, but persistent disruption isn't tolerated. Continued nuisance behavior does lead to sanctions. gidonb (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Orlando Davis this is your final warning. Stop being disruptive or you will be blocked and it won't only be about this subject either. Star Mississippi 01:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  To be fair to Orlando, Ritchie was the one who opened this DRV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  But, see User talk:Ritchie333#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Cooper (Model maker). Dorsetonian (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, I procedurally opened the deletion review because Orlando Davis asked me to, after asking my views on the article (as an uninvolved closing admin, I didn't have any). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  Orlando had it reopened. The original decision to close as delete was sound. A lot of community time has been wasted, first at the AfD, now again in this discussion, and in between on Ritchie's page. I will add that not all of Orlando's observations on Ritchie's page are wrong. I do see a group of mostly newer editors (traditionally, that would be JPL) who make the most random deletion claims at AfDs. That said, there are many deletionists, especially longer-serving ones, who make well-reasoned arguments. This entire line was totally irrelevant, given that there was an overwhelming consensus for deletion, and for very good reasons. gidonb (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I did look at the discussion on Ritchie's talk (and my original comment was actually largely a response to that, in fact) I just wanted to point out that Orlando did not wander here entirely unprompted. Personally, I'd hope we're willing to extend some latitude to someone who appears mostly unfamiliar with the typical and expected conduct in projectspace discussions, and would just like it over with at this point (especially given that if this were opened by them, I'd consider it eligible for withdrawal given the unanimous endorses so far). Perhaps it might not compare to our most infamous of stressful discussions (ANI, RfA, etc), I couldn't (and probably shouldn't) say, but it probably isn't pleasant if one sees it as continued scrutiny of oneself as an editor. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Not knowing is not the main problem. Main problem is not caring. gidonb (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse There's a clear consensus to delete this article. I've also looked at the temporarily undeleted version of the article and would also have !voted delete, which is irrelevant at DRV apart to note that I do not believe any clear error was made by those !voting to delete the article. SportingFlyer T·C 10:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Transl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The RfD closure failed to account for the fact that Template:Transl, unlike the other redirects bundled in that nomination, was the long-standing name of Template:Transliteration since 2007, which was moved away from that title only in 2022. Although replacement by bot was mandated, deletion still broke a lot of historical references. While there may have been consensus to delete the three other redirects, several participants !voted specifically to keep Template:Transl, and I do not believe consensus was in support of deleting it. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Issue raised with closer DMacks here. Note that the closure was also challenged by jlwoodwa here and by jacobolus here. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Indeed, this was a serious mistake of discussion closure which substituted the closer's personal preference for community consensus, and caused (and will continue to cause) harm to Wikipedia, especially since our software has never properly handled transclusions when viewing historical versions of pages, so now almost 2 decades of historical permalinks are going to have broken transliterations on them. –jacobolus (t) 11:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• I stand by my closure (I think I responded to each concern raised on my talkpage there, with specificity...can find the links later if needed). While it's definitely true that not all four involved templates had equally strong support, I saw the general concern did apply to all of them and was more supported than not by the guidelines and their weighting of pros/cons/etc mentioned. I have not been involved in this template-area and do not feel I raised new concerns or other judgement of my own on the issues beyond evaluating what others stated. As I have said, I made no prejudice against non-ambiguous forms. I'm having trouble finding where preserving the original/complete viewability of historial revisions is mentioned (and prefereably pointing to a policy or guideline) by a comment in the DRV. DMacks (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • The harm in deleting such redirects is, I believe, described by the second main consideration under WP:R#HARMFUL. Such deletions aren't prohibited, but should only be considered when the concerns are demonstrably outweighed by the harm caused by the existence of the redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Regarding the talk page responses, I already linked the archived discussions above. Apologies on my part for not responding further before starting the DRV, but the discussion had already been archived and given our conflicting opinions I don't think further discussion could have preempted the need for DRV. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - This is a train wreck. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Might tagging it {{deleted template}} be an acceptable compromise? —Cryptic 02:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  If preserving historical revisions is a concern, this may be a valid solution that could've been implemented without a deletion review. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Unbundle - Put the four trains on four tracks by splitting this into four RFDs.
  • Relist Template:Transl, which is the one that is being contested. The closure does not seem to have reflected consensus.
  • Leave the three uncontested template redirects in an open state so that they can be closed or relisted by any admin.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not familiar with the usual standards for deleting template redirects, but it seems like the "it's been in use since 2007" argument should have been accorded more weight here. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Overturn transl only We don't need a specific guideline that says "don't break historical stuff without a really good reason" for that to be considered a valid reason to not delete a redirect and it appears that such was the case here. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn transl to either keep or no consensus. I don't see consensus to delete that template. The editors who weighed in on it separately from the rest generally favored keeping this template, while several who !voted to delete all seemed not to understand the purpose of the discussion. I don't think a relist would be helpful – better to close as no-consensus and have a completely fresh discussion on this one template. Toadspike [Talk] 19:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  Those who did favour keeping the template mostly argued on the basis of length of "transliteration" compared to "transl". This, however, is not a policy-based ground to keep ambiguous redirects, and there have been shorter redirects created for this exact purpose ({{tlit}}, {{xlit}}), which mooted the length argument anyway. Some other arguments pointed to the historic usage of Transl, but again that is not an enshrined policy, and TfDs have previously deleted hundreds, if not thousands, of redundant/replaced/renamed/substituted templates as well. Few other keep arguments were made due to general frustration with the numerous <<See RfD>> links in the articles, some of which were rescinded, the others weren't until closure. This last line of argument stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the process is for, and should be discarded altogether. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

  "Few other keep arguments were made due to general frustration with the numerous <<See RfD>>" – These arguments were made on both sides, cf. Duyneuzaenasagae's comment. I agree with you that they should be discounted, though.

  I don't see any arguments to keep on the basis of length. I'm also not seeing any evidence that keep !voters were unaware of the shorter redirects or that they were opposed to their use. In fact, jacobolus's argument, which is close to a keep, even suggests mass-replacing the ambiguous terms with the shorter redirects.

  "other arguments pointed to the historic usage of Transl, but again that is not an enshrined policy" – well, unless this argument explicitly runs counter to policy, editors are allowed to make it and the closer shouldn't discount it. Toadspike [Talk] 08:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn “transl” to no consensus and leave the others as is. There was not consensus to delete that template as there was for the others. No objection to an immediate renomination focused on just the one template. Frank Anchor 02:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved) per my above comment. Despite being numerous in number, the arguments made are not a part of any standard policy or guideline. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 12:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn "transl" to no consensus and relist. I think this was ambiguous enough that I wouldn't want to say good/bad close without getting out a fine-toothed comb and doing the work of closing it myself. But it does look to me like this topic needs more discussion, so we should let that happen. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn transl (involved). It is clear that there was no consensus to delete that specific redirect. Per WP:FAIT, I'd also advocate for reversing the substitution of the redirects if the reopened RfD closes as keep. Warudo (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Manchester Freedom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion was left open for nearly a month and only commenter stated things about the article's references that patently inaccurate. Close was a no consensus. If there were no commenters at all, that may be appropriate but the inaccurate comment should have been taken into account in the closing and it may have persuaded others not to participate in the discussion. I ask for a relisting to obtain at least one pertinent viewpoint. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse as the right closure - No Consensus is always unsatisfying, but is sometimes really the lack of a consensus. The appellant/nominator requests another relist, but it was already relisted three times. The appellant disagrees with the Keep voter about the references; that disagreement is a lack of a consensus. Any other closure or another Relist would have been erroneous. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I can't remember when a discussion was relisted four times. More discussion would have been better, but closers must only act with the information that is provided. --Enos733 (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse Simply enough, and as frustrating as it might be, I cannot advocate for overturning a discussion to delete when no one apart from the nominator agreed it should be deleted, and there was more than one participant. I'd also mention that if anyone wants to save this article by adding clear sources, now is the time... I see a discussion about it on the American football talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Outside of the inaccuracy in the only other comment in the AFD, I can't disagree with the other people who are endorsing the closer's decision. AFDs are not votes, so comments in the discussion that are not accurate should not be taken into account by the closer. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment @Royal Autumn Crest, if you think my comments were "patently inaccurate," I think you should have at least pinged me to the deletion review Jahaza (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• I informed you that your comment was inaccurate during the AFD. This is not about the article, this is about the closure of the AFD. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  You also failed to add the appropriate notifications to Manchester Freedom and to the AFD discussion, which meant anyone with those pages on their watch list wouldn't have seen the deletion review that way. Jahaza (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's not accurate. The instructions for deletion review only require notifying the closer of the afd. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. It was already relisted three times, there is little to suggest yet another relist would have borne fruit. WP:RELIST discourages repeated relistig. Stifle (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. There can not be a deletion without a quorum and one user is not a quorum. Had nobody else participated in the AFD, it could have been deleted as if it were an expired WP:PROD. However, the presence of a keep !vote (no matter how weak) makes this no longer the case. A fourth relist goes against WP:RELIST guideline, which states repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice. (emphasis in the policy). I disagree strongly with the appellant's claim that the keep !vote may have persuaded others not to participate in the discussion. I believe the opposite would be true, as a user who supported deletion (or an ATD) would be more inclined to engage with the keep !voter to point out perceived errors in the vote. Frank Anchor 12:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, I would not be opposed to an immediate renomination (after the closure of this DRV), citing the low participation in the original AFD. A fresh discussion with more visibility as a result of this DRV (and possibly placement on more/different del-sort lists) may be enough to get larger pool of !voters.Frank Anchor 12:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Liz Lamere (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Procedural nomination. Original AFD nominator has made a report at WP:ANI questioning a non-admin closure and suspecting canvassing, for which DRV is the appropriate venue. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-Admin_closure_of_an_AfDRobert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

TheLongTone's ANI report was I recently put up an article Liz Lamere for deletion. The discussion seemed suspect to me, with a plethora of contributions from IP editors & very new accounts- leading me to suspect a degree of canvassing was going on . Now I see that the discussion has been the subject of a non-admin closure by Allblessed, a relatively new editor (30th March this year). Apart from the (imo) spam contributios, there were only two votes that looked kosher to me, one keep and one delete. TSventon (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I notice that this was Allblessed's first AfD closure, they have also relisted a discussion. TSventon (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Relist. Reading through the deletion discussion, it's clear that most of !votes run counter to our policies and guidelines; for example, by considering trivial mentions as legitimate sources, implying that notability is inherited, saying that record releases on non-notable/unimportant labels should count towards notability, etc. Woodroar (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Disclosure: as I was part of the deletion discussion, therefore I am WP:INVOLVED. While there were !votes from new/IP voters in the discussion, however I must fundamentally disagree with the comment from TheLongTone that appears to be characterising my !vote as "spam". In fact, there are 3 "keep" votes from editors with >5 year accounts, and I do request the "spam" insinuation is retracted. Regarding the close: in the discussion I identified a number of secondary sources with non-trivial coverage of the direct works of the subject, which are reliable, and that argument was never rebutted. ResonantDis_tortion 19:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Relist It's not really a BADNAC except for all of the blatant canvassing, but it needs to be closed by a competent administrator. (I also wouldn't mind !voting now that I've looked at it.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse The question we have at DRV is whether the closer interpreted the consensus in the AFD correctly. From the discussion: the nominator and one other editor suggested that the coverage was largely about the subject's spouse or interviews about the subject (not meeting WP:GNG). Four of the five keep votes (discounting the IP comments for a moment), suggested that the sourcing would pass GNG.

While the closer is expected to discount !votes that are contrary to policy and guidelines, and in this case, whether we see the !vote as 7-2, 4-2, or something else, it is clear that a strong majority of participants concluded that the sourcing was sufficient to meet GNG. Thus, a keep close was within the discretion of the closer, and was far from a WP:BADNAC. --Enos733 (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Given that the closer has entered a bolded relist below, I intend to relist this speedily. As the only endorse so far do you have any objections Enos733? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Relist, as the closer did not take into account the level of canvassing, and taking it into account places the discussion outside of the case of beyond doubt a clear keep described at WP:NACAFD. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

  I can accept that the IP votes may be treated with suspicion, but it is unclear to the degree that canvassing may have taken place (and the other concern, length of tenure of named editors was debunked). In this case, the allegation of canvassing was only raised by the nominator as a suspicion. IP editors in AFD are permitted. Even if there was late canvassing, the IP !votes occurred after all other editors commented (at least once) in the discussion and at the time, there were 5 comments supporting keeping the article and 2 editors supporting deletion. So, I cannot see this as "blatant" canvassing, and I lean to seeing any suspicious canvassing as not affecting the consensus to keep the article. (As an aside, I would be more worried that the IP comments are socks, rather than being canvassed) - Enos733 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Relist and see what further discussion gets. I would be against a delete closure at this stage despite the apparent canvassing or LOUTsocking, but it's not been relisted so a no consensus isn't appropriate yet, either. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Relist Since there is a serious concern about the outcome of my closure, I’ll suggest a relist for a fair consensus, But I’ll say it again there where keep votes from eligible editors even if some IPs where around, those where the first vote I saw for a keep. Still a relist of the discussion is fine. For me I think the discussion is a non consensus. Allblessed (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Further I’ve dropped my remark on the closure, my closure was very fair. Allblessed (talk) 06:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Relist per Woodroar. A competent close would have taken account of what was clearly in an influx of newish and IP editors. TarnishedPath^talk 07:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Relist: The question isn't whether the closure was "fair." The question is whether it was competent. "Closers are also required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project's goals ... Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes ... The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." (emphasis mine). Any closer has the responsibility not merely to count heads, but: "Wikipedia core policies, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view ... are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Ravenswing 07:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Chinmay Gaur (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Requesting temporary restoration of Draft:Chinmay Gaur (deleted on 14 March 2025 by Jimfbleak under G11). I am the creator (User:Rajat K26). I want to retrieve the content to rewrite it in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, remove promotional material, and resubmit via Articles for Creation. Rajat K26 (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Remove the promotional material and there'd be practically nothing left. Strongly advise you stop attempting to create articles and try to work on existing ones instead if that's the way you write. —Cryptic 11:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
  • For interested nonadmin onlookers, there's some quotes from the draft at User talk:Rajat K26#Reply. I'll add "Chinmay Gaur began his professional journey as a faculty member at the Music College in Vadodara, ..." to the list, which - as usual - is an excellent predictor that the page as a whole is G11able: there's exactly one fully-neutral sentence in the entire draft, the one stating his birthdate and -place. —Cryptic 20:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Cryptic, also the refs are largely junk, including YouTube, IMDB and Amazon, and I suspect that there may be a COI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - It is always a good idea to keep one's own copy of one's work, including but not limited to Wikipedia articles. It should not be the responsibility of Requests for Undeletion or Deletion Review to retrieve pages that were deleted either speedily or by AFD so that the originator can work on them. The originator should have kept a copy. If they don't, they can create the page again from the sources, which they already did once. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Deny Temporary Restoration - The applicant is asking the restoring admins to write their article for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Rachael MacFarlane albums (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hayley Sings is her only album she's made and she hasn't done another album 13 years since 2600:8801:8E:9900:3906:3A8C:E813:1274 (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The Pizza Meter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

During the original AfD, the article was deleted on the basis that, at the time, there was insufficient third-party coverage demonstrating notability. However, in light of recent events in the Middle East, a flood of news coverage has suddenly popped up over the topic: news.com.au, euronews, The Guardian, Economic Times, Futurism, Newsweek, The Telegraph, Haaretz. If the page is undeleted, I would suggest renaming it to Pizza Index, as that appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Allow recreation (i.e., undelete to draft or sandbox for update) per the new sourcing. This should probably not have been deleted previously; I suspect an appropriate search for sources at that time would have found more. No objection to renaming, anyone can nominate at any time, etc. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• As AfD closer, I do not object to a recreation using the new sources. Sandstein 07:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• As a delete !voter I'm still not sure this will pass our guidelines, but I have no problem with a new draft. SportingFlyer T·C 08:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think the evidence that this wasn't even the COMMONNAME suggests an article could have been built with a bit more digging, but given the sourcing above, it's an academic question. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think WP:NOTNEWS could be at play, though. I only see one article from before the last couple days. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Restore to mainspace. The AfD was closed correctly, but new sourcing is prima facie evidence of notability, sufficient at least to require renomination if contested. The deleted version wasn't great, but there's no reason to redo that work. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse the 2024 close, but see at the top of this noticeboard: Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted The requester has the right to create a draft, to submit a draft for review, or to create a new article subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Sure, a new article could be written from scratch, but personally, I'd rather not reinvent the wheel if editors have already written a half-finished article that just needs fixing up. Time is finite, after all. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - These requests don't need to come to DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  True, but I see no advantage to redoing the work in draft, when we already have a semi-decent version in the deleted history. REFUND won't handle such cases, so this has to come to DRV if we don't want to waste time unnecessarily rewriting articles. Owen× ☎ 18:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

These questions should not come to DRV. If you’re unsure and not wanting to waste time, request undeletion to draftspace at WP:REFUND. Improve the deleted article by removing poor sources and adding new better sources. Identify the best WP:THREE sources, by citing them first, or on the talk page, and seek review.

If you’re more confident, do the above but move it yourself back to mainspace. Th8s is ok, if you’re sure the sources are better, and as the AfD was so long ago.

DRV is not the right forum for requesting review of new sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• For the record, I absolutely believe this is the proper forum - this is where the community gains consensus on what should be done with new information after a deleted recent AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  And I strongly disagree. You are advocating scope creep.

  If every such case came to DRV, DRV would be overwhelmed. AfC and AfD are the forums that are appropriate. Even if DRV says “yes”, it confers no protection from being sent to AfD, and thus nothing has been achieved over the proponent simply recreating in mainspace with their new sources, except distracting DRV.

  There is no challenge to the AfD, and so this nomination should have been speedy closed.

  If the deleting admin had said “no”, or the REFUND to draftspace was refused, or an unsalting request was denied, then DRV is appropriate, when there is something to review. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Understood, in that case we can close this DRV discussion, and I'll start a new request at REFUND. --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Elito Circa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Elito Circa, also known as Amangpintor, is a widely recognized Filipino visual artist noted for pioneering the use of human hair and indigenous materials in painting. He has been featured in national and international media, including Ripley's Beleive It Or Not, Reuters, CNN, SBS Australia, Philippine Daily Inquirer, GMA Network, and ABS-CBN. His story is documented in the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), World Vision, Rotary International and Embassies and his works are displayed in public museums and Galleries. New reliable secondary sources are now available, proving long-term notability. 121.200.4.157 (talk) 11:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse unanimous consensus to delete. Recreation is allowed as the title is not salted. As several of the sources post-date the AFD, any new article would not be substantially similar to the deleted version, therefore G4 speedy deletion would not apply. If the appellant were a user in good standing, and not an IP, my recommendation would be to request the deleted page be restored to draft space at WP:REFUND, incorporate the new references into the draft, and then submit it through the WP:AFC process. Frank Anchor 12:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Per the below comment, a draft has recently been created, so modifying my response to reflect this. Frank Anchor 23:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the original delete consensus. The same issues exist in relation to the quality of sourcing which includes user-submitted content, churnalism, human-interest or shock-value sources, blogs, promotional puff pieces, homework assignments and perplexing things like this: {{tq|Write an essay about Some Philippine artworks challenge our perspectives and make us think differently . There does not seem to be any analytical art historical/art critical attention that is normally found for artists; no notable museum collections, etc. (Not sure if this has any bearing on a DRV, but the original article was created by a sock-puppeteer with the same name as the artists's pseudonym, see: []). Netherzone (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the 2022 delete consensus if this is an appeal of the 2022 deletion. The title has not been salted and the appellant or a registered editor may create a new draft and submit it for review. The URL Dump of links is not useful. If the references do provide significant coverage, they should be in support of text in a draft. See also the point at the top of this noticeboard: Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon, I just checked and there already is a draft for this person, it's located here: Draft:Elito Villaflor Circa. It was created four days before this DRV was posted. Netherzone (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, User:Netherzone. They are probably the same person, asking the other parent. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse and Allow Recreation preferably through the WP:AFC process. --Enos733 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Flower (skunk from Bambi) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Incorrectly non-admin closed as a speedy keep, when it should have been a standard keep and a move. The move is specifically to an admin protected page so would need an admin to do so. CoconutOctopus talk 14:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• This needs some thinking. The AfD ended with three keep:one delete:one redirect. The speedy keep close is a concern. This isn't even a WP:SNOWing AfD. If the AfD was closed correctly, endorse. The delete/redirect !votes came in before substantial changes were made to the article within three days of the nomination. After that, people voted keep. Relist probably won't work since the keeps would probably pile-on and the discussion be closed short of the added 168 hours. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  Adding to my rationale above, I do not recall a page being moved as a result of an AfD, and assistance to move a page to a protected page can always be done at WP:RM/TR. I agree with the OP though that this should be closed by an admin, but I do not see any problem either way. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I see that the closer has been indef'd for general disruption, so this may need to be reconsidered. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I posted this before reconsidering and taking it to ANI as a whole for bad closes. I do still think this one specifically should have been a Keep followed by a histmerge move, not a simple Speedy Keep. CoconutOctopus talk 15:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Centre for Sight (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Inproper use of G4. he content was significantly different to the previous content - it was unbiased and factual and had references as well as suggestions for further references in the talk page. Unlike the previous content, it focused just on Centre for Sight as a notable eye clinic in the UK and not on the centre's owner who has his own page. I am a new writer so had nothing to do with the previous page in 2017 (I would have been taking my A-levels then not even in work) and I read the guide for creating new pages carefully and applied it to the best on my ability. Erin Dearlove (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Deleting admin's comment: The good-faith G4 by User:Onel5969 applies no matter which paid editor the doctor is using these days. I had offered to restore the page then nominate again for AfD but this paid editor seems to be in a hurry. I was not satisfied this page has better sources than in 2017, even though some sources may be different. Again, I'm happy to restore for now. BusterD (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

  Have restored and renominated. BusterD (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Alisha Parveen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Alisha has become notable now so can her deleted article be restored to draftspace so that I can work on it and submit it for review? Zainyloves (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:AHM (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The reason for it to be deleted was not being widely used, that's changeable. I will put it to use, in addition it, I believe if more people knew it exists, it would also have been put to use more often. 2604:2D80:4D09:1A00:FDB5:CAB5:3ED6:E92B (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC) -->

• This template was deleted over two years ago. Why are you only requesting this now? Stifle (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Because I wasn't here two years ago. I've already asked the person who deleted it, he didn't appreciate being bothered. 2604:2D80:4D09:1A00:D79:B3E7:D881:47A0 (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I probably wouldn't "appreciate" having something like this written to me, either. Daniel (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't understand the issue.

  I used his terminology, following his definition.

  I had already told him I am aware why it was deleted, he replied by telling me it was deleted because of the reasons I had already told him I have been made aware of, and had already disputed, something which he did not address, and when pressed on it he started making threats. "End of the road for you" are you building up on his intimidation tactics?

  I'm not even sure why the temporality of the request was even asked; It's only out of [evidently] undue politeness that I even added the section about requesting to have it restored; as to avoid my reply to the admin, who bothered replying to my requesting of a restoration of a nuanced template -which was deleted for no reason, save that one person didn't like it being used only once by one person prior -something which had already been remedied for in this petition- being that of simply pointing out the obvious; I wasn't here then; But I'll add some more now: Nor did I know it exists, Nor do most who would make use of it. 2604:2D80:4D09:1A00:F4F4:3E0A:508B:CDB6 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Restore based on lack of participation of in the TFD (just the nom and a single WP:PERX vote). That's not enough to be considered consensus to delete, particularly without being relisted even a single time. We now have a user interested in correcting the reason for which the template was deleted. While I would normally vote to relist a sparsely-attended discussion, it does not make sense to relist a discussion from over two years ago. Any user would be free to start a new TFD. Frank Anchor 12:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that this request reflects the idea that deletion of a template or category, unlike deletion of an article, is permanent, and that any recreation can be tagged as G4 unless it is brought here to DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• Restore There was too little participation in the TfD, and this was from two years ago so relisting wouldn't be a good idea. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 20:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Restore per above. TFD participation has long been low, and I think that the request to restore is I good faith. ToadetteEdit (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Surya Devan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Request for user space restoration only

I acknowledge that Draft:Surya Devan was deleted under CSD G11 for promotional content, and I also acknowledge a conflict of interest. I am not contesting that deletion from draftspace.

However, I respectfully request a user subpage copy at User:SuryaDevanE/SuryaDevan so that I can work on the material privately for learning and eventual neutral submission — possibly by a third party.

I’ve made a clear good-faith effort to understand Wikipedia’s policies and will not attempt to repost the article without editorial guidance. Admin Timtrent has declined restoration; I’m requesting community review.

Thank you. — SuryaDevanE (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural Close - Appellant blocked as a spammer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Aubrey Plaza (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The original TfD presented no valid rationale for deletion; the only rationale was in the nominator statement, which cited WP:FILMNAV. However, this guideline does not cover (let alone implore) navbox deletion, it discusses subjective criteria for individual item inclusion at navboxes. Kingsif (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn Besides generally supporting procedural relist as DELREV nominator, looking at the production credits that made up most of the navbox (The Little Hours, Ingrid Goes West, Black Bear (film), Little Demon (TV series), and Emily the Criminal), in all cases Plaza is producer and main actor and, at least through our articles or a quick search, was the first producer signed on and a primary creative force in the projects being picked up and finished. Two of the film articles also indicate she was directly involved in casting. It's simply unreasonable to suggest Plaza would not be considered a primary creator, and this in addition to the character links, mean it's both a complete and tightly-focused (distinct creator connection throughout all items) navbox. Kingsif (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  She is most definitely not the creator of Little Demon and she was one of 6-8 producers on a couple of the films you mention. She cannot be considered a primary creator for these. WP:FILMNAV clearly applies here. --woodensuperman 11:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  Once again, FILMNAV (no matter what you wanted when you wrote it) is not a deletion policy - you can write a personal argument why you believe some of its content indicates that some items shouldn't be included, but that is 1. an opinion and 2. not something that leads directly to template deletion. At least you now seem to only question inclusion of a couple of the films, so regardless there is certainly enough for a navbox to exist. Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Relist based on lack of participation of in the TFD (just the nom and a single WP:PERX vote). Thats not enough to be considered consensus to delete, particularly without being relisted even a single time, now that a user has presented an argument to retain the template. Frank Anchor 14:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• endorse or relist, there is precedent for director-centric navigation boxes and for deleting actor-centric and producer-centric navigation boxes (per MOS:FILM), but I see no harm with reopening this for more discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Relist - Inadequate discussion for consensus, should have been relisted once. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Relist as per above. This should have been pointed out before the closing time. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• As a usual closer at TFD, one comment + the OP is typical to establish consensus for a routine nomination. I would judge this as one such. I think relist comments based on this factor are probably a miss. (The OP here cites at least one other factor, on which I have no comment.) Izno (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Question for User:Izno about TFD: Do the OP and one supporting comment establish a consensus to keep the title deleted, or can another editor recreate the title? Can the OP simply recreate a template with the same title? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Michael B. Jordan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The original TfD presented no valid rationale for deletion; the only rationale was in the nominator statement, which cited WP:FILMNAV. However, this guideline does not cover (let alone implore) navbox deletion, it discusses subjective criteria for individual item inclusion at navboxes. Kingsif (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Relist based on lack of participation of in the TFD (just the nom and a single WP:PERX vote). Thats not enough to be considered consensus to delete, particularly without being relisted even a single time, now that a user has presented an argument to retain the template. Frank Anchor 14:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• endorse or relist, there is precedent for director-centric navigation boxes and for deleting actor-centric and producer-centric navigation boxes (per MOS:FILM), but I see no harm with reopening this for more discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Relist - Inadequate discussion for consensus, should have been relisted once. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Relist as per above. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• As a usual closer at TFD, one comment + the OP is typical to establish consensus for a routine nomination. I would judge this as one such. I think relist comments based on this factor are probably a miss. (The OP here cites at least one other factor, on which I have no comment.) Izno (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
• Question for User:Izno about TFD: Do the OP and one supporting comment establish a consensus to keep the title deleted, or can another editor recreate the title? Can the OP simply recreate a template with the same title? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:Halle Berry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The original TfD presented no valid rationale for deletion; the only rationale was in the nominator statement, which cited WP:FILMNAV. However, this guideline does not cover (let alone implore) navbox deletion, it discusses subjective criteria for individual item inclusion at navboxes. Kingsif (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Also, request undeletion so that previous versions (the original TfD nominator noted they significantly reduced it) can be properly assessed. Kingsif (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Relist based on lack of participation of in the TFD (just the nom and a single WP:PERX vote). Thats not enough to be considered consensus to delete, particularly without being relisted even a single time, now that a user has presented an argument to retain the template. Frank Anchor 14:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• endorse or relist, there is precedent for director-centric navigation boxes and for deleting actor-centric and producer-centric navigation boxes (per MOS:FILM), but I see no harm with reopening this for more discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Relist - Inadequate discussion for consensus, should have been relisted once. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Relist all three of these, though I think the same result will occur due to our policies. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

  With the Berry template, it seems likely, but that's okay: in a TfD we must allow the discussion to occur or we are sidestepping accountability. This is why I do take issue, in general, with acronyms (mis)used for authority and "per nom" being ways things get done: no user(s) take accountability and we can't blame a TfD system that has been used improperly, so it becomes increasingly hard to start new discussion or get to the root of decisions, which is how bad precedents are set. Kingsif (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Relist as per above. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• As a usual closer at TFD, one comment + the OP is typical to establish consensus for a routine nomination. I would judge this as one such. I think relist comments based on this factor are probably a miss. (The OP here cites at least one other factor, on which I have no comment.) Izno (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

  Even when the comment doesn’t say anything? Anyway, maybe two just generally shouldn’t be considered consensus - I don’t know where else it would. And I imagine if there were suddenly lots more non-consensus status quo closes, it would drive up engagement with TfD. Kingsif (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  I can not see any future in any forum in which more no-con closes would increase engagement (or in which this would be healthy whatsoever for TFD). Which as you imply, is the problem. TFD has a second issue that it has no PROD or equivalent, which is how AFD would theoretically get around this case.

  On which point in fact, several admins at TFD will delete templates with solely a nom as a soft deletion despite there being no policy on the point. (I personally relist nom-only TFDs.) I raised that in 2021 (see Explicit talk page link); discussion at the time seemed not particularly concerned with the practice.

  As such, I don't think it's realistic to suggest 'two shouldn't be a consensus' without a wider guideline or policy saying what the minima are. Izno (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Question for User:Izno about TFD: Do the OP and one supporting comment establish a consensus to keep the title deleted, or can another editor recreate the title? Can the OP simply recreate a template with the same title? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see how that question is interesting, TBH. If you mean, would someone recreating these navboxes have to contend with WP:G4? Assuredly. Izno (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Ilyas El Maliki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article Ilyas El Maliki, which was deleted via AfD. I believe the deletion was unfair for the following reasons:

1. The new article was not substantially identical to the previously deleted version. It introduced at least 50% new sources, including coverage of the subject’s achievements from Dexerto, Kings League’s official website, and leading Moroccan media outlets like Hespress, L'Opinion, Telquel and Morocco World News.

2. The new sources were not properly evaluated. Editors repeatedly called for "speedy delete" without reviewing the sources or explaining why they failed WP:GNG.

3. Skepticism toward Moroccan media reflects potential systemic bias. Editors did not provide evidence that these outlets were unreliable, yet their reliability was dismissed. This reflects broader challenges in recognizing notability for figures from the MENA region.

• I request a review to determine whether the sources and arguments presented were given adequate consideration before deletion.

Rap no Davinci (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Can someone confirm whether WP:G4 applied? I think we've gotten this one wrong and it looks like we can have an article on him based on the wide amount of coverage he's received. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Temp-undeleted: old version; new version. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus with no prejudice against immediate re-nomination. The rationale for every delete vote was that an article on this subject was previously deleted in an AFD. However, the temp un delete shows the article deleted in the second AFD is vastly different than the one in the first AFD, including multiple references dated after the article was first deleted. G4 clearly does not apply. There is very little discussion of the merits of the actual article or of the references (particularly those that were not in the article during the first AFD) from the delete !voters. Frank Anchor 00:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn A "Delete because G4" when G4 does not apply is no delete !vote at all. It likely reflects fatigue with efforts to craft compliant articles on borderline notability people, and we need to instead properly evaluate notability based on the final sourcing provided. The late-breaking G4s after the earlier ones had been contested are particularly puzzling to me. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comments - I am puzzled. The old and the new temporarily undeleted versions that I am viewing are so different that no one should say that they are substantially the same. Was the new version of the article expanded while the second AFD was in progress, in which case some of the AFD participants saw a different less complete article?
  • This is a difficult case, because DRV is not AFD round 2, but the AFD does not appear to reflect reality. The Delete votes all said to Speedy Delete, and the nomination says that the article being reviewed is substantially the same as the deleted article, but the two articles are not substantially the same. I think that Ignore All Rules should be used very rarely, but this is a case where we need to ignore the rule that are not reviewing the AFD. The AFD was wrong. I was about to say to Relist, but this AFD has been tainted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to No Consensus as per User:Frank Anchor and permit a new AFD to be started, and the participants will know that G4 is not one of the valid answers. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn per above. G4 should not apply if there are substantial changes such that the concerns in the previous AFD are addressed. It is probably too excessive to delete the page because of the G4 comments in the AfD despite the author's convincing arguments against the delete !votes. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn and allow a new AfD if you want, but I strongly suspect we're at the point where this will be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 07:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn and allow a new AFD, per above. Mooonswimmer 04:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn, clearly not G4 and also there are plenty of sources about him. Alaexis_¿question? 14:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• I'm going to buck the trend here and say endorse This the result of an AfD discussion, not a speedy deletion, so the question of whether G4 actually applies or not as stated in the speedy deletion criteria doesn't technically matter. Instead, "delete per G4" is a perfectly reasonable shorthand way of saying "delete because I don't think the issues that caused the previous deletion have been addressed". And we don't have jurisdiction at DRV to determine that argument is invalid because doing so would merely be substituting our judgement for theirs rather than actually addressing a procedural error as we are supposed to do. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Except there was a procedural error. The “delete per G4” voters did not have access to the previous version which was deleted and recreated. They just assumed, incorrectly, that since it was already deleted once it should simply be deleted again. The procedural error is in the closer (who would have access to both versions and see that G4, whether as an actual speedy or as an argument in an AFD vote, clearly didn’t apply) giving too much weight to these votes which were found out to not be based at all in P&G. That is certainly a valid concern for DRV. Frank Anchor 11:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not what G4 says at all - it specifically says the draft must be sufficiently identical. The other wrinkle here is that this does look like it should have been kept looking at the available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 11:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn: Not G4 material. Delete votes were just lukewarm takes that barely addressed the keep votes. It's a deletion discussion, not a vote.--🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Violations (Star Trek: The Next Generation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article is nothing but describing the plot of the episode. No source links provided, no production information, nothing. This article about the episode is rendered pointless.--Dr. Gregory House's Missing Cane (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Procedural Close - The statement appears to be a case for the deletion of the article, and should be made as an Articles for Deletion nomination. There doesn't appear to have been any deletion action to review. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Close per Robert McClenon, there is no deletion discussion or decision to review. This should be taken to AfD or the article talk page in the first instance. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Close (wrong forum). SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Sources:
  • those cited in de:Geistige Gewalt
  • Sexual Generations: "Star Trek, the Next Generation" and Gender, p. PA168, at Google Books
  • AV Club,
  etc.—Alalch E. 15:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Douglas Cowgill (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article can't be re-created but has sources such as [] and [] and [] Wynwick55gl (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Douglas Cowgill isn't protected, from what I can see. As a non-autoconfirmed user, you can't directly create it though, please use the article wizard to create & submit a draft. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Create and Submit Draft or wait four days and create article, subject to AFD. This doesn't appear to be a request to overturn the old A7. A procedural close may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Close (out of scope). DRV is not for giving permission to recreate old deletions. If you’re not sure, use WP:AFC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Chromebook challenge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

High number of people who wanted to delete the article were WP:JUSTA. They cited policies but didn't give a rationale. Example, the deletion "rationale" simply stated "WP:NOTNEWS" and nothing else. Additional notes: The article cited reliable secondary sources like USATODAY, CBS, NBC, and Axios, complying with GNG.Thegoofhere (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. Contrary to the appellant, most of the Delete views were solidly anchored in P&G. On the flip side, some of the Keeps are little more than "give it a chance!" or "it's important/useful". That said, the content is still in the history, and nothing stops the appellant from starting a spinout discussion at the current redirect target, if sufficient sourcing for standalone notability has amassed in the elapsed week. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Cranston middle school evacuated after incident with laptop
  • The Toronto Catholic District School Board is begging students to stop blowing up their laptops
  • Laptops damaged and kids burned: A Toronto school board warns of ‘dangerous’ social media challenges

  All within the past week, does that answer your question? Thegoofhere (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't ask any question. I pointed out that you are free to start a spinout discussion on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 20:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  My bad. Thegoofhere (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn NEVENT or TOOSOON are not appropriate arguments to delete current events; trying to use them in such a manner ("Surely there will be no lasting coverage")is a reverse-CRYSTAL violation, so no, the delete opinions are not P&G based with respect to a current news item. NOTNEWS was never an appropriate rationale; NOTNEWS and trend-of-the-week are antithetical, in that NOTNEWS presumes routine, run-of-the-mill coverage, which this is not. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  WP:ATA#CRYSTAL is what you're looking for Thegoofhere (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

  Eh, the argument that there won't be future coverage therefore we can treat it as if there won't be is a different issue than the examples there. I appreciate the pointer, however. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse - I disagree with the appellant's argument that the Delete votes were inadequately reasoned or were vague waves. The closer made a reasonable assessment, and the assessment that I would have made. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• endorse the policy basis for deletion was explicit and explained by multiple voters. The keep arguments were woeful. The op needs to stop policing the comments of other users. They do not have the right to dictate what is a good or a bad argument. Frankly it also looks desperate and is almost always an indicator that you don't have a valid counter argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse correct reading of consensus to not keep. Possible this subject can have sustained notability and can be spun out to an article at that point. The appellant or any other user can copy the redirected version over to draft or user space for the purpose of improvement and to incorporate future coverage when and if it becomes available. Frank Anchor 15:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved). The delete !votes were clearly stronger and more policy-based than the keeps, to the point that a "delete" close would have been within the closer's discretion. A redirect was an appropriate AtD. The appellant appears to have weakened their case by WP:BLUDGEONing the AfD and through sarcastic, borderline uncivil responses. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse This was a 2-to-1 delete-to-keep and the keep arguments aren't all that strong. Furthermore it can easily be covered elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 08:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Endorse. User:Thegoofhere had their say at AfD, with 15 posts, and failed to persuade. The close was correct. Any arguments to expand coverage now belong at the talk page of the redirect target, at Talk:List of Internet challenges.

Thegoofhere expressed wishes to take the content to draft. I would strongly discourage this, as content forking, unless done with explicit approval demonstrated at Talk:List of Internet challenges. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the not deleted content behind the redirect, I’d have argued “delete”, a news flash about school property damage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse per above. The Delete !votes were convincing, and most of them were not WP:JUSTAVOTE as the submitter of this DRV claimed. In addition, despite the votes, I do agree with the WP:ATD option rather than outright deletion. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Urutau (3D Printable Firearm) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Urutau recently received press reports from two security research outfits(GNET and The Jamestown Foundation). At the Australian Federal Police forensics headquarters in Canberra, the ballistics team manufactured their own Urutau. Complete and incomplete models of the Urutau have been recovered by police forces in Auckland, New Zealand^[1][2] and Lexington Park, Maryland, United States of America.^[3][4][5]. They are Visible in the Bottom Left Corner of the images provided in the articles. It got mainstream media coverage 1 ,2,3,4,5,6,7. Urutau (3D Printable Firearm) now certainly meets GNG and has sufficient evidence of notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Superlincoln (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Go to WP:AfC. DRV is not for giving permission to recreate. The AfD was closed correctly as “merge‎ to List of 3D printed weapons and parts”.

Read WP:THREE. It is not reasonable to ask people to read 15 sources arguably in support of notability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I consider these links to be the best sources of the above post

1.https://gnet-research.org/2025/01/08/beyond-the-fgc-9-how-the-urutau-redefines-the-global-3d-printed-firearm-movement/

2.https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/terrorism-expert-warning-on-new-simplified-3d-printed-gun-and-manifesto-235518/

3.https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/feathers-fury-in-depth-analysis-z%C3%A9-cariocas-podcast-interview-f%C3%BCredi-f9g0e/ Superlincoln (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I haven’t evaluated whether they are independent, but they look good. All newer than the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the September 2024 AFD. Create a draft (using the same content as was recently added in article space and is in the history) and submit it for review. A reviewer can compare the draft against the deleted article (which is in the history). There is no need for DRV to be involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

We can compare this version against the deleted article ourselves, we can clearly see that it is not substantially equivalent or identical. Throwing this to AfC is just creating work that doesn't need to be done and isn't required in any way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• No action. It is possible to replace the redirect with a suitable new version of the article without a deletion review. If unsure and want a second opinion, you can do what Robert McClenon said, but not even that is required.—Alalch E. 16:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  User:Alalch E. - The appellant has already done that several times, and has been reverted citing the AFD each time, mostly recently twice in early May 2025. The subsequent versions have been similar to the deleted version but have added to it, and so have not been identical to the deleted version. Another "suitable new version" will probably also be reverted citing the AFD. Review of a draft is more likely to work than slow-motion edit-warring between slightly different versions and the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  If he makes a good attempt, and restores from redirect while addressing the reason for deletion, he can't simply be reverted. A suitable version is a version suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia: notable topic, no content problems. —Alalch E. 19:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  It appears that the appellant did make a good attempt, and was simply reverted. I, for one, would rather see an unnecessary trip to DRV or an unnecessary use of AFC as opposed to slow-motion edit-warring. What are you, User:Alalch E., saying the user should do? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  First of all, we're having a full discussion process now at DRV, when it should have been at AfD. I'm of a principled view that we should not be trying too hard to prevent repeated AfDs, and if it really becomes a bother, the response should address conduct. Appellant did the right thing by stating the notability case on the talk page upon restoring with improvements. Restoring the redirect after that is WP:BLARing. It is explicitly reversible, to be followed by AfD. After being reverted he should have pinged the reverter in that talk topic and directed him to start an AfD instead. This can't be analyzed using the straightforward edit-warring paradigm. Restoring from a redirect in good faith is creating content and this action is privileged. It isn't a normal edit, it's a privileged action that is contested via formal process.

  The new page reviewer did fine to BLAR. We should trust that he is able to tell if the improvement overcomes the reasons from the AfD or not. But it is still his opinion, which he can't enforce. Seeing that his BLAR was reversed, I am confident that this new page reviewer would not have reverted; there would not have been such edit warring. But then another editor came along and replaced the content with the redirect again, and that wasn't good. That was actually edit warring. The community should be (and is) able to address that without pretending that it requires a Deletion review. It's a matter of conduct, not deletion process. The problem is enforcing one's opinion in a dispute (a dispute around eligibility of an article) instead of using an established venue to resolve such a dispute (AfD).—Alalch E. 13:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  So to conclude, I would rather see a necessary trip to ANI or ANEW, than an unnecessary trip to DRV. There's a power imbalance involved, but DRV should not be a cushion for this power imbalance. That is not nice. That would be a bad regime. Notional review that actually covers for incorrect actions of the power elite. —Alalch E. 13:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  All I saw is that no one read my notability case statement in the talk page before reverting. They saw the previous AfD decision was to merge, then they decided to revert it. Superlincoln (talk) 06:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  You did the right thing by stating the notability case on the talk page. You then need to ping and/or use {{tl|talkback}} to make sure that another editor reads. If there is no agreement, that editor needs to start an AfD. If he doesn't want to start an AfD and reverts repeatedly, he is behaving inappropriately and maybe needs to be blocked. In that case, report to administrators. —Alalch E. 10:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• Restore. The version that was redirected last month was quite different than the one discussed at the AFD in September 2024. Had it been deleted instead of redirected, G4 speedy deletion would not have applied. The merits of this updated article can be challenged at a second AFD if anyone wishes to do so. Frank Anchor 21:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Maybe draftify? There does appear to have been enough new coverage since last time that a new discussion on notability would be due but thats hard to have when everyone is playing red ink-green ink. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Restore Going over the article history again I see no valid policy or guideline reason for blanking the article... The blanks were "As per AfD" and "back to redirect per AfD" but AfD does not apply to substantially different material which is what we had here. Overall I think a large trout for @Onel5969 and Bbb23: is due... That being said DRV doesn't really seem like the place for this, the original AfD is not being challenged, honestly if I'd noticed all this earlier I would just have reverted Bbb23's baseless edit and given them a talking to on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: No trout for Onel5969, he's eminently entitled to confidence in making such decisions as a new page patroller and if he says "per AfD", we must assume the best possible interpretation of his work process and reasoning, which means assuming that he compared the AfD'd version with the new attempt and concluded that the new attempt does not overcome the reasons for deletion/redirection and that the same reasons still hold (= "per AfD"). That is great. No trout for that whatsoever. But when 1 (one) editor has done this, it's over. BLAR is exhausted. Otherwise n number of editors could "BLAR" any article mery-go-round style and enforce removal of the article outside of a consensus-based process, by each replacing the article with a redirect once, and never engaging in a discussion (please anyone don't claim BEANS because this is not a hypothetical scenario, this is exactly what has happened here and why we're wasting time in DRV). That is edit warring. Apply Wikipedia:Page-move war#Dealing with page-move wars by analogy (this would be redirect-warring). What I am advocating here is consistent with WP:BLAR, WP:ATD-R, and WP:BRD (and with WP:TAGTEAM/WP:GAME). —Alalch E. 16:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

NPP does not come with any such entitlement... And if it does then my autopatrolled status makes me their equal... The deleted version is not hidden, I should know I was the one to blank it as part of the merge process... This is the blanked version and this is the one Onel5969 blanked . No competent editor can call those identical, this was illegitimate blanking... In this context "per AfD" is a frivilous explantion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You are completely denying the ability to blank-and-redirect. Blanking-and-redirecting is within a guideline: WP:BLAR, and a policy: WP:ATD-R. Your analysis lacks a bit of nuance here. I think that we might agree if you incorporate the nuancing that is already written into PAG. The versions do not have to be identical. The standard is "does the new version overcome the reasons to redirect under the AfD consensus". —Alalch E. 16:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

And how would a competent argument be made that it does not overcome the reasons to redirect under the AfD consensus? It was redirected for not meeting notability, it now meets notability... Which seems to have been expected, as one merge vote states "I do not think this meets the GNG yet, though it might be close." (emphasis mine). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The competent argument is that it still does not meet notability. I am not saying that it does or doesn't, but such an argument can be made competently. —Alalch E. 16:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

And I'm saying that it can't... And nobody yet has so the only way to demonstrate that it can is to make such an argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You can't say that. You can say that in an AfD, but you can't say that such a determination cannot be made by one editor competently. He gets to try his idea out. He gets to try it out once, and if it doesn't work out he needs to prove his case in an AfD. What can't happen is another editor coming along and empowering his judgement by turning the page yet again back into a redirect. —Alalch E. 16:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

His judgement was bad. I see nothing to suggest that such a determination could be made competently... Again if you disagree then the burden is on you to demonstrate that it can be, I see no such path from a competent evaluation of the sources and context but I'm always open to being wrong. Perhaps much of this could have been avoided with better edit summaries, "As per AfD" and "back to redirect per AfD" don't really give us much to on, that leaves us just guessing as to what the reasoning actually was. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You are entitled to say that it's bad but he's entitled to exercise his allegedly bad judgement. Once. The arena to decide what is bad and what is good is (a new) AfD. His "As per AfD" sufficiently clearly communicates that he did not believe that the reasons to make the article stop being live under the AfD consensus have been overcome. He can be thwarted in his exercise of allegedly bad judgement by simply being reverted. What can't happen is that his judgement, good or bad, gets supercharged by another editor simply blowing wind in his back, i.e., through sheer strength in numbers. —Alalch E. 17:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I will agree that this discussion should have happened on that talk page instead of a second revert. The supercharging took it to another level which we're now dealing with the fallout from, even if we do seem to have arrived at a consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Restore. As the version that was redirected last month has most of the above press reports and sources added to the article. It also has significant work done to it too. These works should make it meet GNG. The reason to merge the one discussed at the AFD in September 2024 is because the it doesn't meet GNG. The version that was redirected last month does meet GNG, so it should be restored. Superlincoln (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  You initiated this DRV, you don't need to !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 08:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• restore I'm struggling to evaluate the reliability of some of the sources, but the GNET one in particular looks quite good. Hobit (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment It appears that this was un-redirected with differing content (from the original; from each other in at least one case) three times since the AfD closure. I'm not sure if we need a G4-like restriction on re-BLAR'ing without a subsequent discussion, but this would appear to make a decent case for it. Overall, I'd restore and start a new AfD if desired. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Restore. Substantially different case, new sources look good to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I would not have accepted this at AfC, I don't think the sources are good enough. Most of these are mere mentions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
  • I would characterize the focus of the GNET article to be on the Urutau. It is mentioned (exactly I believe) 100 times. My quick research on GNET makes me think they count as reliable and independent. That is only one source, but it's a very good and in-depth source. While the others only mention it in the context of similar guns, it is usually the first one mention and/or listed. One really good source plus a few weaker ones is usually enough for us to cover the topic. So I get your take, but I think we have enough from multiple sources (if mainly one...) to write a good article. Hobit (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

    I would also characterize the main focus/topic of the 3D Printing Industry (3DPI) article to be on the Urutau. My quick research on 3DPI would lead me to believe they are a major, reliable and independent news source on the matter of 3D printing. Superlincoln (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: The sources appear good enough, can you explain your judgement here? Are you saying that it meets our notability requirements but you have a higher bar than notability for accepting things through AfC? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't think the sources are quite good enough. I'm not sure about the GNET or 3D Printing newsletter, and the other sources aren't SIGCOV or are on other products. We're not at zero, but I don't think this is as clear of a pass as other people seem to think. SportingFlyer T·C 20:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• No action. Not a matter for DRV. Anyone is free to recreate the article if they are convinced they have better sources now. Sandstein 09:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The appellant already tried restoring the page, which included new information and sources, several times and it was reverted, citing the AFD. DRV seems like a logical next step to me. Frank Anchor 12:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

But that isn't really a matter of whether deletion process was followed, which is what DRV is for. It's a content dispute about whether the topic is better covered as part of a list or as an article. This should be resolved like any other content dispute on the article talk page (WP:DR). Sandstein 13:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

But we're here anyway, even if this isn't the most perfect venue, and a constructive discussion is in progress. Seems like WP:NOTBURO would apply in this case. Frank Anchor 13:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Also the people who reverted the article after i restored it never attempted to contact me or started a discussion in the article's talk page. The only way to avoid the article from getting reverted after restoration is to get rid of the AfD. But to get rid of the AfD, u need to start a DRV. Superlincoln (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

After the revert, it is for you to take it to the talk page, Talk:List of 3D-printed weapons and parts. Make the case there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it's for the reverted reverter to start a new AfD, as he cannot re-revert (cannot BLAR again once reverted). —Alalch E. 10:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok. User:Superlincoln reverted the redirect, 18 April 2025, over six months after the AfD. And they made a post to the talk page of the redirect target. That was good.

6 and 7 May, 2025, two other editors, they seem previously uninvolved, reverted back to the redirect.

The AfD consensus was between “merge” and “delete”. This matters. It was not “keep”/“merge”.

The most recent non-redirect version, is, in my opion, WP:Reference bombed.

I recommend that attempts to recreate be referred either to that talk page, Talk:List of 3D-printed weapons and parts, or draftspace with notice posted at Talk:List of 3D-printed weapons and parts, and that a tabular WP:SIRS analysis be done. Use the WP:THREE best sources, ping all known detractors of the spinout, and if you can defence three sources, recreate in mainspace, but without the reference bombing. If I saw the last version at AfD, I would !vote “draftify” due to reference bombing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the three best sources:

I consider these links to be the best sources of the above post

1.https://gnet-research.org/2025/01/08/beyond-the-fgc-9-how-the-urutau-redefines-the-global-3d-printed-firearm-movement/

2.https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/terrorism-expert-warning-on-new-simplified-3d-printed-gun-and-manifesto-235518/

3.https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/feathers-fury-in-depth-analysis-z%C3%A9-cariocas-podcast-interview-f%C3%BCredi-f9g0e/

Superlincoln (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I will be interested to read what others have to say about independence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Let's sum up. I think we have consensus, if perhaps not 100% agreement, that WP:N is now met and the only remaining issue is one of process. so I think per WP:BURO the final place we should get to is plain. The question is, what is the right process. I was looking for guidance about how this situation should be handled in our policies and guidelines and I'm not finding anything. WP:REDIRECT seems to have very little. I think what we'd prefer people do when finding new sources for an article that was redirected at AfD is that they BOLDly restore it, and if reverted, discuss it (probably at the target article). That (undocumented?) step was skipped here. My questions are then:
  • Should that step be clearly documented at WP:REDIRECT (or did I miss it)?
  • What is the next step if an article passing WP:N doesn't get consensus to be unredirected and the nom wants a wider discussion?
  • What is the role of DRV here?

I guess we could hold an RfC on this, but I'm guessing I'm just missing documentation on the issue. Anyone have a pointer? If not, this seems like a good group to hash out something... @SmokeyJoe:, @Sandstein:, @Alalch E.:, @Robert McClenon:, @Horse Eye's Back:, @SportingFlyer:.Hobit (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think DRV has no proper role here. The AfD is not seriously challenged, and there has been no deletion. It is a WP:SPINOUT dispute. DRV is not a forum for solving all disputes.

Mostly, one editor boldly re-spunout the article, and two reverted that. If any second editor in good standing wants the page in mainspace and subject to AfD, then they have that right. A trivial mechanism for that is to Draftify and then Mainspace the page. I recommend this, because I think the page is at risk of being deleted due to reference bombing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The editor who boldly re-spins-out has the status of "article creator" in the language of WP:BLAR and cannot be reverted repeatedly, only once. Multiple reverts coming from multiple editors does not mean that BLAR can be repeated ad nauseam as long as there are new editors willing to reredirect. After Onel5969 BLARed, there's no more BLARing of that same attempt to create, no matter how many editors are involved.

• Good: (1) Restore from redirect (in good faith, at least a step in the right direction) -> (2) BLAR -> (3) BLAR reverted -> (4) AfD, or talk-page talk (it may be worth trying to restore the redirect on a consensus basis by explaining things to the "article creator"; he can be told to wait a bit more and try again with sourcing that's a bit better, etc.), or give up and let the article exist (anyone can AfD at any time).
• Not good: (1) Restore from redirect (...) -> (2) BLAR -> (3) BLAR reverted -> (4) revert of 3 (that's unacceptable) -> whatever (especially not DRV).

—Alalch E. 15:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t agree with you. It matters that there was an AfD consensus to not “keep”. Short of WP:Tag team, if it is different uninvolved editors that revert to the redirect each time, and only the same editor that reverts to the article, that single editor loses, and risks being blocked for disruption. It is critical that another editor reverts the revert. If any editor but User:Superlincoln reverts to the article, then it sticks in mainspace and detractors should send it to AfD.

If no editor will support Superlincoln, then they should take the AfC route.

This is an interesting DRV discussion, but disputes over reverting a merge should not usually come to DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Hobit: In the above exchanges you are able to see some pretty neatly delineated differences of opinion on the process to restore the article from a redirect. Given a blanking-and-redirection of an attempt to restore from a redirect, Horse Eye's Back is opposed to it having happened in the first place if the new version has new sources; I am not opposed to it happening even if the article has new sources, but only once, with other editors not being allowed to pile on to enforce removal of the article (according to this, BLAR would be single-shot in absolute terms); and SmokeyJoe is okay with multiple editors being allowed to conduct distributed enforcement of the removal of the article, as long as the editors are not tag-teaming (according to this, BLAR would be single-shot only in relative terms, as each uninvolved editor carries one shot). —Alalch E. 16:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I very much disagree with the notion there's consensus GNG is met here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you are the only one who has directly commented on the GNG and had doubts. Thus my not 100% line. Could you expand on your issue? The GNET one seems about as good as one could hope (unless I'm missing a COI there which is possible--this isn't my area of expertise). Some of the others are also pretty good. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

That's the best source, but the other sources aren't great - lots of mere mentions in articles, a trade magazine, an interview with the guy who made it (not independent) - and it's also unclear as to its independence, considering GNET has a "Write for us" page that pays people £300 for submissions, and their editorial policy is unclear. It's not obviously clear it's a 10 out of 10 source in terms of quality, and even then it's unclear where the multiple other sources come from. SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I agrre with SmokeyJoe that this is not a matter for DRV. Sandstein 06:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem comes from the blanking/reverting... That isn't kosher, it isn't within policy or guideline. Note that blankers were admins but these were not admin actions, if the article has new sources then AfD or a merge discussion needs to be run again... The previous consensus does not stand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Ayesha Singh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Actress passes WP:NACTOR Alexroybro (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment This is an entertainer who has been considered multiple times by our deletion processes. Please summarize what is new since the last deletion discussion in 2023 when the title was create protected. Have you created a new draft incorporating the new material? Do you need a copy of the past version restored to draft space so you can improve it? Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  In 2023, Ayesha had only one lead role now she is doing lead role in Mannat – Har Khushi Paane Ki and has passed WP:NACTOR Alexroybro (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  No I have not created any new draft because even Draft:Ayesha Singh is protected. Alexroybro (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the 2023 deletion (and the 2022 deletion, and the 2021 deletion). Create a draft in a sandbox from scratch. We, the community at DRV, do not need to bend any rules or make any exceptions when we can already see that the system is already being gamed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Administrative close. Refer to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 February 18#Ayesha Singh—Alalch E. 16:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse all deletions as they are correct and this is most likely another disruptive attempt to game the system. Also, I support a downgrade of the draft's protection to ECP to allow a draft to be created in good faith if anyone wishes to do so. The appellant's edit history suggests they are not acting in good faith. The appellant is also nowhere near the 30/500 threshold required to meet ECP status. Frank Anchor 17:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support Downgrade of Protection of Draft to ECP as per Frank Anchor to facilitate submission by an experienced good-faith editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse, as I will in all cases of review requests by newly-registered users for articles deleted, let alone salted, as G5 (at the draft title in this case). —Cryptic 19:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Alexroybro has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. It was a single purpose account, editing only in order to restore deleted pages previously created and edited by the blocked sockpuppeteer Jha09, which they did by simply re-creating the pages except in the case of two create-protected articles, which they brought here. JBW (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Shehzad Shaikh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Actor passes WP:NACTOR Alexroybro (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment As above, this has been create protected. Do you need a copy of the old article for improvement in draft space? What has changed since 2018? Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  After 2018, Shehzad Shaikh had done 3 lead roles in Sindoor Ki Keemat, Mehendi Wala Ghar and Zyada Mat Udd thereby passing WP:NACTOR. Yes I need a copy of the old article for improvement in draftspace. Alexroybro (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the 2018 deletion. The draft title is not salted. Stating only that the actor passes acting notability is insulting to DRV reviewers. Create a draft in a sandbox from scratch. Requesting the refunding of articles that were deleted is likely to be a distraction. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The draft title is ECP-protected. Frank Anchor 17:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted, as is the history of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse Speedy endorse the AFD and most of the following deletions (I have some issue with the 2019 G4s since the original AFD was sparsely attended, but that's not what's being challenged here). Draft title is ECP protected, meaning that any established user in good standing can create a draft version in good faith. Based on the appellant's edit history, I do not believe this is a good faith attempt at recreating this page up to encyclopedic standards. Frank Anchor 17:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Changed to speedy endorse as appellant has been identified and blocked as a sock. Nothing more to do here. Frank Anchor 00:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse, as I will in all cases of review requests by newly-registered users for articles deleted, let alone salted, as G5. —Cryptic 19:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. It is possible to use AfC and/or ask directly for the protection to be removed, but the initiative should come from an established editor. This initiative does not seem credible.—Alalch E. 21:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• See my comment above, under Ayesha Singh, about Alexroybro having now been blocked as a sockpuppet existing only to restore deleted pages previously created and edited by a blocked editor. JBW (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Grant Cardone (businessman) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy delete under G4 but article was not eligible for G4 as it was not substantially identical to the deleted version, it wasn't even close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The original article, Grant Cardone was deleted multiple times, and finally SALTed. The dabbed draft was a (nearly) attempt to circumvent that SALTing. While G4 may not have been the right tag, the article should not have been accepted due to the SALT. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no speedy deletion category which would apply and the topic is clearly notable so unsure why you're insisting that the salting is relevant... Salts are not supposed to prevent a page from being created if the topic ever actually becomes notable (which this one did sometime between 2021 and 2024) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• I really feel everyone (and I do mean everyone) involved in this mess should be presented with a serving of trout. A family sized fish and chips to share, perhaps? In any case, yes, yes, list this at AfD instead or whatever. Safari probably shouldn't have bypassed the salt with an invalid dab because they felt pressured(? I don't know, I suppose I'm not psychic enough.) instead of raising it again at RFP, RFP probably could have just unprotected the first time, and no, this isn't really sufficiently identical to be G4-eligible.

On the other hand, yelling at people, while it might be cathartic, is hardly appropriate and unlikely to be a good way of getting the issue fixed. I suppose we've now reached the first venue in this whole saga where discussion and a consensus closure is expected to take place, but there's no good reason any discussion should need to happen here rather than at AFD (if anyone thinks the article is sufficiently dubious to actually nominate it). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If I start yelling you will know... I've been handling this calmly and rationally for months now (the only reference to yell/yelling in the entire thing is one self deprecating comment from me), I would tell you how long but the entire history got is unavailable to me because the article was deleted instead of being turned back into a draft... The level of incompetence and errors I have encountered is staggering. If I wanted to do this the loud and angry way I would have done it in two days months and months ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back - While most DRVs should be concise, you made the mistake of not giving us enough information about what the issue was, so that we had to do a lot of research to infer what had happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about yelling: Sure, Horse, I suppose I should make it clearer that I understand that your yelling comment was not entirely serious, and I do not believe your comments quite rises to a level that should be characterised by that term. If I believed otherwise, I would be taking this discussion to a different venue, since this place is mostly about procedure and less about any yelling that might (but didn't) happen during said processes. All the same, if there are three ways you believe an incorrect decision might have been made, and two of them can be characterised with charged language, listing them out gives those ways salience, since people pay attention to such language. Said salience is undue and unnecessary to make the point that the decision was incorrect, that you have a bit that says someone trusts you to make the same decision for your own articles, and that continued protection is no longer needed.

Coming back to something slightly more on topic: Perhaps we do also need to streamline our processes for unsalting, given that WP:RFPU is possibly more reluctant to do so then we'd often like here (though, given my observations are taken from DRV, I'd obviously lack a sample of titles successfully unsalted without ending up here). WP:UNPROTPOL gives both discretion to unprotect at RFPU to any individual admin but also deference to the protecting admin, and while pages are supposed to be unprotected if there is no consensus it is still required, RFPU requests are not (afaik) routinely evaluated for said lack of consensus. Maybe we should more explicitly define which groups from which we expect an unsalt request to be routinely accepted, whether that includes NPP, AfC reviewers and autopatrolled or a broader group. At the moment though, I suppose the policy is sufficiently unclear to make it a frustrating process, at least occasionally. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

It depends on the decision in question... For example when talking about the speedy deletion incompetent is the only way I can describe that edit, that appears to be the least charged language possible as the other language suggests bad faith editing (and there is no possible way for this to have been a good faith competent edit, its either not good faith... Not competent... Or not either). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Questions - Are Grant Cardone and Grand Cardone (businessman) the same person? Did User:UtherSRG compare Grand Cardone (businessman) and the deleted Grant Cardone, using admin glasses, and determine that they were essentially the same? Is it that determination that is being appealed by User:Horse Eye's Back? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
  • They're the same person. —Cryptic 22:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comments - This is a mess, of a different type than a train wreck. What I can tell, with regular glasses, is that the undisambiguated title was created five times, and deleted five times, four times as G11, and once in 2017 after a deletion discussion. (I would Endorse the deletion discussion, except that I don't think that is being questioned.) Then User:SafariScribe created Grant Cardone (businessman), apparently accepting a draft by User:Horse Eye's Back. I don't know who disambiguated it, but they should have known that it would look like gaming the title, because that is the usual approach to try to sneak a salted title into article space. The point at which we, DRV, should have been called was when the reviewer tried to approve the draft and couldn't due to the salting. If I understand what happened, then the disambiguated article that was accepted by Safari Scribe and then deleted by UtherSRG, and the 2017 article that was deleted after AFD, should be temporarily undeleted and compared. That is what I think needs to be done at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Minor corrections: HEB did not create this draft (it was created by an IP in 2023), although they did make significant edits to it. Related other discussions at User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Grant_Cardone_(May_23). SafariScribe seems to have decided sua sponte to add the unnecessary disambiguation without prompting from anyone else, an action I would argue is fundamentally incompatible with being an AfC (and by extension NPP since the latter includes the former) reviewer - they are supposed to enforce standards, not circumvent them. So, counter Cryptic I can totally understand why someone would push the G4 button here and want to say "endorse", since I think (and am not alone in thinking) that this action by itself should justify a speedy deletion. But the community thinks differently of the matter, and we as admins are bound by that consensus. So reluctantly return to the status quo ante prior to SafariScribe's impermissible actions, which is to overturn the deletion, move the page title back to draft space, and leave it salted until an admin decides to unsalt it independently of this fandango. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  ... which it appears Discospinster has already done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  In partial defense of User:SafariScribe, I think that they were not knowingly circumventing standards. I think that I have been warning about the gaming of titles as long as anyone has, and I have also tried to make distinctions between different groups of editors who knowingly or innocently game titles. This was a good-faith error by a reviewer who saw a complicated situation, and tried to solve a problem, and in the process made the problem worse. They were not trying to circumvent the salting, but just did something that is often done on purpose to evade salting. I am sure that they didn't know how common the evading of salting is. And it is still true that reviewers who want to accept a salted title do not have clear and consistent guidance as to what to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Reviewers who want to approve to a SALTED title should ask at WT:AfC or a variety of other options. What reviewer are you referring to? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
    • User:SmokeyJoe - The reviewer to whom I was referring was User:Safari Scribe, who evidently tried to approve Grant Cardone and was blocked by the salt, and so changed the title. This was a good-faith attempt to work around the salt, but other reviewers of course saw that as gaming the title. That is, it was a good-faith error that, to a reasonable third-party editor, appeared to be bad faith. Does that answer your question, or were you asking something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

      Are you saying that User:Safari Scribe has the New Page Patroller permission? That user is not registered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

      The correct username is "User:SafariScribe" with no space. SafariScribe does have new page reviewer permissions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I think that I understand why HEB is frustrated. Alpha3031 said that multiple trouts are in order. That is true, but I see no evidence that HEB has made any mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• If not for the added "Legal issues" section, the G4 would seem reasonable, though still incorrect - the rest of the article's structure is identical, and while the text is rephrased, it mostly states the same facts in the same tone; what would make it incorrect is that the references are entirely different. With the new section, which is quite substantial, this wouldn't have been a proper speedy even if it had happened the day after the AFD closed instead of the better part of eight years later, and I can't understand why any admin would think it would be. Overturn. —Cryptic 22:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Undelete in mainspace, allow AfD. It was an AfC review mishap. Clarify the instructions. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Draftify. Undelete to draftspace and instruct proponents to use WP:AfC and to read WP:THREE. ENDORSE the deletion of the mainspace title as evasion of the SALTed title. WP:RFUP may be used to request unsalting, but it is not OK to evade SALT by trying alternative titles. WP:G4 has extra latitude when SALT-evasion is being played. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: this went through AfC and THREE has already been checked and accepted before it was moved to mainspace. G4 says nothing about SALT evasion at all but it does say "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies." so appears to give exactly no latitude in this context whatsoever. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I can’t see the evidence for this.

request temp undeletion

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry about this. I accepted the draft to mainspace so that it would be easier for HEB to appeal the original title block at RPP; initially when it was in draftspace, I declined it and during that time when HEB requested a block lift at RPP, it was declined following my AFC decline. After much recheck and assessment of the draft, I accepted it into mainspace with a dab so that HEB could present that the draft has been accepted by an AFC reviewer while appealing the original block at RPP. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@SafariScribe I think the best option next time would be for you to mark the review as "pending", leave a comment using the AfC Helper Script that you intend to accept the draft, and then follow the instructions here by requesting unprotection at WP:RfPP. Toadspike [Talk] 08:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn and undelete. What a hilarious mess. Like Cryptic, I can tell everyone that this was definitely not G4 eligible, and I encourage temporary undeletion so everyone can review. As Safari notes above, the choice to disambiguate was a creative one to allow page creation while the page protection issue was settled. Wires were crossed, and the undisambiguated page is now unprotected. Nothing but a series of good-faith errors has prevented this page from being published, so let's end the saga. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly right. Obviously right, but only after detangling the mess. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn G4 as not eligible for G4. Contra to SmokeyJoe, I see no reasons why G4 would have any change in scope or reach with an apparent SALT evasion. And, of course, SafariScribe is here explaining why the action taken seemed like the least bad action at the time, and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/05#27 May 2025 substantiates that the SALT and AfC processes worked against each other in this case. Jclemens (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  I’m sure if you try, you could see the reasons. SALTing, which per policy should not be done lightly, is an emphatic decision that the topic does not belong, stronger than an AfD delete. And SALT evasion is not a respected way to contest SALTing. I’ve been here a long time, and over all that time, this is policy in practice. You might object to how it is not policy as documented. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's basically it: G4 is the most overused CSD, and I don't want to open that door any wider. I'd be fine with a separate CSD for "created under an alternate name in violation of a valid create protection" which doesn't even have a "substantially identical" qualifier, if someone wanted to propose that, and believe that would be a better/cleaner way to deal with abuse of process. Jclemens (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Except, if it is SALT evasion, but not G4-style identical, I think it should be speedily draftified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  Speedily draftified at the correct title, with no redirect preserved? I think we may have a working proposal here. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  That would be a terrible speedy deletion criterion because it would fail "Objective" and "Uncontestable" principles of CSD (WT:CSD header). It's only a violation if done as a violation, and is not a violation if done as a good-faith new attempt at an article. —Alalch E. 10:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  So what I think we're actually discussing is a Speedy Draftify with no Redirect criterion, which will amount to content being thrown into a virtual penalty box if it's created in lieu of first addressing prior SALTing, but isn't really a deletion criterion per se. It's a subtly different approach, but I think addresses my concerns about G4 being more overused and SmokeyJoe's about content being left in mainspace when it clearly is there in violation of previous (presumably valid) title sanction. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  There's no such thing as a title sanction, only more and less effective technical apparatuses of social control. Given a good-faith attempt that is at least a step in the right direction, we should consider the social control check successsfully passed. We should say "thank you" for the new article and do all that is needed to remove technical obstacles to legitimate content creation. The solution to these situations that are perceived as gaming and are not gaming is to move "Foo (Bar)" to "Foo". If eligibility of the new article is doubted, it's time for a new a AfD. If titles are in fact gamed, meaning that attempts are not serious and things are not heading in the right direction, come up with a suitable blacklist entry and block users. —Alalch E. 17:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  RFUP: it does not show that the processes work against each other, but that the instructions are poor, and unqualified accounts should not be playing the reviewer. I see that eventually, User:Firefangledfeathers speaks for the draft, and on their recommendation the draft should be mainspaced. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  ‘=== Grant Cardone ===

  • Grant Cardone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  Reason: The draft article is ready to be moved into main space but this is blocked by an admin move lock.  Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Courtesy link: Draft:Grant Cardone —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Not unprotected. The draft was declined 4 days ago with only a minor improvement since then. I am not seeing a good reason to circumvent the review process at this time. If the prior reviewer deems the recent small change as sufficient for passing, then make a new request here. @SafariScribe: What do you think? ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Anachronist: SafariScribe's analysis was either bad faith, incompetent, or mistaken and they have chosen not to support it despite being pinged to my talk page to do so. I have Autopatrolled permission so NPP consent is not needed (and meaning that this does not circumvent the review process, I am allowed to move it to main at any time I want), no more reason is needed than that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Pinging Discospinster, the protecting admin. Judging from the log, the purpose of the protection was to prevent repeated, problematic recreation. The recreated version back then was an advertisement. A good-faith, experienced editor is trying to create the article, and no one appears to be claiming that it is overly ad-like. The reviewer's decline rationale was probably an error. I'd recommend unprotection. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Just to be clear I'm not challenging the validity of the earlier deletions and protection, it seems that people (many of whom appear to have some sort of conflict) have been trying to create an article for him since 2008 and IMO he isn't actually notable until the early 2020s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, I didn't think you were, and I'm not either. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, I like and greatly respect discospinster and it worried me that my comment could seen as throwing shade at them. Just wanted to acknowledge that the waters are really muddy but that there is now a legal sized fish in there so no shade on the game warden who said there wasn't many years ago. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

  SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

  "an emphatic decision that the topic does not belong" that isn't what salting is... Salting is a tool which cuts down on disruptive editing, not a supervote... Its purpose is to prevent disruption, its purpose is not to be a supervote against future notability or to win a content dispute. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn G4 and restore to draft. Based on the opinions of DRV regulars who have acces to the histories, G4 did not apply as the versions are not sufficiently identical. Whether this should remain in draftspace or moved to mainspace is not a DRV matter and was recently discussed (and declined, then accepted in though that assessment has been considered incorrect) at AFC. Frank Anchor 13:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Frank Anchor: Actually it was eventually accepted at AFC, for context SafariScribe (who created Grant Cardone (businessman)) was the NPP reviewer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks updated my response to reflect this. Frank Anchor 15:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Frank Anchor: who considers that to be an incorrect assessment? Unless I'm missing something not a single editor has challenged that assessment (the lack of anyone actually challenging the article's notability at this point is one of the things that makes this such a weird series of events, not even UtherSRG is challenging the notability of the topic). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you are entirely correct about everything. Content matters take precedents over process matters, and process matters takes precedence over conduct matters. Here, worries about gaming conduct compromised proper deletion process, all while losing sight of the much more important thing: That the article is fine on content grounds which is the only thing that ultimately matters. —Alalch E. 13:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn G4 and restore to draft space as Draft:Grand Cardone. Unsalt the original title (if not already unsalted) so that a reviewer will be able to accept it. We don't need a temporary undelete; enough editors have said that the article in question is not the same as the deleted article that we should let a reviewer decide whether to accept it and another AFD resolve any remaining questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn G4. Not sufficiently identical. The idea that given a salted title "Foo", creation of "Foo (disambiguator)" is disallowed is not supported by policy. Preemptive restrictions on new article titles are instituted through the title blacklist system, not through page protection. Judgement is needed to determine if WP:GAMING is involved or if the creation at the alternate title was done to circumvent a mere technical obstacle to a legitimate page creation. If gaming is involved, address the behavior, and even then, G4 would not apply. Here, the page was created in good faith and the use of an alternate title is not a problem (just move the page to the desired title).—Alalch E. 10:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  The AfC angle is completely irrelevant. AfC is optional. Deletion policy and protection policy aren't optional. —Alalch E. 10:54, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn G4 and restore to draft. At the very least, sufficient time has passed to make the case for finding new sources for a long-ago deleted article. BD2412 T 21:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. The Grant Cardone article should exist at Grant Cardone. There are plenty of news articles written about Grant Cardone. https://www.bing.com/news/search?q=grant+cardone&FORM=HDRSC7&PC=APPL Subject is clearly notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article at this point in time. Whatever happened in the past here that is being discussed above doesn’t matter to the average Wikipedia reader. But restoring the article so that readers can obtain information does matter. What is the quickest way to get the article back? DJohnson4100 (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Not at all impressed at the use of the (businessman) suffix to make an end-run around the title salting. As for the deletion, I am forced to conclude that the content was sufficiently different that a G4 speedy deletion was not appropriate and therefore must be reluctantly overturned. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)