Wikipedia:Deletion review

Skip to:

Active discussions
Recent discussions
Archive
(purge cache)

WP:DRV

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

WP:DRVPURPOSE

Deletion review may be used:

if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions

Shortcut

WP:DELREVD

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review


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

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

Endorse the original closing decision; or
Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

Speedy closes

Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

Active discussions

4 February 2025

29 January 2025

Existential threat (closed)

Existential threat – There is no consensus to endorse the G4 speedy deletion. This means that the page is restored and can be (re)nominated for ordinary deletion if desired. Sandstein 08:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

User:Someone-123-321 nominated this redirect for deletion earlier today but then withdrew it less than an hour later. At the time of withdrawal, there was one "keep" !vote and no "delete" !votes. Subsequently (after the withdrawal), this redirect was deleted per G4. I think this redirect should at least temporarily be restored given that there was opposition to deletion and the discussion only existed for less than an hour. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The G4 deletion had nothing to do with the RfD cited by the appellant. It was a result of a 2021 RfD, which was well attended and had a clear consensus to delete. Nothing has changed in the four years since that RfD to invalidate the reasoning argued there. I see no valid justification for a temporary restoration, nor any value in such. Temporary until when? Until the term becomes broadly associated with a specific subject we can redirect to? If and when that happens, any editor is welcome to recreate the redirect. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I think this should be restored and relisted at RfD given there is objection to deletion. Remember, consensus can change. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: there were five valid !votes for deleting this redirect when it was discussed at length four years ago. We do not restore a page just because one editor objects to what was a clear consensus. "Consensus can change" is not a free extra kick at the can, when you've presented no valid reason to reconsider the case. So far, all you've done in this DRV is say, "the redirect should be restored because the last RfD for it didn't run for as long as I'd hoped for". The last RfD didn't need to run at all, as the G4 was clear and valid. But by all means, explain to us how the meaning of the term existential threat changed in the last four years to the point of invalidating the 2021 RfD. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the redirect personally. My concern, as Frank Anchor explains below, is that RfDs and other discussions shouldn't be arbitrarily overruled by one admin. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The flip side is that you'd have RfDs and other discussions arbitrarily overruled by one editor. Twice in this case: the original 2021 RFD directly, and the 2025 one by its early close. —Cryptic 19:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The G4 deletion was a correct response, albeit one within a range of administrative options. Serial (speculates here) 16:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This is a misapplication of G4, which applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion (emphasis mine). At the time of the G4 deletion, the most recent discussion closed as "keep." G4 does not make exceptions for procedural closes/withdrawals. (Perhaps that can be added into the policy to close a loophole). Even absent this reading of policy, speedy deletes must be uncontroversial. With a well-reasoned keep vote in the RFD, it is no longer uncontroversial and a second RFD is now the correct remedy to delete. Frank Anchor 16:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that you can make a speedyable recreation ineligible for G4 by nominating it for deletion and then withdrawing it in less than half a hour is incompatible with the very idea of consensus-based deletion discussions. Policy doesn't need to spell this out because any admin with a lick of sense will be able to see this for the gaming of the system that it is. (Not that I think the original RFD was a terribly good one on the merits. How is existential risk ok but this isn't?) —Cryptic 17:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  [Off topic for DRV, but]: Maybe we need a dab page that points to Existentialism#Angst and dread and similar subjects as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the creation of a DAB page. Frank Anchor 19:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there were no other participants I would be inclined to agree, but it was attended to in good faith. Briefly, but attended to. At that point, if someone felt there was an issue with the course of the newer discussion (that contained multiple voices) and that it should be deleted instead of kept, and/or that a broader consensus was not well-reflected from it, re-nominating the page for discussion would quell any remaining doubt. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, i wasn't intentionally trying to game the system. I saw that someone else had a what-seemed-like-a-valid-reason-at-the-time to keep the redirect, and it was made by someone who knows their stuff. It can be most definitely seen as gaming the system however, and that's why I request a block (this is probably the only time in Wikipedia history someone actually admitted to their non-vandalism mistake and requests a block)

Also, keep the redirect deleted - it was OBVIOUSLY breaking G4, so my whole RFD was useless and a waste of editor's time. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't gaming the system to nominate the redirect at RFD, nor to withdraw it. It's gaming the system to claim that those actions make the G4 invalid. —Cryptic 23:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this particular interpretation ignores the context of what actually happened. In order for there to be a genuine conduct issue of someone WP:Gaming the system, there needs to be a "deliberate misuse of process to take advantage of the system". In a vacuum, is it possible for someone to game the system in this way, by nominating and withdrawing a discussion immediately with zero participants? It could very well be possible to do so, yes. But, to do say that's what's going on here would not be assuming good faith among the earnest participants in this discussion. I did not want the discussion to end after an hour. Someone-123 went into the RfD with a mindset to delete, but changed their mind after I responded with a !keep vote, and closed the discussion as keep before anyone else could say anything, and even I think that was a totally good-faith proposal and I don't hold anything against them. They COULD have nominated it for G4, the option was there, but they did not. And because it went to RfD instead, the resulting (short-lived) discussion indicated that the situation may have possibly changed since 4 years ago, rendering G4 not a guarantee, with a very different status of what the article looks like now 4 years later. If someone is gaming the system here, that's a conduct that could very well be pursued, but I'm of the stance that good-faith should be assumed and that there was no deliberate bypassal of Wikipedia's processes to "ensure G4 deletion couldn't be used". IF someone were to game the system in this way, that would definitely be a problem, but that situation is not the case here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I told the closing admin on their talk page, I felt that initiating a DRV was reasonable based on the explicitly stated purposes of a deletion review (specifically #s 2 and 5). In my view, the speedy deletion was out of process given that a recent RfD was closed as "keep." Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin comment: I have no issue if someone wants to restore this and re-RfD it if there's anything to suggest consensus has changed. However, I can't see any circumstances in which consensus would change; that the primary usage of "existential threat" is clearly not as a synonym for "global catastrophic risk" is evident to anyone who's ever opened a newspaper. I also agree with Cryptic that the notion that one can vaccinate a page against speedy deletion by nominating it for deletion and then withdrawing the momination is clearly not in keeping with either the letter or the spirit of policy. ‑ Iridescent 18:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe there was any bad faith or gaming the system involved with the AFD and subsequent withdrawal, particularly with the intervening and well-reasoned "keep" vote from a longtime contributor. I do believe G4 should be modified to make an exception for this exact situation (a quick "new" AFD that is withdrawn or closed procedurally). The keep vote makes a valid case that consensus may have changed and I strongly disagree with OwenX's unsubstantiated claim that "Consensus can change" is not a free extra kick at the can, when you've presented no valid reason to reconsider the case. Frank Anchor 19:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Entering "existential threat" at the Wiki search prompt brings up Global catastrophic risk as the first hit, and Existential crisis as the fourth. We are literally losing nothing by not having this as a redirect or a DAB. Owen× ☎ 19:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see any problem with a G4 after that very short discussion. If someone wants to re-create it and send it back to RfD, that's the proper solution here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the most recent RfD closed as keep. I didn't expect it to be withdrawn, but the article has indeed changed since the previous RfD (unlike 4 years ago, there is now a helpful hatnote indicating that "existential threat" is an incoming redirect, with a disambiguation page to take people to any other term they are privy to, and the term "existential threat" has never not been something likely to be searched). If the discussion continued for longer perhaps there would've been a more comfortable !keeping consensus, but the only way to know that is to undelete and let the discussion run its course if anyone wants to keep discussing it (I think it's a fine redirect as it was). I find the article nowadays to be a much more fitting location for the redirect with its three hatnotes and bolded subject, than the article as it existed 4 years ago. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate the 29 January 2025 RFD either as withdrawn or as a bad non-admin close after less than 24 hours, not a real Keep close, and therefore
Endorse the G4 as reflecting the last valid deletion discussion. As per Cryptic, treating the 2029 Keep as a real close would twist the concept of a deletion discussion, since there was no discussion. Either a stub article or a disambiguation page would be a good idea, but that isn't the topic here at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the 29 January 2025 RFD was a bad non-admin close, shouldn't the proper procedure be to reopen the discussion rather than sustain a speedy deletion? Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that initially, too, but it looks more like a poorly phrased nominator withdrawal, which is allowed, and would constitute a legitimate non-delete close of a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There was no discussion", there was a (valid) discussion though. I discussed it with the nominator, that's 2 people, meeting the definition of a discussion. I presented my reasons why I felt G4 speedy-deletion no longer applied, and so far, within that discussion, my proposition has yet to be refuted. Did I WANT to be the only person to say something? Absolutely not, I'm not in control of when the nominator withdraws their thing and doing so really weakened the case for !keeping that could have been made stronger with more !votes. They took it out of the running almost instantly, which could have opened the door for 5 people to swing by and agree with me for a stronger consensus; we cannot possibly know at this point. It seems the only reason that we're here is because the nominator of that discussion closed it early, thereby leaving my rebuttal of G4 as the only !vote. And that fact, I simply can't control. I just said what I thought, which is that "G4 does not apply and the redirect is fine with the changes made to the article", in a valid RfD. And to that, "keep"ing becomes the most recent valid decision. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Robert McClenon: I'm sorry, can you point to what part of WP:BADNAC makes this entire discussion suddenly invalid? Deleting admins don't have the prerogative to dub an entire discussion invalid. Cremastra (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cremastra - Maybe not, but we are here at DRV, and DRV does have the prerogative to dub a deletion discussion invalid. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon thank you, but that still doesn't answer my question – on what grounds is this a WP:BADNAC? Cremastra (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was a bad non-admin close because it was a bad close, because it was a bad close because it was closed less than 24 hours after it was open. If you say that it was a valid close because it was withdrawn by the nominator, then I will say that closing the discussion as Keep, which implies a consensus to Keep, was wrong because there was not enough discussion for a consensus, and it should have been closed as Withdrawn or (non)Administrative Close. It wasn't a consensus discussion and should not be treated as one, and should be vacated, and we are DRV and can vacate a bad close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Robert McClenon. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn both speedy and rapid close and send for a full discussion. We should not be spending time debating contested speedies here, not splitting hairs about whether a withdrawn deletion discussion (at least there were two participants...) counts for dodging G4. When in doubt, send it back for another discussion, and if a conduct issue becomes evident, handle that separately without trying to speedy contested things. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the redirect deleted - it was OBVIOUSLY breaking G4, so my whole RFD was useless and a waste of editor's time. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

endorse. sounds to me like a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, which sounds to me like the exact wording used to describe g4 consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 11:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G4 explicitly does not apply when the reason for deletion no longer applies. Consensus can change. As I said in the discussion, the article is not the same as it was 4 years ago. The only way to demonstrate that consensus has shifted since the first RfD, is by having a follow-up discussion to talk about how and why the situation is different from the last time, which is literally what happened. Everything was done correctly, page was remade and taken to a follow-up RfD, I gave my reasons for why G4 did not apply by how much the article had changed and improved since 2021 (the lead was expanded, 3 hatnotes were added with disambiguation for other articles). I would've loved to have people come by and agree with me but that couldn't possibly happen because, outside of my control, the nominator withdrew their initial nomination right after I disagreed with deletion. Which is fine. They are within their rights to withdraw a discussion early. (Just don't be doing that all the time lol). But people can't be saying the discussion was invalid because the nominator withdrew, when I already gave my reasons for why G4 wouldn't apply, during the course of a valid RfD. By withdrawing the nomination, the nominator is agreeing with my stance of "keeping" (consequently agreeing that the previous deletion is no longer pertinent), and this is how the discussion was closed. As a keep; the most recent valid discussion. If there was an issue with that secondary closure that hinted towards the most recent consensus being "keep" during the very brief moment it was available to talk about, the solution is further discussion, not speedy deletion. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if the procedure was correct or not because I'm not sure I'm understanding the argument. However it would surely be sensible to have a DAB given that there could be at least two different topics being sought when using the term. JMWt (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn bad NAC early close. Overturn G4. It’s arguable enough to have a weeks RfD discussion every four years. Let the RfD proceed for another seven days. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disallow the RfD withdrawal on the basis that someone thinks it should be deleted, evident in the G4 deletion, even if the timeline doesn’t match. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were to boldly write a DAB page, or a WP:CONCEPTDAB, this DRV would be moot. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn.
(1) The initial close was inadvisable and hasty, and the RfD should be reopened to allow further discussion.

(2) This is a misapplication of G4. That criterion is based on the most recent XfD discussion, which was withdrawn as "keep". (I am interpreting the early closure as a withdrawal). In the RfD, Utopes argued against deletion and the nominator withdrew it, thus effectively endorsing Utopes' viewpoint. The wisdom of the close may be questioned, but it a discussion is a discussion and it should have been counted as such.

(3) The role of the G4 deleting admin should not be to evaluate whether a discussion is "worthy" or not to count; if there was a discussion with consensus to keep as there was here, G4 does not apply. As Frank Anchor says, the deletion is no longer uncontroversial, since two editors oppose it. WP:SD tells us that speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. This redirect had quite a good chance of surviving the discussion. On this line, I reject Robert McClenon's claim that the discussion is somehow "invalid" just because it was withdrawn. Withdrawing is an acceptable type of early closure.

(4) G4 doubly doesn't apply because it excludes pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. Examining the 2021 discussion, the reason for deletion was the term's ambiguity. Consensus can change. In the 2025 discussion, we see the argument that the current target actually is satisfactory, based on the fact that the term is mentioned in the lead. As Utopes points out, the circumstances at the target article have changed. Redirects aren't like articles and independent from everything else; they're navigational tools, and their usefulness depends on other articles, hatnotes and all. Hatnotes are extremely valuable tools for reducing ambiguity. Cremastra (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with your third point is that editors could use an early withdrawal of a deletion discussion to game the system and prevent a G4 close. Perhaps we may want some language in our deletion instructions to say that if an article, redirect, or category was previously deleted, the discussion must go a full week and cannot be withdrawn. - Enos733 (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but eesh, a week is too long. Besides, this is merely the possibility of someone gaming the system, and there's no evidence of that here – I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Cremastra (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn early close. This is not a bad NAC, as the close came from the nominator. As I mentioned above, if an article/category/redirect was previously closed as delete, I believe the discussion should continue for a full week. That said, we should create a DAB page and determine if we should rewrite under what circumstances a deletion discussion should be closed WP:NOTBURO. --Enos733 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need to fix our guidelines and policies Folks, we need a reasonable way for people to discuss deleted redirects. As far as I can tell, once it's deleted at RfD, people just speedy it. But yeah, it's been 4 years, send to RfD for a new discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Recent discussions

27 January 2025

Harsh Beniwal (closed)

Harsh Beniwal – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 07:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closure of this deletion discussion interpreted consensus. I believe meeting WP:NACTOR is usually enough to keep a standalone article. As Harsh has played significant roles in multiple television shows, such as Campus Diaries, Who's Your Daddy? (2020 TV series), and Heartbeats (TV series). Also as per WP:NYOUTUBE(Subscriber count helps meet the second criteria of WP:ENT.) he meets 2nd criteria of WP:ENT As he has over [16 Million] subscribers in his YouTube channel. Jitujadab90 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting administrator not advised of this DRV by the applicant, as required by step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have informed the deleting administrator. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Three established editors assessed the coverage as being insufficient for notability, regardless of whether the subject meets NACTOR. The two valid keep !voters either did not evaluate the coverage at all, or mistakenly believed that interview content, RSNOI promo, and churnalism can contribute toward GNG. NYOUTUBE is an essay and carries no weight here, and so was correctly ignored in the close. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a established editor(@Mushy Yank:) who voted KEEP, but the vote got overlooked. BTW as per NACTOR Harsh is notable as he played significant role in 3 TV series. Now the question is how do we verify that he has played significant role in 3 TV series or not. You can find out the Wikipedia page of the 3 TV series(which I mentioned above). Also I am adding the reviews here where the importance of the character is written. Campus Diaries Review 1, Campus Diaries Review 2, Who’s Your Daddy Review 1, Who’s Your Daddy Review 2, Who’s Your Daddy Review 3, Heartbeat Review 1, Heartbeat Review 2, Heartbeat review 3 Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"regardless of whether the subject meets NACTOR. The two valid keep !voters either did not evaluate the coverage at all, or mistakenly believed that interview content, RSNOI promo, and churnalism can contribute toward GNG": precisely! Subjects meeting NACTOR do not need to meet GNG also to be considered notable. Basing a rebuttal of K !votes on that premise is flawed. -Mushy Yank. 09:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I counted Mushy Yank as one of the two valid keep !voters (the third was a blocked sock). NACTOR is a presumption of notability, the subject can still fail WP:N if it is determined that the coverage doesn't exist to support an article (per WHYN). If you think those reviews are IRS and establish the notability of the actor you can add them to the draft and submit to AfC, but DRV is not AfD round 2. I'll note though that OTTplay is a streaming content provider and so clearly not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly check @Vanamonde93:'s comment here. Jitujadab90 (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As AfD nominator. The whole creation (and multiple deletion discussions) involving this page have been riddled with accounts that have few edits and a lot of SOCKs. Can we please stop entertaining them?--CNMall41 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged, so reacting. A "sources analysis" for GNG and one checking if a person has had significant roles in notable productions are not necessarily completely the same; I am not sure about the first in the present case but performed the second before !voting. So I guess a relist would not have hurt. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 09:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The source analysis showed a clear case to delete and was not adequately refuted. Inadequate sourcing is why the page was deleted in the past and the delete voters made a case that the sourcing hasn’t improved since then. Relisting would have been a viable option as well, based on the relative split between keep and delete !votes, but it was not in any way required. Frank Anchor 13:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but Request Temporary Undeletion - This was a valid interpretation of consensus, with 2 valid Keep votes and 3 Delete votes including the nominator. With four previous deletions, the closer is also entitled to start with some presumption that the previous closes must be overcome. The subject isn't in DEEPER territory yet, but is approaching it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The old versions were moved to Draft:Harsh Beniwal, so I temp undeleted that as well. Memo to myself to reinstate the salting when this is closed. —Cryptic 17:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the socking, and some promotion concerns, I believe consensus was interpreted correctly, but a relist couldn't hurt - it's also true that the NACTOR arguments were not examined in much detail. My understanding is that NACTOR is enough to justify a standalone article if there is enough reliably sourced biographical material to write a page, even if GNG isn't strictly met. I have no opinion on whether this individual meets NACTOR - at first glance it's borderline. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note Gone through the edit history and saw Dna India, India Today, Bollywood Hungama, Easterneye, Times Of India, News18, and IWM Buzz Dna India, India Today, Bollywood Hungama, Easterneye, Times Of India, News18, and IWM Buzz these reference were provided during previous creation and afd's. This time I have provided The Hindu, Ottplay, Daily Pioneer, Statesman, The Indian Express, and The Quint these references which were not provided previous time. The Hindu and Indian Express are reliable source and those has editorial oversight. Ottplay is also talking about his career in-depth. With these we can establish GNG. Though the subject is already meeting NACTOR, is enough to justify a standalone article. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only looked at the first two and they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. DRV is NOT the place to re-hash your !keep rationale. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NEWSORGINDIA The Hindu, and Indian Express are reliable sources. And both the article talking in-depth about his career. Ott Play is also discussing his career. With these 2 articles, GNG is satisfying. Also satisfying NACTOR, still the AFD closed without being examined in much detail. Thanks for telling me that DRV is not the place to rehash. BTW I am not rehashing; I am just sharing the fact for other editors to understand. Jitujadab90 (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse one of the keep !votes was banned as a sock as well, but I can't see this being closed as anything other than delete. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After having read the temporarily undeleted article, my endorsement is unchanged. If I had taken part in the AFD, I probably would have !voted a Weak Delete in recognition of the history of previous deletions. unless I had decided to spend an hour or more on a source analysis. But DRV is not AFD Round 2, and it doesn't matter how I would have !voted, because what matters is that the closer read consensus reasonably. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your honesty; unless I had decided to spend an hour or more on a source analysis or on the verification of the significance of the roles, for which the type of coverage required is not exactly the same as for GNG.....I see plenty of relist comments inviting users to provide more input regarding SNGs being met or not when GNG does not seem to be met very clearly.-Mushy Yank. 07:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Baku Dialogues (closed)

Baku Dialogues – Closure endorsed. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closure of this deletion discussion incorrectly interpreted consensus. The discussion included one vote to delete, one to keep, and two to merge, which does not clearly indicate a consensus to merge. Additionally, significant sources from reputable organizations such as the Atlantic Council, The Washington Institute, and Central Asia-Caucasus Institute were provided, demonstrating the journal's academic notability and relevance. These were not adequately addressed. I believe this warrants a review of the closure. Wiseuseraze (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. There was a clear consensus against a stand-alone article. Merge is then an acceptable WP:ATD. As for the additional sources, nobody apparently was swayed by them to change their !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Randykitty I would like to raise a concern regarding your repeated involvement in every step of this article’s deletion process. You initially nominated the article for deletion, participated in the discussion, and now are actively engaging in the deletion review, which is meant to assess the closure of the original discussion. This process is intended to gather input from other editors and ensure a neutral review, not to repeatedly reinforce the same perspective. I believe it would be more appropriate to allow others to provide their views at this stage, as the review should reflect a broader community consensus rather than the opinion of a single user.Wiseuseraze (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Involved editors are allowed to participate in deletion reviews. C F A 02:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, closers here at DRV will generally discount their involvement when closing if it's consistent with the outcome. (The opposite is also true: if you argue against your desired outcome, that can be given more weight.) In short it's not an issue. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as correct reading of consensus. The only editor supporting a keep was yourself. Merge is a valid WP:ATD. C F A 02:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as valid outcome and viable ATD. And for the record, there is no issue with Randykitty's participation here or throughout the process. Star Mississippi 03:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Appellant is encouraged to provide additional demonstration of notability for this journal by working on it at its merge target: if it works, great, if not, it's still going to have the best coverage for a non-notable journal that the sourcing can support. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User:Jclemens, I already added more than 4 links from reliable sources to the article during the first deletion discussion. I also left comments in the discussion, but it feels like no one took them seriously, they just got ignored. You can check my latest comment there if you want to see what I mean. Wiseuseraze (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I am not conversant with either the relevant languages (and I don't read stuff in translation for fun) nor how to assess the sources relevant to this journal, so I'm giving guidance on how to deal with an adverse merge, rather than suggesting that the AfD participants were correct; we're primarily reviewing the close here. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jclemens What languages are you referring to, English? All the added references are in English. It’s clear that you didn’t even check the sources, yet you’re commenting on them. This is what I mean by ignoring. :d Wiseuseraze (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When no one is taking your side, I don't necessarily recommend attacking people for not doing things they were never obligated to do in the first place. I said I didn't read the non-English sources; I didn't say I read any of them. In fact, you're right, I looked at the mix of English and non-English sources and said to myself, "Why start a source analysis if I can't see all of them?". Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jclemens, Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn’t attacking anyone, just pointing out that all the sources I added after the deletion discussion started were in English.Wiseuseraze (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer correctly interpreted consensus as being in between Keep and Delete, and Merge as an alternative to deletion is a compromise. The appellant may create an improved draft and submit it for review. Editors who have taken part in the AFD sometimes indicate that they are involved, and sometimes they don't, and involved editors often take part in DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no error in the close here, nor do I think the participants ignored sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is clear consensus to not keep as a standalone article. With a delete/WP:ATD split, the ATD (in this case merge) should always be selected unless there is a specific reason against it argued by several users. This makes merging clearly the best option here. Frank Anchor 00:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 January 2025

Tyson Apostol – Decision endorsed * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Afd was attended by only the nominater who aruged that it failed BLP1E however on examing the article i find it had 17 sources which covered not only his win but his other 3 appearences as well furthmore they are both primariy and secondary sources so the article not only doesnt meet the 3 requirements for BLP1E but it passes GNG as there is significant Coverage with secondary sources on more then 1 event on a side note I don't think it's fair to have to "make improvments" when there was 0 adequate discossion on whether the page shouldve been redirected or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy restore~~. With no contributions to the AFD from anyone other than AFD nominator, this is effectively the redirect equivalent of a WP:SOFTDELETE. As such, the page should be restored upon any good-faith request such as this DRV. A relist doesn't make sense for an AFD that closed over a year ago, however any user is free to start a second AFD if desired. Frank Anchor 14:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, restore to draft space, improve it, and submit to AFC, largely for the same reasons I posted above, and per Vroots. The redirected version could use improvement but it is possible the subject has standalone notability. This course of action does not require DRV approval as the history is readily available. Frank Anchor 23:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, and reject the (Personal attack removed) misreading of WP:NOQUORUM of always requiring unilateral overturning of sparse deletion discussions upon any request - which practice it was added to deletion policy specifically to end. No coherent argument's been presented either to restore the article - certainly not to the version the nominator here repeatedly reverted to, apparently without even looking at it, what with the contentious topics template taking up fully half of the article's text - or to overturn Liz' policy-compliant result of closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. —Cryptic 15:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I didn't know how undeletihg the article works so I tried to restore it myself I learned I can't do that so now I'm trying to do it the correct way I've already stated tje lack of participation in the afd along with the fact that I disagree that the article fails BL1PE and GNG as I feel there is sufficient sourcing (and yes I did check the sources I was engaged in a conversation recently that required me to check up on what's a secondary and primary source according to winipedia) that covers more then one event regardless drv isn't for discussing the merits of the page it us about the deletion result It's nothing to do with the administrator I just feel like there wasn't really a proper discussion on whether or not to actually delete the page since no one attended the afd Wwew345t (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close as Redirect. The appellant appears to be misreading the No Quorum guideline in good faith, because this is an edge case. The guideline provides that an article that was soft deleted may be restored on request, but that means restored to user space or draft space. It does not mean restored on request to mainspace. In this case, there is no need to restore the deleted article, because the deleted article is still in the history. If the appellant wants to copy it from the history and improve it and submit a draft for review, they may do so. The appellant is not deliberately misreading the guideline. The appellant is misreading the guideline in good faith. Cryptic should remember that biting a newbie occasionally results in tooth damage. The deleted article is still in the history, and there is no need to request that it be restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page was not deleted and its not fair to determine its fate on a afd that one one attended Wwew345t (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the endorse votes are confused about the articles status it's not "soft deleted" it was redirected per a poorly attended afd Wwew345t (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am challenging the outcome of redirect on basis the lack of attendance in it and the flawed argument for the redirect Wwew345t (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is not AFD Round 2. The close as Redirect was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can you call it round 2 when no one showed up for round 1? Wwew345t (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? Literally no one attended the afd pages shouldnt have to be nearly impossible to restore based on one afd that no one attended Wwew345t (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I'm pretty sure soft-deleted articles are restored directly to mainspace upon request. That's what distinguishes them from normally-deleted articles, which may be restored to userspace/draftspace at WP:REFUND, but not mainspace. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a curious result indeed if a poorly-attended deletion would be easier to restore than a poorly-attended redirection. Has anyone asked Liz about this? Overall, I agree with Frank Anchor's assessment: unredirect it, improve it, and if someone wants to nominate it again, we're pretty much guaranteed to get better participation. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens and Frank Anchor: Any chance that restored version will be substantially different from the one before the redirection? I don't see how it does, despite his appearances in Survivor and The Challenge. Furthermore, his gameplay in the Heroes vs. Villains season is something to be careful writing about per WP:BLP. If it were to be restored, I'd rather see it go through the AFC process.

Regarding notability, The Things is owned by Valnet, which also owns Screen Rant, a "marginally reliable" source (WP:RSP#Screen Rant). Valnet is criticized as a "clickbait/churnalism" company or something like that (RSN discussion). Interviews like this one are primary sources and shan't be used to verify his notability. Unsure about this one, which is more of some profile and bio; I'd be cautious about using it. Unsure about this opinionated piece either. George Ho (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you thought my description of process options meant I'd reviewed and formed an opinion on sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This AfD was over a year ago. Just create a new article instead of trying to restore the old one and it won't be eligible for G4. Problem solved. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So based on a poorly attended afd with poor rataniale made by a editor who has a histroy of putting pages like that up for deletion we should have to make a whole article from scratch rather then just restore an article that had 16k bites of editing in it Wwew345t (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I just said below, stop casting aspersions. If you continue to comment on George's motives, I will block you. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the "redirect"; do not restore. The appellant's DRV rationale is more superficially number-based and rushing into conclusions of how this Blood vs. Water winner complies with GNG and how BLP1E doesn't apply. Appearing in highly-watched TV series doesn't make this winner a high-profile person. He's still a "low-profile" person in my book, despite the essay's definition of a "low-profile" person. I appreciate Voorts's suggestion, but I can prove why even the "new" version wouldn't work. I'll explain more soon. George Ho (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is rhe user who started the deletion discussion aloowed to even vote in this? And he basically just revealed that he's hiding his reasoning for redirecting the article behind policy's and the real reason is Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT Wwew345t (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Anyone can not !vote. Do not cast aspersions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda hard when yoh take a look at the paged and find the same person having nomiated all of them sometimes more then once Wwew345t (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im not casting aspersions when im pointing out that the the editor in question has repeatedly nominated pages like tyson Apostol for deletion Wwew345t (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment (from the 2nd AFD's nominator) The appellant's claim that the sources already verify his notability is more numbers-based than merit-based, IMO. The poker-related sources (this and the database) are kinda not high-quality to me. Also, an IGN interview and an EW interview are useful to verify info (about his HvV gameplay) but are primary sources and cannot be used for notability verification (see my indented reply above).
This NBC article details how the subject is eliminated from Heroes vs. Villains, but even executing the info about it in the proposed Wikipedia article would be brief. We can include established (third-party) critics' reviews on the "stupid" move if we're willing to do so without violating the BLP policy. The ones verifying his Tocantis gameplay (this and that) aren't exactly high-quality as I hoped for. The Survivor Fever website just copies CBS's bio on Tyson. The Reality TV World website details the gameplay in his debut season well, but the source is primarily recapping the whole episode, IMO. Also, the sources verifying his Winners at War appearance were just previewing the season itself before airing. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Us Weekly was used to verify his Challenge appearance but is marginally reliable (WP:RSP). EW interview (primary source) still wouldn't count. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you discredit 4 of the sources because "it doesn't satisfy you" and that they arent "high quality" according too you which are both opinionated statments Wwew345t (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"it doesn't satisfy you" That's not exactly what I meant. I was uncertain whether those four sources—the poker-related ones and the refs used for the Tocantins section—are reputable and qualified to verify notability (If not WP:GNG, how about WP:SPIP or WP:NEXIST or WP:FAILN?).

"high quality" It's used in the WP:RS guideline. George Ho (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Wwew345t - There is nothing to be lost by taking the deleted article, making it into a draft, tweaking it, and submitting it to AFC. It might be accepted, and it might get helpful comments from a reviewer. If it is declined, you have lost nothing. There is also nothing to be lost by taking the deleted article, improving it, and moving it into article space. It may be nominated for deletion, in which case there will definitely be more participation than in December 2023, because we at DRV have seen the issue. It may be reverted to a redirect, in which case you can restore the article and request AFD as a contested blank and redirect. You might get your article, and you will get a better consensus than in 2023 if there is an AFD. There is nothing to be lost by taking the deleted article either into draft space or into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He can also just unredirect the article and make substantial improvements to it, after which time someone who cares can take it to AfD again. Much simpler overall. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jclemens - Yes. That is what I meant by improving it and moving it into article space. I can see that it wasn't clear whether that was what I was saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there was no actual consensus about wheter or not the original page SHOULD be redirected it was just the nominater stating an argument thats more of a opinion about sourcing issues Wwew345t (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what i tried to do the first time but i was told not too Wwew345t (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Un-redirect Nothing wrong with closure per se, but insufficient participation to be afforded any weight as if it were a closed discussion. Looking at News, there appears to be plenty of RS coverage. No prejudice against speedy renomination if someone wants to AfD it again. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you using list of news articles from Google News results isn't surprising, but... why doing this? plenty of RS coverage doesn't mean he meets GNG and NBASIC, right? Even some "reliable sources" are interviews (primary sources), like this interview and that interview and that interview. This article seems promising but may be summarizing what other sources, including interviews from publications (e.g. magazines), say. George Ho (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who expected me to look, so I did. The appellant's argument that you have a specific agenda with respect to this and similar articles seems less implausible as you continue to bludgeon the DRV and read every source in the most negative possible light. Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who expected me to look, so I did. That's not exactly what I meant. I was gonna say, "Google results? That's enough to make this person notable without apparent thoroughness?" I fear it would've looked patronizing, nonetheless. read every source in the most negative possible light If I portrayed a source negatively, then that wasn't my intent. I'm kinda wary about sources, especially when it comes to reality TV contestants and winners and policies. I think myself as impartial about sources, but I can't stop you from thinking how I evaluate the sources. I'd love to say things further, but... I'm afraid that I'd continue to bludgeon the DRV. (Don't you think the appellant is bludgeoning more?) George Ho (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC); edited, 05:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He does have an idmb page https://m.imdb.com/name/nm3279915/bio/ Wwew345t (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB, a user-generated website, is still unreliable per WP:IMDB (but can be used as external links). George Ho (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more forgiving of the appellant bludgeoning a DRV than the original nominator, but agree that both are less than helpful. Since there is a default to keeping a prior consensus, it's not clear why a neutral nominator would do so unless they are invested in the outcome or don't trust DRV to do the right thing. Lately, some objectively bad closes have been being endorsed, so in that context showing up looks like piling on.

Interviews and VALNET are two policy interpretation changes that I do not believe to be correct, nor correctly used as stated. Like TNT, they argue from a position of necessary immediate perfection and post hoc reasoning to get around the deprecation of "I don't like it" arguments. Your positioning regarding "reality" show contestants appears consistent with that to me. I despise "reality TV" but acknowledge it gets plenty of coverage, insipid and brain-rotting though that coverage may be. I refuse to put a thumb on the scale to delete content I dislike, believing that the encyclopedia is served best by consistent and internally consistent expectations. Jclemens (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I despise "reality TV" but acknowledge it gets plenty of coverage, insipid and brain-rotting though that coverage may be. I really know that. Well, in my experience, very few (or less) winners of The Great British Bake Off turn out to be ~~non-~~notable, resulting in List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (linking a dabpage, actually) per discussion a few years back.

I tried Draft:List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists (season 1–20) (and a few others) as an attempted compromise, but it was rejected as too "arbitrary". Even List of Survivor (American TV series) winners was deleted per AFD discussion (initiated by me). If you think I have "bias" toward "reality" TV contestants, then think what you will.

I even thought about creating Draft:List of Big Brother (American TV series) finalists, but I figured it might be riskier and more time-consuming. George Ho (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC); corrected, 19:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lists were deleted because the really were arbitrary there is alreayd a list for all survivor contestants so it wasnt needed its not the same as a stand alone bio that contains a notable players appearances on more then one season which saves people the time of having to read multiple summaryd across multiple pages just to read up on them Wwew345t (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest and seemingly most correct thing to do here is to treat the AfD with one participant as a bold redirect and then send it straight back to AfD. I don't mind the endorses who wish to send this to draft, though. Looking at the last revision, I think if there had been further participation, I'd be very surprised if it had been kept, since the sourcing is rather bad for a BLP, so, yes, the onus is on those wishing to keep the article at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My epiphany: the AfD with one participant is not a discussion because discussions require multiple people. Nothing in WP:DEL authorizes deletion without a discussion, so any XfD with no participation has no deletion policy guidance or standing. Jclemens (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Deletion policy#Page deletion: In certain circumstances,^[5] poorly-attended deletion discussion may be treated as proposed deletions (PRODs). The note also links to WP:Deletion process#No quorum (guideline). That section contains Soft deletion, which is generally applied to one or two participants including the nominator (recent AfDs closed as soft delete). WP:Articles for deletion/Hilary Mercer and WP:Articles for deletion/Hatundere railway station are two examples containing only the nomination and deletion sorting. Does your comment exclude soft deletion? Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Wwew345t - Rather than continuing to ask DRV to set aside the no quorum closure, which was a vote of 1 to 0, why don't you manually reverse the redirect, as is being advised by some editors both here and at VPP? The article is still there, and you can extract it from the history and put it back in mainspace. Someone will probably nominate it for AFD, and then there will be a better deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Casue when i tried to get rid of the redirect an administrator reversed it and told me i had to put it into a drv Wwew345t (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Am i allowed to do it after all? Wwew345t (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That administrator was wrong, but in order for you to succeed at an un-redirect, I strongly suggest undoing the redirect and materially improving the article in the same edit. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, C.Fred or Liz was wrong, right? George Ho (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No only C.Fred. Liz's redirection had exactly the same force as any editor in good standing redirecting another article, and was proper at the time. C.Fred misinterpreted that action as the consensus of an AfD discussion, which was a category error as a discussion requires 2+ people, and twice reverted the un-redirection without policy-based grounds to do so. Jclemens (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we invite C.Fred then to this DRV? George Ho (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do so. In saying that I believe him to be wrong, that doesn't mean I think he's at fault: multiple people are treating an AfD page with no non-nominator impact as if it were a discussion when our policies do not support that. Jclemens (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a discussion involving George and Liz, with three weeks of WP:Silent agreement by everybody else.

If someone is late to the discussion, WP:THREE provides excellent advice. I recommend that User:Wwew345t act on this advice in draftspace or at the redirect target talk page, and encourage him to ping me when he does. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my original actions on this article and the three related ones where, within seven minutes, Wwew345t undid the results of four AfDs. That's red-flag behaviour, and one of the AfDs did have some non-nominator participation. Had that not happened on one, I would have let their second recreate go and contacted Liz myself about re-opening the AfDs or starting subsequent ones. And hindsight is 20/20; I should have offered to move the pages to draft space for incubation.
That said, the user has discussed with the deleting admin and then brought the issue to a discussion board, and the discussion is now focused on the content of the article. I know Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but the system is working, and to that end, I will respect the outcome of the broader discussion here—although if that's a straight endorse, I would ask if the redirected article could be sent to draft. —C.Fred (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:George Ho - There is such a thing as focusing too much on whether an editor or an administrator was wrong, rather than on what the right way forward is. If anyone has been wrong, they have been mistaken in good faith about a subtle matter, and it is less useful to say that they were mistaken than to say what the right approach is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wwew345t - There is such a thing as focusing too much on whether an editor or an administrator was wrong, rather than on what the right way forward is. Regardless of what you were previously told, you have nothing to lose by improving the original article and reversing the redirect. I know that you don't want to improve the article, and only want to restore it, but you are more likely to get the article kept if you improve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that is true- but im not sure where to begin Wwew345t (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wwew345t, draft a page in draftspace using AfC using only the three best sources. Read WP:THREE. Submit the draft. Or ask on its talkpage. You are welcome to WP:Ping me. Or to poke me on my talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the appellant can always add IRS SIGCOV sources and submit a draft through AfC. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the redirect, although not well attended, the rationale was strong, and importantly it was long ago, and nothing was deleted, and the DRV nominator user:Wwew345t has been rude. This does not belong at DRV, but instead anyone seeking recreation from the history or otherwise should either: 1) propose respinning out at the redirect target talk page, or 2) take it to draft space and make some effort to demonstrate that the reasons for deletion/redirect were overcome. WP:BOLD recreation is ok, from someone who knows what they were doing, but the BOLD recreation edit summary (“Article restored only the nominator contriided to the afd and winners generally have pages furthermore the afd nominater seems to have a bias against survivor pages”) destroys trust and faith in giving User:Wwew345t the benefit of the doubt. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
nominator has been rude You mean me or the DRV appellant? George Ho (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my opinion is that the DRV appellant was rude, and the AFD nominator rambled at length, but only the AFD close and not the AFD nomination is being discussed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my opinion that the newer page (in any form) still wouldn't address my concerns about notability, regardless of writing quality and sources' reliability. But think what you will about what you've suggested about resurrecting or restoring the article, anyways. George Ho (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close and suggest reading the OP's Talk for the history here. Wwew345t, please take on board the recommendations here (material improvement, AfC) before bringing more of these to DRV. As you can see from the consensus here, that was not the best course of action although severa of us did initially recommend it (and I still do over edit warring.) Star Mississippi 03:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 January 2025

Fartcoin – Endorsed as the community is unpersuaded by the additional sourcing, and the appellant has been sanctioned from further participation. (non-admin closure) Jclemens (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This page was chosen to be merged for lack of noteworthiness, however the consensus was reached before multiple knowledgeable editors updated the page with over 40 references. Deletion discussion centers around lack of noteworthy sources, where users are not willing to accept sources that are not major media companies. This coin is an example of the ability of AI to relate to humans in an infectious and viral way. The name Fartcoin was conceived by a jailbroken Large Language Model as the ideal meme coin to relate to humans. It plays a major role in the creation of the first ever AI crypto millionaire, in which 2% of the token supply was sent to the crypto wallet of the Truth Terminal AI agent that named the coin. It also has connections to Marc Andreesen as one of the most prolific Venture Capitalists, when Marc sent $50k to the Truth Terminal agent's wallet after seeing it reach viral status on X.com social media site. I request that moderators review the sources shown in the article as there are dozens of mentions in the media landscape about Fartcoin and its encapsulation of the absurd and hyper-speculative nature of crypto. The connection to AI as the ideal meme coin name, followed by its successful capture of human attention and creation of an AI millionare, is noteworthy enough to have its own page. In less than a month it garnered 27,000 pageviews. EveSturwin (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The term notability, as we use it here, carries a very specific meaning that has little to do with noteworthiness. In the AfD, none of the Keep !votes carried any weight in terms of guidelines, other than that of WeirdNAnnoyed, who also advocated for a merge. That's also the case for the appellant's petition here. Owen× ☎ 22:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand. The definition here is different.

In the original deletion discussion the Fast Company article is recognized as a reliable source.

Here is another piece of significant coverage independent of the subject:

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/21/david-einhorn-says-we-have-reached-the-fartcoin-stage-of-the-market-cycle.html

In reference to @WeirdNAnnoyed reference to WP:TOOSOON AND @Cinadon36 ask for articles over a period of time, this second article of note may satisfy that requirement given these 2 articles are more than 1 month apart, and therefore may be more than just a flash in the pan. Beyond this there have been several mentions by media and traditional finance professionals outside of the crypto industry, as required by coverage independent of the subject. EveSturwin (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own close. The closer's job is to evaluate consensus, and DRV is for challenging that evaluation and nothing else. It is not "AFD round two". It is not the closing admin's job to evaluate the sources for themselves or to otherwise have an opinion at all in the debate. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I’m a little confused, you’re saying the DRV process only re-evaluates the deletion discussion itself and doesn’t take into account sources shown in the article? How can you make a determination of rejection based on notability guidelines without referencing any of the 40+ sources? EveSturwin (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse nothing in the discussion indicates this should have been a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. As noted in the discussion the article can be improved by reliable truthful sources. We have Fast Company, Fortune, and now a recent CNBC article showing significant coverage over a period greater than 30 days. EveSturwin (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, replying to everyone can be seen as WP:BLUDGEONING. SportingFlyer T·C 05:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, I’m new here if you can’t tell. I’m trying to learn how Wikipedia works. I’m not meaning to badger anyone EveSturwin (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I assumed this was a healthy discussion and debate about the path forward. EveSturwin (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sorry, User:EveSturwin, your attempt to spam crypto relies on an insufficiency of sourcing. Non-notability is inherent here. And who the hell is "a knowledgeable person like myself"? Serial (speculates here) 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked in the industry for several years as an honest contributor to blockchain technology, and I unfortunately know how a lot of these memecoins work. Part of my job at my salaried place of employment is to perform market search in the budding Crypto x AI vertical. And sadly there are many founders that have seen Fartcoin take hold of the market in a way their utility-based products are unable to do. I’ve been following the project since Marc Andreessen sent $50k to an AI this summer. The fact that a token named Fartcoin reached this market cap is both ridiculous and a snapshot of a moment in time. I’m not spamming anything, I’m providing the true context and backstory of an incredible phenomenon that enrages so many people.

But the most noteworthy pieces are that

1) A viral AI agent identified this as the ideal meme coin and it somehow took hold in human society. It’s quite incredible. Hedge fund manager Raoul Pal likened it to a virus jumping from birds to humans. That in itself is a snapshot in time.

2) The donation of this token to an AI agent crypto wallet created the first ever AI that had a net worth over $1M. This in itself is a noteworthy event and there are TechCrunch articles about it, with Fartcoin as the driving factor behind this historical point in time.

I understand the negative sentiment towards it, but the amount of media attention it has received is larger than any other memecoin this cycle. It is larger than true products with underlying value. It is larger than the company AMC. It is frequently quoted by traditional finance professionals as a sign of outlandish crypto market sentiment. In the time since the article was deleted a large hedge fund manager used it as a headline “we are at the Fartcoin part of the cycle”. The Stocktwits founder coined the term Fear of Missing Fartcoins due to the fact that it outperformed the returns of past 50 years of the stock market in 2 months. High school kids are making their teacher’s salaries in one week from this coin in particular. It is a perfect encapsulation of financial nihilism and hyper-speculative behavior that can be tied to the runaway costs of living in America. It’s a direct result of young Americans not feeling as though they can achieve success in life through traditional methods like obtaining a degree and a job. It is possibly the most fascinating thing I’ve ever seen, and I’ve watched it from day 1.

I think it’s important for curious individuals to see the full backstory and context which makes it even more intriguing. Otherwise I feel this is a case of citizen censorship based on personal attitudes towards the subject of crypto. Just because you’re personally enraged by a phenomenon doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. You can’t delete something from the history books because you don’t agree with it. I’ve been shocked to see that even the memecoin launched by President Trump was nominated for deletion. That also is a clear demarcation in history of human’s relationship to digital currency and there are people who don’t like it so they nominate it for deletion immediately? I fear Wikipedia has lost my respect and I will no longer spend hours reading up on worldly topics here, for I now know that keyboard warriors can paint history in their own viewpoint. I’m quite disappointed.

And for the record I never used AI, which someone tried to highlight as a reason to denigrate the validity of this page. EveSturwin (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we don't do the subject-matter expert thing here. Owen× ☎ 01:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m directly replying to the “who the hell is a knowledgeable person like myself” comment above, that’s all. EveSturwin (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse based on "updated the page with over 40 references". It is not reasonable to ask reviewers to review 40 references. Read WP:Reference bomb. Read WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing me to this. I didn’t realize there was such a thing. My goal was to present the external sources to show the information is portrayed in an unbiased manner. EveSturwin (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as merge, as the right reading of consensus and of guidelines. DRV is not AFD Round 2. Appellant is bludgeoning the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are community general sanctions still in place for cryptocurrencies? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- They are: WP:GS/Crypto (as quickly discovered by going to WP:General sanctions). The wording there isn't terribly accurate - I'd expect us to be protecting at extended-confirmed by default if it was - though to be honest, I wouldn't terribly object to that. The sanction that did pass is shown in full at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. —Cryptic 19:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting I have p-blocked the OP from this page and Fartcoin for the continued bludgeoning, and I question whether they should be allowed to edit in this area at all given the Sanctions Star Mississippi 20:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this could probably just be closed up now.

I am also increasingly of the opinion that DRVs that are set up from the getgo as a re-argument of the AFD should be speedily closed as that is not what DRV is for. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Gulf of America – There is consensus that this was a WP:BADNAC. Accordingly, in my individual capacity as an administrator, I'm reopening the RFD for an administrator to close. Sandstein 08:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Discussion with closer. This is unfortunate timing for an RfD as the status quo kept shifting about all over the place. First there was no mention of the Gulf of America at Gulf of Mexico, then there was a mention in the lede and body and a hatnote to Nakhodka Bay, then that mention was removed from the lede and took an amble through various parts of the article at some point resulting in the hatnote being removed, and now Gulf of Mexico#Name actually directs readers to Nakhodka Bay in its text.

The point is – it's not the easiest discussion to evaluate consensus for, but the disambiguate result appears to be a supervote or based about the drafting of a disambiguation page, which in RfDs is standard procedure and is meant to further discussion rather than prejudice the RfD's result. Overturn to keep or no consensus, and refine the redirect to Gulf of Mexico#Name as the vast majority of (later) participants did not express support for disambiguation, instead preferring a conflicting action. J 947 ‡ ^edits 20:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I commend the closer for successfully tackling this politically-charged, highly contentious debate. I see no evidence of a supervote here. You may call the timing for this RfD "unfortunate", but it was also inevitable. We wouldn't be having this debate if it weren't for the recent executive order.
The calls for deleting the redirect were without P&G basis, and reek of slactivism. The page has received over 40,000 pageviews yesterday alone, and will continue to be one of the most popular search terms in the coming weeks. Sending all those who look for it to a search results page smacks of political spite, rather than encyclopedic integrity and a genuine desire to provide knowledge. Picking one of the two targets and placing a hatnote on the other will likely become an edit battleground for the next while, especially if the primary target is a little-known bay in eastern Russia, rather than the page 40,000 people a day are looking for. By picking WP:NOPRIMARY, Why? I Ask steered clear of the political minefield, and closed the RfD in the only way that avoids any colour of bias. In time, the political dust will settle, and NOPRIMARY will turn into WP:ONEOTHER, but that time is not today. Owen× ☎ 21:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if this was unclear, but after the addition of a mention to the Gulf of Mexico article, only 1 out of over 30 participants suggested targetting Nakhodka Bay. J 947 ‡ ^edits 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to Relist - In my opinion, the disambiguation page is the right answer, but it had been suggested late in the second listing, and cannot really have been said to have had consensus. (If it is relisted, it is likely to close as No Consensus, in which case someone should boldly change the redirect to a disambiguation page.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a rather laborious, roundabout way to do exactly nothing. Why not just jump to the same endpoint, and leave things as they are? Owen× ☎ 21:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respect you, but I truthfully have no idea why you support this option. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn BADNAC for an admin reclose. Politically contentious areas are not for non-admins, no matter how well intentioned and articulate. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that "may not always be appropriate" means "should never". Why? I Ask (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to strike this and indicate you now understand, or should I start an ANI discussion to topic ban you from NACs? Your call. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at their contribs going back to 2023. I'm only seeing 2 RfD closes, including this one. Normally I don't sweat too much if a newbie closer closes something, due to the other things we have in place (like wp:adminacct), but I think in this case, it might not be a bad idea to gain some more experience before jumping into the more contentious closes. - jc37 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime I interact with you, you always try to go the nuclear option. It is tiring. I said I disagree with you. Not that I would not respect the outcome of this decision. You are welcome to try. But you are also welcome to assume good faith. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per BADNAC. There is no way a non-admin should be closing this discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist obvious WP:BADNAC. This discussion falls under the first bulletpoint of BADNAC as it falls within a Contentious Topic. I can think of no topic more contentious than American politics. However, I would question this close even if made by an administrator as there is not consensus to do anything at this point. If anything, consensus to keep was starting to form toward the end, but wasn’t there yet.Frank Anchor 23:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: yes, we all know what NACD and BADNAC say. The question in my mind is, what is to be gained by re-closing or relisting it? Some 60 editors participated in this; no clearer consensus would magically materialize if we gave this another week, and closing it as "no consensus" would just leave the page as a battleground before it comes right back to XfD. This is one of those XfDs that was bound to come to DRV no matter who closed it or how they closed it. Rather than blindly follow policy that would, at best, circuitously lead us to the same result, we should examine the outcome to see if it (a) reflects consensus among P&G-based participants, and (b) is the outcome that best serves the project. Everything else is red tape. Owen× ☎ 23:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, just because a non-admin gets it right doesn't mean we should let someone who hasn't gained the confidence of the community through a discussion or vote to close contentious topics. I didn't even try to "close" this one to figure out if it needed to be overturned (in the sense of gauging the consensus to see if the decision was correct), it's just obvious that it needs to be left to a trusted member of the community in my mind, and I won't change my mind on that. SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we're stuck in what may soon be called an American standoff... Owen× ☎ 00:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about the "60 editors" is that most of them participated before the executive order was signed, which did rather change things. So it does, in fact, need more time. St Anselm (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Things changed over the course of the discussion. This is a good reason to not relist. A fresh discussion would be preferable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per improper close. There was no consensus for a disambiguation page. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per BADNAC. The revision which created the DAB indicates it was WP:BOLD, not based on consensus—"Why? I Asked"'s closure says that the DAB "stands", when the DAB should not be considered in the first place. I also honestly do not see how "Why?" could have concluded that the consensus was to disambiguate at all (although I am also not an admin). — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 00:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relist/Re-Open, per above - Though, "Start Over", might not be a bad idea either, as the "facts on the ground" are apparently shifting as we speak. - jc37 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a full start-over as opposed to a relist. Things have changed dramatically over the past two weeks. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn BADNAC. Contentious. An inexperienced RfD closer should not be closing something required respected leadership. Also, the closing statement itself is very poor, reading as a supervote, and very far from commanding respect. The discussion contains a lot of unjustified terse "Retarget to Nakhodka Bay", which are ridiculous as no one knowing the obscure fact that part of Nakhodka Bay was once in 1859 labelled Gulf of America would need the redirect to find what they want. This is clearly a bit of Trumpism excitement, and non-experienced non admins should not be jumping in. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me how you would word a closing. This is me genuinely asking to learn. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a discussion with so many !voting participants, while noting that consensus is not about counting, I would count and classify the main differing camps: Keep, Delete, Disambiguate, Redirect to Nakhodka Bay. I would comment on the validity of !votes in each camp. I would try hard to do this by quoting or paraphrasing recurring statements in the discussion, mainly to avoid possible reading of a Supervote. I would note what proportion of each of the camps gave no or negligible rationale for their !vote.

I would not personally have closed this because I hold some opinions that I haven’t found in the discussion. Eg that the justification for “delete” includes that is new, and that the Wikipedia search engine works (don’t confuse with “Go”), and that the search reveals no significant coverage on Wikipedia. That last point also speaks against validity of “redirect” !votes. I would also have the urge to point out that the term is a mere mention at the two articles and not justifying a redirect. I find myself leaning to disambiguate.

I would balk at the red flag term “Budding consensus”. This implies a lack of actual consensus. It suggests “rough consensus”, which is a privilege of admins to call, to stop a nonproductive discussion and impose a somewhat arbitrary result.

I would avoid writing “the Gulf of America is a reasonable search term for those seeking information on the controversial potential name change” because this requires evidence and I don’t see it being citeable to the discussion.

On checking Nakhodka Bay, I do not find that the statement “Nakhodka Bay was also known as the Gulf of America for over a hundred years” is a fact.

I would avoid the wording “This means that the current disambiguation page stands” because it reads an an autocrat’s decree, due to the preceding logic not being strong, and the lack of acknowledgment of many contrary !votes. Maybe the many !votes for “keep”/“delete”/“redirect” we’re not incompatible with “disambiguate”, but you would have to explain that well, noting that the !voters did not.

I probably would most respect an admin who closed it “no consensus”, because it is not a consensus, and because this is a suitable close for a topic that is in development. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of clarification: Nakhodka Bay states that the body of water was named Gulf of America in 1859 and kept that name officially until 1972, which is over a hundred years. I tried to make that clear when rewriting and expanding the article yesterday; apologies if that didn't come through clearly enough. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 05:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was kept, or was ignored until being changed? I suspect dubious transliteration. What is the difference between Amerika and Amerikanka? I think this needs a local, or at least a native Russian speaker, to read over the references. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"залив Америка" literally means "Gulf of America". You can read about it in Пароходо-корвет «Америка» и его командир А. А. Болтин (ISBN 9785041049713). Why? I Ask (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references in the article are in English. See wikt:Citations:Gulf of America, wikt:Citations:Gulf of Amerika, and wikt:Amerika Bay for more attestations in English spanning this time period. Whether the transliteration was accurate or not, that was the name in English too.

The name of Американка means "American" (using the suffix -анка).

I don't know the difference between ignored or kept in this case. It's not like the authorities issued a proclamation each year to affirm the name.

– Minh Nguyễn ^💬 06:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This is a pretty clear example of WP:BADNAC #1. I spoke to Why? I Ask on their talk page and they said "equally as many people that opposed the redirect or supported a disambiguation page". The big problem that they failed to take into account was that the discussion radically changed after the publication of the executive order. It is simply not the case that the consensus was that Nakhodka Bay was an "equally valid search term": at least, not the consensus among commenters after January 20. Also, the closer's argument about the "current" disambiguation page was extremely weak. St Anselm (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 January 2025

Raegan Revord

Admin did a "Procedural close", stating that it was because the page was swapped out with one from draft space during the discussion. However,

That's not what happened; the discussion was closed, then the page was swapped with clear consensus from both Keep and Delete !voters, then the discussion was reopened following a January 3 deletion review.
That shouldn't matter because both articles were on the same subject (a specific TV cast member) and the discussion was all about notability (i.e., the subject) and not content (the article.)

Discussion on this has been extensive and should be allowed a proper close. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. In this case, a closing admin should be able to make a whatever closing outcome they find reasonable based on the comments at hand. I don't think we need another week of discussion, 2 relists are enough, but an "actual" close, either by last closer @Liz herself or another willing admin. The post-close "swapping" can be seen as encouraged during-afd improvement. Ping "swapper" @PrimeHunter and afd-starter @Pppery if they wish to comment.

This subject has been in a kind of "development hell" for quite awhile. The draft was pending for review (again), and someone decided during that pending to make a new version and put it in main-space, and that version was taken to afd. Then the afd closed, the "swapping" happened, there was a DRV, and the afd was reopened, then closed by Liz. So IMO, the closer should also consider if a no consensus close here means

no consensus = back to draft

or

no consensus = stays in main-space. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the procedural close as a procedural close. I agree with the appellant that the discussion was extensive and deserved a proper close, but the discussion had been about two versions of the article, and I agree with the closer that this made a consistent close impossible. The closer said that a new AFD would be the way to resolve the biographical notability issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The MFD notice on a draft or project page says not to blank, merge, or move the page, or remove the notice. The AFD notice on an article says not to remove the notice. I have been saying for several years that the AFD notice should say not to blank, merge, or move the page, or remove the notice. An editor moved the page by replacing it with another page, and that confused things. I have mostly been concerned about bad-faith moves of nominated articles, but this was a misguided good-faith move that should not have been done because it made a consistent closure impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not invested in this closure and I came to the decision of a procedural close after reviewing the discussion again. The AFD was started with one version of the article on this subject and, after several relistings of the discussion, it came time to close the discussion but it was now about a different version of the article than when it started. I looked at the possible options for closure and none of them seemed appropriate as they would all be ignoring the fact that the AFD had covered two different versions of an article on the same subject.

I realize that the AFD is about the subject but this still seemed like a highly unusual situation so a procedural close was done and, if editors wished to do so, a fresh AFD could be started if there were those who still sought deletion. This seemed like the only resolution that would abide by the spirit of our guidelines. I review most open AFDs on a regular basis and if I had noticed that the articles had been switched out (main space>draft, draft>main space) earlier in the process, I would have closed this discussion sooner before it had gone on so long. I have closed hundreds (thousands?) of AFD discussions over the past four and a half years and this is the first time I've seen a situation like this happen. I'm glad this review is happening, not to second guess myself but because I'm curious what other solutions DRV regulars think might have been suitable for an AFD where the article that has been nominated is switched midway through the discussion with a different draft version. If the consensus is that my closure was incorrect, I accept that determination and welcome the community's guidance on how to handle situations like this should they ever come up again in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that if an article is re-written during an AFD, that does not invalidate the !votes, since AFD arguments usually address the subject's notability rather than the state of the wikitext. I was expecting a keep close for this particular AFD. Not sure how much more editor time we should spend on this though. It's been to deletion review twice now. I would not have personally taken this to deletion review. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time this user insists on starting a deletion review on this article in a short time. He asked the closer but gave very little time for a reply before starting this second deletion review. Why this painful rush? Why force the community to spend all this time? Is it really a life or death situation to achieve just the exact and precise sort of close?
I wholeheartedly agree with the above endorse (=leave the close as "good enough") in that in the bigger picture some sort of status quo close was realistically all that would be had from that discussion, so "procedural" is just fine.
I strongly advise against a backdoor delete; it is not appropriate to reinterpret "no consensus" to mean back to draft; that is explicitly against what both keep and delete !voters meant and intended when they made their comments. If "keep" starts to mean "keep or possibly back to draft" then every Wikipedian needs to be made aware of that and we need a new term for "keep and only keep". To me, "no consensus" needs to keep having the meaning "we could not agree to make a change, so we keep the status quo" Regards CapnZapp (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above poster who is criticizing me is a very involved editor who "insists" on dealing with this matter by insisting that those questioning specific claims inconvenient to his stance remain silent. The appropriateness of the first deletion review should be apparent in its success. As for rushing, I waited approximately a day and saw that the admin involved had responded to a number of other matters without responding to concerns posted by multiple people on their Talk page... and that admin has now expressed that she is "glad this review is happening". If this is found to be an appropriate close, I'd be interested in seeing where the limits are (WP:AFD says "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article", and that is largely what the swap was, as the draft article was basically a superset of the information in the article-space article, with better sourcing; cutting and pasting the entire draft article would seem within the letter of that, but the swap maintained edit history better than such pasting would've.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop mischaracterizing my comment as "insisting" you "remain silent", User:NatGertler. I asked you to not shade Vanamonde's comment by pretending he was in the business of creating exceptions when good faith would assume he was not. I think if Vanamonde93 wants to define an exception, it's up to them where the line is they are arguing for. is a strong case of gaslighting and I wasn't letting you get away with it - to me he was definitely not trying to create exceptions and your demand that they draw lines is unreasonable. Telling you to stop diminishing another user's comment is very clearly not the same thing as "insisting" you "remain silent" - you are free to express yourself in a million ways; including ways where you put your thumb in the eye of a user that might not meet your stringent precision requirements. If, that is, you accept you might receive push-back from random users like me. Also, your comparison with Friends (each of the six Friends actors deserves equal notability while apparently there's this invisible line between the fifth and sixth main actor of Young Sheldon, which only excludes Revord). You somehow think it's okay to arbitrarily downplay actors (she is probably 6th in quantity of screen presence, She's a regular, yes, but she's supporting cast.) - no, Nat, there's zero weight in arguing her screen credit is less valuable than, say, Jordan's or Pott's. Finally, the context for what Nat is accusing me: Another user tried to defuse the situation by the very reasonable interpretation of Vanamonde's comment (Perhaps we can agree on "a main [cast] actor"?) but no, you doubled down - and when I didn't fold, that's how you end up in situations where your only recourse, apparently, is to think people "insist" you "remain silent" when in reality, they are merely asking you assume good faith. CapnZapp (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of electrons have been sacrificed arguing over my intended meaning - I wish I had been pinged! For clarity, I am aware that Missy Cooper isn't the main character of the show, and "a main character" is what I intended to write. Also, for the record, I have not watched the show, would not describe myself as a fan, and am only aware of it because of how often it is mentioned in articles on the internet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming what we all (but one) knew: that you intended to write "a main character" is the obvious good faith interpretation. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By "we all (but one)", you seem to mean precisely you. (Only one other editor beside you and me was in the discussion that followed Vanamonde9's comment, and they just asked a question, rather than making claims about V's intent.) And no, "good faith" does not call on assuming that people don't mean the thing they say but mean the thing that would agree with you. Your repeated use of that technique in a recent discussion does not come off as a reflection of "good faith". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This whole row started because you decided to not leave Vanamonde93's !vote alone. I told you to not undermine other people's !vote based on bad faith interpretations of their arguments when a better faith interpretation is reasonable and readily available. You now refusing to conceding the point even after the original poster has established that my good faith interpretation was correct speaks volumes. CapnZapp (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This is a unique but excellent close. I agree above that AfDs are about notability, not about what should happen to a specific article, but I think "no consensus" is the strongest close here, it's been at AfD for awhile, and a "no consensus" creates possible issues with draft space, so a procedural close both allows it to be kept in main space, at least temporarily, and allows for a new conversation. I would give it a couple weeks and then start a fresh AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I would still have nominated regardless of what the text of the article said, as I would not have allowed an article created in open contempt of process to survive without an AfD. And I still won't allow it, and will renominate this version for AfD as well as soon as practical. Hence nothing has addressed the actual reason for my nomination, and the procedural close was improper. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm hoping for an "actual" close instead of the procedural, it would hopefully spare us that new afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a little casualness in starting a new AFD, for the simple reason that there is currently material bubbling up through tabloid sources regarding an online persona that, should it reach the level of better coverage in the next few days, could push the subject past the WP:NACTOR concern, at least for me, and would leave the article in a state that would likely have been accepted if submitted from Draft. See Talk:Raegan Revord for details. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ~~closing, including the SuperTrout~~ ~~({{Whale}}) for User:PrimeHunter for disrupting the AfD~~. Ask User:Pppery to wait at least two weeks after the close of this DRV to renominate. While some have a sense of outrage, there is no reason to rush. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe, look at the timeline again. When PrimeHunter did their thing, the afd was closed as keep, then it was re-opened, and then Liz closed it again. This trouting thing is quite unfair, and disappointing from an 18 year + Wikipedian. Not to mention an admin/arb. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I withdraw endorsement of the SuperTrout, it does appear unfair. Is he an Arb, didn’t know, but that’s irrelevant. Looking at the state of things around 10am 3 January 2025, the AfD was closed, and looked reasonably closed on my pass, and explicitly raised the possibility of a page swap of the article for the better older draft, which User:PrimeHunter carried out. That was ostensibly the perfect thing to do, so apologies to PrimeHunter. I’m tempted now to criticise User:OwenX for relisting. OwenX did not reverse the pageswap, and from then onwards, the process had failed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe Thanks! "admin/arb" referred to Liz, maybe I should have said "from an admin/arb". When she says stuff, people are likely to listen, for good reason, but IMO she should correct her closing statement. Agree with "ostensibly the perfect thing to do".

On reverting the swap, I see your point, but I also think that would have been a bad idea from the BLP-perspective, changing [1] back to [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The pageswap should not have reversed, meaning that the AfD should not have been relisted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right to criticize me, SmokeyJoe. I noticed something was fishy when I reverted the NAC, since the linked page under review didn't have the AfD template in its history. But I figured I'd leave things for the WP:GNOMES and bots to clean up, and thought things were fine once I saw user:cyberbot I attach the missing template. I routinely un-move pages that are moved during AfD, and should have dug deeper and unswapped in this case as well. Mea culpa, and a well deserved self-trout. Owen× ☎ 12:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a strange case, and you’re a pleasure to work with. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a strange case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have raised the question of forbidding the moving, merging, or blanking of an article during AFD at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Forbid_Moving_an_Article_During_AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon: sure, as long as we agree that doesn't apply to this particular article - as stated above it was only moved after the AFD was closed (and before it was reopened). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly see a issue with the swap, especially since it technically happened while the AFD was closed? More generally, significant rewires, including total replacements, do not totally void an AFD discussion, and therefore page swaps shouldn't either. On the other hand, the close is essentially a no consensus without prejudice closure, and the AFD is enough of a confusing trainwreck to justify that (the bludgeoning does not help, though I suppose this is not a conduct forum). I would endorse the close in this specific case, and unusual closes that creatively get around issues (the trainwreck) more generally, though absent the trainwreck I would recommend that a page swap not be considered to preclude substantive closes.

As an retrospective on earlier administrative actions, the WP:REOPEN statement could possibly have been a bit more detailed, though of course I do not know if an exhortation to be more focused and provide analysis would actually have been effective. I agree with Robert McClenon, Liz, SportingFlyer and Pppery that a new AFD would be appropriate (in a couple of weeks). I would encourage participants of said new AFD to clearly link their arguments to the relevant guidelines, and if making an argument to IAR, clearly explain why the exception would make for a suitable article in this case. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz is completely correct that you can't understand and parse a discussion when two separate iterations of an article are being discussed. Really, I don't think you can effectively hit a moving target when making changes during an AfD, which is why I rarely do. However, while Novem Linguae may be correct in theory, too many editors only look at and comment on the current state of the article--they don't do any research themselves nor engage with additional sourcing brought up by others in the course of an AfD. This is yet another topic that could stand to be clarified. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, I think you can understand and parse. It's a bit complex, though.

In the first part of the afd, you have a bunch of keep, and they are saying keep to this version. 2 editors, me and @NatGertler, are indicating doubt, Nat Gertler with an !vote.

In the later part of the afd, after the first relist that came after the close-swapwithmuchbetterandmucholderdraft-DRV-reopen sequence of events, editors are now commenting on this version. Now, consider this speculation on my part if you will, but that change would not have made the keeps do a 180, the improvement is quite obvious.

Nat Gertler commented extensively in the later part of the afd, if he had changed his mind he would have said so. As for myself, I wrote an !vote, so readers will know what I thought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be uncontroversial to say there was universal consensus for "the second version is superior to the first" in both !keep and !delete camps. Everybody seemed to think PrimeHunter's "swapwithmuchbetterandmucholderdraft" was a good idea, which makes his current supertrouted (whalesquished, even) status all the more poignant. CapnZapp (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, much of my argument in the pre-original-closure made it clear that even then I was looking at the draft version, because I repeatedly argued that the draft version is the one that should be kept if there was a keep result. My delete concerns were based on notability, not on the content of a specific version of the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, my cautionary advice stands: Just because one can follow what's happened, doesn't mean we should expect the average participant and closer to do so. The contrarian in me notes that if we made AfDs more confusing we might get fewer drive-by !votes, but reducing participation is almost never a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Average closer? Perhaps no. Called-in-for-re-close-after-first-DRV-admin Liz? Perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (involved, voted keep). Very difficult close by a very skilled closing admin. There were two different versions of the same article that were being discussed. While a no consensus close would have been fine, this probably works better as some may have considered a NC close to mean to send the article back to draft space for improvement. As the keep close is on procedural grounds, anyone is free to renominate it. I would recommend waiting at least a month after this DRV closes, in an attempt for tempers to cool down and to possibly allow for perspective from different users. Frank Anchor 13:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure (mostly to undo the Liz's incorrect WP:TROUT of PrimeHunter). Should probably be re-closed as a simple keep and the WP:TROUT should be applied to Liz and to OwenX who reopened the AFD without saying so and without noticing that the page had been moved . —Kusma (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't [3] count as saying so? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, yes, it is in the relisting bit that I never look at. Trout for me too I guess (tasty!) —Kusma (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to Liz, who does excellent work at AfD, I don't believe a procedural close was needed here, and a lot of the procedural argument is quite unnecessary. If this is kept - and it seems it will be - the material in draftspace should just be merged to mainspace, and the draftspace title redirected to preserve history. If "credit" becomes important (why would it? DYK? GAN?) anyone who contributed substantively is logically entitled to credit in the same they would normally be if something were drafted in talk- or user-space. I !voted "weak keep", but either a "keep" or a "no consensus" could be justified here: there are substantive arguments for both outcomes, and many "keep"s acknowledge that notability is borderline/somewhat based on IAR. I would be fine with striking the trout to PrimeHunter - if I am reading the sequence of events correctly they acted while the AfD was closed, and as such their actions were reasonable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential comment The reason "credit is important" is that editors (technically) retain copyright to their contributions, but license them under CC BY-SA, which requires attribution. If you can't figure out who wrote what, then we're in violation of the license terms. It's a little hard to imagine such a thing coming to trial, but it's a point of hygiene that the community takes seriously. --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trovatore: Our copyright and licensing choices require us to preserve the history of content we host. They do not in any way require us to preserve it at the same title, otherwise merges from draftspace/userspace to mainspace would not be possibly (they are in fact routine). If the page is kept, we need to preserve the history of both versions - but we do not need to waste more time over which title which version exists at. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Liz is correct that the AfD should be restarted because it is a mess, but wrong to blame PrimeHunter. There is clearly no consensus to delete in the closed discussion and I doubt that one would develop in a fresh one so perhaps it's best to wait a while before renominating. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you meant the implication here, but if you did - the reason to wait is not for a consensus to delete to develop. To the best of my knowledge everyone involved in reopening the AFD have done so because they feel it has been improperly closed (twice). At least I hope they aren't trying to keep it open until a delete outcome emerges, because - at least to me - the clear outcome, if the AFD we're discussing is reopened, would be "no consensus" (meaning "no consensus to delete", mind you, it is after all an "articles for deletion" discussion and not an "articles for keeping" discussion so "no consensus" must and should be taken to mean no consensus to take the discussed action), and - assuming we're not spammed with AFDs until people get tired of responding - I see no reason to expect a different outcome of a future AFD; unless obviously, sources appear that move the needle towards a clear keep result. CapnZapp (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? My reading of the above comments is Anyone who think they should can open a new afd, but give it awhile. Which is, sort of, what Liz said in her close. I also think there is support above that @Liz should strike/rewrite her closing comment regarding PrimeHunter, since the "in the midst of this AFD discussion, User:PrimeHunter moved the main space article to Draft space and the Draft space version to main space" is incorrect and PrimeHunter didn't deserve any kind of trout, super or otherwise. On a sidenote, afaict the ongoing Talk:Raegan_Revord#They/Them_Pronouns discussion has so far not produced any more GNG-good sources for the Revord article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, are you saying you believe there is consensus to let Liz' close stand and have the AFD remain closed, User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång? On the sidenote, not sure why you expected that discussion to impact the notability issue? It's TikTokers with a weak sense of verifiability that get annoyed Wikipedia isn't mirroring the latest gossip - they aren't interested in our notability guidelines...? And on that topic, yes, Revord's notability is weak, but is it non-existent? Before the AFD was closed, it to me clearly was heading for a no consensus result (meaning "no consensus to delete", mind you, it is after all an "articles for deletion" discussion and not an "articles for keeping" discussion so "no consensus" must and should be taken to mean no consensus to take the discussed action) Regards CapnZapp (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, my reading of the above is that there is no general taste to undo the close, but several have said "start a new afd". @Pppery said they intended to at some point. And IMO, in a new afd, we wouldn't have the "what does no consensus mean in this situation" issue. On the sidenote, the pronoun thing could have (might still) resulted in some usable sources, like the car crash, and those sources could have had some WP:N value. I think Nat Gertler had a similar thought at [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I for one thing Liz's criticism of PrimeHunter is completely right - PrimeHunter's action was the but-for cause of this tangle. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery, when PrimeHunter did their thing, the afd was closed as keep, then it was re-opened, and then Liz closed it again. There was no reason at the time to think "Oh, this close will only last 36h." This I know because I didn't either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2025	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2024	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2023	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2022	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2021	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2020	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2019	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2018	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2016	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2015	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2013	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2012	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2011	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2010	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2009	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2008	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2007	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2006	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates