Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewingspeedy deletions and outcomes ofdeletion 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 theinstructions below.
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information ofsocks participating in the discussion);
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions includecreation protection andtitle blacklisting.
to request undeletion of a page deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion. Place such requests atWikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
creation protection – request removal of the protection from the protecting administrator or, if the administrator is unavailable or non-responsive, request atWikipedia:Requests for page unprotection.
because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may berenominated after a reasonable timeframe);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to point outother 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 toWikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go toWikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwiseprohibited content will not be restored.
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 ofperennial 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
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with aPROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please useWikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
1.
Click here and paste the template skeletonat the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill inpage with the name of the page,xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), andreason 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:
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach<noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 November 25}}</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 isthe same as the deletion review's section header, use<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 November 25}}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name isdifferent from the deletion review's section header, then use<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 November 25|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:
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of theestablished criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at theappropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decisionand optionally an(action) per theGuide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete andvice 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 correctinterpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions ofpolicies 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 byRelist, rather thanOverturn 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 thepolicy 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 aconsensus exists. If that consensus is toundelete, the admin should follow the instructions atWikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was torelist, the page should be relisted at theappropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion wasendorsed, the discussion should beclosed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review asno consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
If the decision under appeal was aspeedy 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 theappropriate 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.)
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close asoverturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Where the nominator of a DRV wishes towithdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other thanendorse, 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, alarge language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed atWP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".
Endorse (uninvolved). Several keep !votes were based on a misunderstanding (?) of the much-quotedearlier RfC's close. That RfC only decided that WP:DESTNOT did not apply to two specific articles, yet it has been misrepresented in the latest AfD to apply to any. As such, !votes based on this misrepresentation lack persuasiveness and should be excluded when weighing consensus. The closing admin appears to have correctly done so.—Fortuna,imperatrix16:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. The sad truth is that we don't have a community consensus about such lists. Every couple of years, we get yet another RfC about airline destination lists, the result of which is often the opposite of what the previous RfC determined. Do we go by the old RfC that determined that they don't violate WP:NOT? By the one after that, where consensus was that they aren't inherently notable? Do we use any of the widely-attended AfDs as jurisprudence-based guidelines? Ignore everything and fall back on GNG/NLIST? I don't touch those AfDs anymore, because weighing !votes by P&G basis is meaningless when we can't agree on the relevant P&G. I applaud Ritchie333 and other admins who do their best trying to work out a compromise that will be tolerated by most participants, but beyond that, I don't think anyone can legitimately say whether such a close is right or wrong.Owen×☎16:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much how much import an RfC is given than when it's cited, it be cited accurately. NOT was not. Arguments stating policy says something it doesn't were not just failing to make a policy-based argument—they were making no argument at all. Cheers,—Fortuna,imperatrix16:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lone weak keep voter said they "do see the subject winning some tournaments" but yet to seemore SIGCOV sources without naming what sources they were talking about even after two relists. Should've been a soft delete as it wasn't contested before this Afd.zglph•talk•12:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close as frivolous litigation. Soft-deletion is impossible when the deletion is contestedat the AfD, regardless of the strength of the contestation. N/C was the only possible outcome here.Owen×☎12:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilevexatious litigation requires bad faith,frivolous litigation is often the result of poor understanding of policy.WP:NPASR makes it very clear that soft deletion can only happen whenno one has opposed deletion. By all means, demonstrate your good faith by admitting your honest mistake and withdrawing this appeal.Owen×☎13:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AdviseUser:Zglph that when every other participant (even if just one) rebuts their guideline-wave nomination, they need to do a source analysis to show that the topic fails the guidelines. Read advice atWP:RENOM, including the two-month moratorium, counting from the close of this DRV.SmokeyJoe (talk)12:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a frivolous DRV per Owenx - there's no way that this could possibly be overturned to delete as it's not eligible for soft deletion and we can't delete things at AfD when there is only one proponent for deletion.SportingFlyerT·C12:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per all above. Generally aWP:QUORUM of three delete !votes (including the nom) is the minimum standard to delete (excluding PROD/soft delete), and a soft delete is not possible due to the keep !vote. Relisting for a third time was the only other possibility, but the closer is under no obligation to do this. With no additional support for deletion in three weeks, there is zero reason to believe that would change in another week.FrankAnchor13:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This DRV is without merit. There is plainly no consensus to delete and nothing else could be done. Soft delete wasn't possible for reasons others have explained.Local Variable (talk)14:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Sometimes there really is No Consensus, and there really was no consensus. Also, if this article were soft-deleted, as the appellant says it should be, it would be necessary to refund the article because there is now opposition to deletion. Also,User:OwenX is right about the difference betweenvexatious litigation andfrivolous litigation, and this appeal is good-faith but frivolous.Robert McClenon (talk)18:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NC close. No one agreed with the nomination, in spite of 2 relists. One person disagreed, with hard to follow and likely non-policy-based rationale. Nothing else happened. There is no consensus here to do anything, just two people who -- doubtless in good faith -- yelled into the wind and no-one heard them.Martinp (talk)23:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Notability Justification for BJ Sam (For Wikipedia Moderators)
BJ Sam meets Wikipedia’s notability requirements under the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and the Notability guideline for music (WP:NMUSIC) based on multiple criteria, including significant coverage in independent sources, international media exposure, and verifiable artistic achievements.
1. Significant Coverage in Independent, Reliable Sources (WP:GNG)
BJ Sam has received attention from media outlets outside his personal networks. The following indicators support coverage by independent, editorially controlled sources:•His single “Mon Amour” was featured in a Hollywood film, Heart of Fatness (2017), a published commercial production independent of the artist.•Following its release, the song drew interest from TV5Monde, an internationally recognized French-language television network that operates independently of the artist.
These demonstrate that third-party institutions with editorial oversight have recognized and featured his work.
2. International Media Exposure and Distribution (WP:NMUSIC Criteria #5 & #6)
BJ Sam’s music has been:•Distributed and featured internationally, including in a Hollywood production.•Covered by major international broadcasters (e.g., TV5Monde).•Consumed in multiple world regions, with airplay and exposure across Africa, Europe, and North America.
This level of international distribution aligns with recognized indicators of notability for musicians.
3. Credible, Large-Scale Global Collaborations (WP:CREATIVE)
Sam coordinated two major multinational musical projects:•“Merry Christmas” (2022) – a collaboration uniting artists from all continents.•“Show Some Love” (2023) – a global peace anthem created during the Ukraine conflict with participants from several countries.
Both projects illustrate creative influence that extends beyond local or regional music circles, demonstrating non-trivial, international artistic impact.
4. Recognition by Major Industry Institutions
His song “Don’t Worry, Everything Will Be Fine” reached the GRAMMY Awards ballot in the Global Performance category. While a ballot placement is not a nomination, it is an official level of recognition by the Recording Academy, an authoritative institution within the global music industry.
This satisfies WP:NMUSIC’s guideline that recognition from major music organizations supports notability.
5. Collaborations With Established Artists
BJ Sam has collaborated with internationally respected musicians such as:
All the artists are globally recognized and have existing coverage on Wikipedia. These collaborations indicate industry acceptance and professional relevance beyond the local Nigerian music scene.
Conclusion
Based on the above factors, BJ Sam satisfies the requirements for notability because:•His work has received verifiable coverage from independent, reliable sources.•He has international exposure through film placement, global media features, and worldwide collaborations.•He has been recognized by established institutions within the music industry.•His artistic influence extends beyond regional boundaries, consistent with Wikipedia’s notability standards for musicians.
Speedy close per SmokeyJoe. In addition, endorse deletion, since the points made above seem no different than what was already considered at the AFD. Note the nominator's only other wikicontributions are a declined draft for the same subject atDraft:SAMMY.Martinp (talk)11:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who nominated the article was a sockpuppeter and was blocked for disruptive behavior. Also none of the redirect voters addressed the secondary sources that I had listed. They merely stated it was not notable without any more explanation. I want a relist where editors debate the sources to see if they really make this disappearance notable.Zaptain United (talk)20:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn toNo Consensus, which restores the article. This is the very rare case of new information that warrants reviewing the close. There was no error by the closer, but the nomination is seen, retrospectively, to have been an error. A good-standing editor should be permitted to nominate the article for deletion again.Robert McClenon (talk)22:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn- I believe a relist may be appropriate here. The original nominator has since been blocked for unrelated disruptive behavior, so the nomination itself cannot be evaluated solely on its face. More importantly, several !votes to redirect or delete do not engage with the secondary sources that have been provided. I have identified multiple independent, reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject’s disappearance. Since the key question is whether these sources establish notability under WP:GNG, I think the discussion would benefit from additional editors examining and evaluating those sources directly rather than relying on general statements that the topic is "not notable." If other participants could comment specifically on the depth, independence, and reliability of the listed sources, it would help determine whether the subject meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:BLP. I am not advocating any outcome here, only asking for a more source-based discussion before a consensus is reached.Unknown FG (talk)22:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was no issue with Owen's close as nom wasn't blocked until much later (disclosure, by me), and socking element is irrelevant to the AfD as it was also much later. The history is under the redirect. You can revert it, or work on it in draft space. If editors disagree with your improvements, they can start a new AfD. DRV is not needed here, and relisting an August close isn't practical. Robert's overturn isn't needed here, but isn't wrong.StarMississippi00:06, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I'm less concerned about the sockpuppet and more concerned about a large number of !voters discounting lasting coverage.This for instance is from 2024.SportingFlyerT·C22:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I think this is the right forum to ask whether an AfD should be 'overturned', because absent a discussion, the existence of the consensus at the AfD would suggest that the reversal of the redirect is inappropriate and would imply restoration of the redirect.Katzrockso (talk)02:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually correct. Anyone can undo any non-protected redirect at any time as long as they have good faith expectation that new sourcing would, if taken to AfD, result in the previous redirect being kept as a standalone article in a new AfD discussion. The opinions on how high a bar that is will vary by subject and discussion age, and gaming the system--or appearing to do so--is a bad idea.Jclemens (talk)04:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's unclear how the result of the AfD could be enforced if someone could just go back the next day and restore the article by reversing the redirect. The new information from the appellant here is not the aforementioned source listed by SportingFlyer, while that provides another possible basis for overturning the result, but the sockpuppeteering by the nominator.
Robert McClenon seems to suggest that the result should be overturned without reference to new sources (just that the original nominator was a sockpuppet), perhaps because the nomination itself was a !vote counted when evaluating the consensus, which we ought to retroactively discount. Though I don't want to speak for him, maybe you can clarify @Robert McClenon.Katzrockso (talk)09:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure whatUser:Katzrockso is asking me to clarify, but I will try. I don't like to have DRV asked to evaluate new sources. I also don't like to relist an AFD after a period of months. So what I was proposing was to overturn the AFD to No Consensus, which would restore the article, and would permit a new nomination to delete, and would also permit sources to be added that should be taken into account during the AFD. Sometimes I will be in the minority, and maybe something that I don't like will be done. Maybe this should be relisted. So what is the question?Robert McClenon (talk)18:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Robert McClenon for being unclear, I was wondering if the basis of your !vote to overturn was based on the fact that the nominator was a sock or based on an evaluation of a misreading of consensus or something else - i.e. the substance behind your !vote.Katzrockso (talk)03:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Katzrockso - Maybe my statement wasn't clear. I said that there was no error by the closer, so I did not think that the closer misread consensus. What the closer did not know was that that the nomination was invalid because the nominator was invalid. Does that answer the question?Robert McClenon (talk)05:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (consensus to keep). I’m guessing that the closer was swung by the last two “Redirect” !votes. However, the second last one was refuted by User:Zaptain United 02:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC), and the later last one, coverage.Dclemens1971 (talk)13:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC), is plain wrong, reliable-source SIGCOV were above, and they misleadingly wave toWikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA whenUser:Zaptain United‘s source is green lit byWP:INDIANEXP.[reply]
The SOCK AfD nominator was wrong.User:A. B. appears to accept the wrong nomination facts at face value, and does not address the reasons to not-keep.User:Svartner is a mere “per A.B.” All the “redirect” !votes are refuted in the AfD.
The two “delete” !votes raise no evidence, apparently accepting the wrong, SOCK, nomination.
Overturn to nc,relist, orallow recreation (by reverting the redirect). Those more familiar with the intricacies of our deletion policy can decide that. But it is clear that later !voters failed to engage with the fact a 2nd GNG-satisfying source had been found. The author of the source table,@Aviationwikiflight:, themselves noted this[1], but I suspect the much greater visual prominence of the original source table spoke louder. Regardless, it seems quite likely that a source assessment table created today would have at least 2 triple-check-mark sources, and that would likely lead to a different consensus, or at least no consensus. I am less concerned about the later block of the AfD nominator; it seems that happened later, and their socking was in response to the block, not something that affected this discussion?Martinp (talk)12:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Zaptain United added a new source about 10 hours prior to the close that no one else commented on. A relist is the proper way for editors to evaluate the added source. Akeep result may be the ultimate outcome with a relist, but in the absence of further discussion, I struggle to see how a closer could close the discussion as keep. --Enos733 (talk)17:27, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally (in this case), a relist, recreation, or opening a new AfD probably all get to the same place, so they would all be acceptable. I think three months is about as far back as it makes sense for a relisted discussion. -Enos733 (talk)16:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CachyOS –Procedural close: The prior AfD close has not been challenged, and DRV is not a content creation committee. Appellant may add new content at the existing redirect title or submit the draft using{{AfC submission}}. The usual caveat of the page being subject to another AfD applies.(non-admin closure)Left guide (talk)19:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of thedeletion review of the page above.Please do not modify it.
Submit Draft for Review - SeeDRV should not be used point 2:Deletion review should not be used … to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. Complete the draft and submit the draft for review. The closure of theAFD applied to the former article, not to the title.Robert McClenon (talk)18:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No action As above, or just un-redirect it and add sourcing. The AfD is 2 years ago, and if there's new reliable sourcing since then or appropriate sources that were not discovered/discussed at the last AfD... go for it, but be prepared for a new AfD if someone doesn't agree.Jclemens (talk)18:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as incorrect venue. The title is not salted. The current draft is vastly different from the version that was redirected in 2023. Article can be recreated and redirect should not be restored without further discussion or another AFD. I would recommend going through theWP:AFC process before restoring the article, but this is not required.FrankAnchor19:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
[Main category and 16 subcategories, to be upmerged toCanadian people of XXX descent and genericSportspeople of XXX descent]. This was a non-admin 'no consensus' close, the proposal for which was supported by the majority of contributors, and followed a CfD for Britain in 2023here, followed by those for several other groupings nominated by myself in September 2025here, all of which resulted in upmerging apart from the Canadians and French.
Of course there are valid sources discussing the ethnic origins of many competitors in many sports from many countries, but that would suggest that it would be of more benefit to expand on the specific subject(s) in an article or a series of articles, and similar evidence did not prevent almost all of the other categories being upmerged, resulting in these two groupings being retained in a completely illogical manner; either this is valid for a categorisation fork across the board, or it isn't, because 20 years of this project have shown that the proliferation and maintenance of categories is not adequately patrolled and policed to have narrow, particular forks without 'siblings' being created and populated for similar matters.
There is no evidence thatCategory:Canadian sportspeople of Slovak descent has specific sourcing for its individual importance, and also nothing to preventCategory:Canadian sportspeople of Czech descent being created if half a dozen qualifying biographies were found (by the way, glancing atCategory:Canadian people of Czech descent, about half of the 68 articles there look to be sportspeople, so in that respect it would be perfectly valid), regardless of sourcing - because that's not the way categories work in practice and never has been: it is assumed that the source exists in the article if there is already a category present which prompts another to be added. We are not discussing whether the topic exists independently but whether it is relevant for the continued existence of this entire intersection of categorisation. And in that regard, there is no difference between the surviving Canadian / French groupings and the deleted American / Australian / British / Spanish groupings other than one or two people contributing to the CfD. The principle is identical. PS this is my first entry here so hopefully I have done it adequately.Crowsus (talk)06:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per my reasoning in the other open DRV on the same date on a similar topic - this was probably even more of a no consensus than the other one.SportingFlyerT·C22:33, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[Main category and 28 subcategories, to be upmerged toFrench people of XXX descent and genericSportspeople of XXX descent]. This was a non-admin 'no consensus' close, the proposal for which was supported by the majority of contributors, and followed a CfD for Britain in 2023here, followed by those for several other groupings nominated by myself in September 2025here, all of which resulted in upmerging apart from the Canadians and French.
In reference to comments in the original CfD, of course I am aware of and have considered the significance of the likes of Algerians in France, but - as I pointed out in the previous discussions which were perhaps not reviewed before commenting - the like of Jamaican migration to England is also highly relevant to that sporting landscape with numerous writings to that effect, but it was still upmerged along with others of less significance.
There is no evidence thatCategory:French sportspeople of Portuguese descent has specific sourcing for its individual importance, and also nothing to preventCategory:French sportspeople of Spanish descent being created if half a dozen qualifying biographies were found (by the way, glancing atCategory:French people of Spanish descent, perhaps 100 of the 336 articles there look to be sportspeople, so in that respect it would be perfectly valid), regardless of sourcing - because that's not the way categories work in practice and never has been: it is assumed that the source exists in the article if there is already a category present which prompts another to be added. We are not discussing whether the topic exists independently but whether it is relevant for the continued existence of this entire intersection of categorisation. And in that regard, there is no difference between the surviving Canadian / French groupings and the deleted American / Australian / British / Spanish groupings other than one or two people contributing to the CfD. The principle is identical.
Finally, the deletion of other groupings has left a silly imbalance for certain intersections:Category:French sportspeople of Turkish descent is still present butCategory:German sportspeople of Turkish descent was upmerged, somewhat farcical for any viewer with a passing interest in German/Turkish culture and/or sport in the past 50+ years, and of course that complex relationship is a published topic of relevance (seeTurks in Germany#Sports) but that did not 'save' the particular category at the earlier CfD. Many intersections of note have already gone; either those should be restored or these others merged too. PS these are my first additions here so hopefully I have done it adequately.Crowsus (talk)06:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the review of these twono consensus decisions. For two reasons, keepingall origins of sportspeople in France and Canada doesn't make sense on its own:
Opposing arguments in the discussion, as well as guidelineWP:OCEGRS, suggest thatsome particular intersections may be notable and worth keeping, notall ethnic origins whatsoever in Canada (resp. France) which is the result obtained.
The discussion was split in groups of categories per nationality by the original nominator to make discussion easier. A different choice could have been made, e.g. by origin country or ethnicity.
Of course, sometimes a grouped discussion can result in different outcomes if it is demonstrated that one or several of the items discussed have specific merits, but that was not argued here. Specifically, it was never argued by anyone that just the Canadian and French sportspeople categories would be kept. It was instead argued by several opponents that all ethnic origins are relevant, but that was also taken into account by the proposed merge targets, e.g.Canadian people of Barbadian descent.
My suggestion is therefore todetermine a global consensus of all the parallelsportspeople by descent discussions, maybe allowing for individual exceptions if they obtain consensus. I would agree with Crowsus that this global consensus was towards agreeing with the initial propositions, i.e. up-merging allnational sportspeople by descent categories to bothnational people by descent andsportspeople by descent.Place Clichy (talk)10:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Place Clichy has a good suggestion. (I don't think this is really a deletion review per se, but more like a how the supreme court has to handle inconsistent rulings across circuts) The project would benefit from the consistency. I know there are some important nuances about when the country of descent matters (like in Olympic competitions), but that would be worth discussing. It might also be worth keeping to make the people by descent category more manageable.SMasonGarrison22:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close as an accurate reading of consensus. As terrible as inconsistency might be, inconsistent decisions between CfD closes are not the subject of deletion review. I agree with the calls above to a global discussion on this topic, rather than relitigating this CfD.Katzrockso (talk)02:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as an accurate close, though I also agree there needs to be a global consensus on the topic. Piecemeal discussions are highly inconsistent.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)08:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think that was closed accurately - there wasn't a consensus. I understand the difficulty in the inconsistency, but that would suggest a larger RfC on the topic, not a DRV.SportingFlyerT·C22:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article’s previous AfD, three years ago, concluded with a decisive keep vote. The article has now been deleted following a second nomination with only one editor voted for deletion.Ruby D-Brown (talk)07:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The previous AfD being keep does not have much bearing here due to the extremely weak arguments therein, which did not present clear evidence of notability, largely amounting toWP:ITSNOTABLE. While "obviously being canvassed" isan ad hominem attack against the editors that requires evidence, the !votes in the previous AfD can be examined in a vacuum without presuming disruption and found lacking. There was no obvious and clear sourcing shown that should have been brought up in a subsequent nomination.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)10:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I seetwo !votes for deletion, not "one" as the appellant falsely claims. This would normally be enough for an unopposed soft deletion. Alas, having survived a prior AfD, the page no longer qualifies for soft deletion. Letting the AfD run for a second week is how we normally handle such situations.Owen×☎10:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Await comment from closing admin, and potentially temp-undelete for review. Closing admin was apprently not consulted prior to this DRV, though has been notified. 1st AFD discussion was defective, with a false "keep" consensus based on non-policy !votes. But 2nd AFD was defective is well: with just nominator + 1 delete vote with very brief rationales, it can't be taken in isolation from the 1st one. And so it feels like at most a soft delete. That all said, Googling the name strongly suggests notability may be suspect and COI advocacy (including canvassing) a real possibility. And yet, we also tend to have an implicit bias against developing world subjects and press coverage, and so it makes sense to hear about the closing admin's thought process, and possibly get more eyeballs on this, before deciding. No objections to a Relist (per Owen), but pragmatically we may be able to more effectively review here and endorse if notability is clearly missing, versus reopen/relist if and only if there is a more nuanced sourcing discussion to be had.Martinp (talk)11:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Owen. On reviewing,relist. While us old fogeys often think being just a successful influencer or internet personality shouldn't be enough to make someone notable, it's discussion in independent, reliable sources that matters. I don't know enough about Ghanain press sources to have any clue about what coverage is independent versus bought marketing, but Mr Asare's awards are at least aprima facie credible assertion of notability, at least some of the sourcesmight be good enough, and the nuanced discussion of sourcing that is needed to figure it out is better suited to AFD than DRV. Neither AfD discussion so far engaged enough with this to determinative. If the article had been obviously non-notable, COI junk, I would have been comfortable just endorsing the deletion here. But it requires actual nuance, so we should reopen/relist and hope that happens this time.Martinp (talk)14:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. With only two delete votes, there is not aWP:QUORUM to delete. While one option available in this case is to close in favour of the nominated proposal, that option should not be used where there is on objection. In this case, objections include the keep closure from the first AFD, as well as this DRV.FrankAnchor15:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist' as what should of been the standard practice for delete votes this weak. I'd say even the keep votes from the first AfD are stronger, given that they at least asserted the sourcing was sufficient, and no voter in this AfD attempted to discuss the sources.JumpytooTalk04:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per the above. If there were no previous AfD, I would be fine with the decision to delete it with no other input; both AfD participants are known editors in good standing. But since it was kept once, a relist would be in order since a soft delete (which is nom+0 or nom+1) is off the table.Jclemens (talk)05:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can go ahead and do that yourself. It's not considered "involved" when you're reversing yourself per input from us. And just because we're all "yeah, that probably should have been a relist" please don't think we're horrified you decided to just delete it rather than relisting. Odds are it's going to be deleted if it's not improved anyways.Jclemens (talk)00:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
Speedy close as wrong forum No policy based reason has been shown why the AfD was wrong. This sort of thing needs to be addressed in AfC as a draft, not here. But without a secondary RS this seems to be a nothingburger.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)04:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
I already requested this once atWP:REFUND, and the closing admin's talk page with whom we discussed the issue openlyhere. The subject has an annual citation record of ~1000-1500 for 5 years straight, with overall h-index of 50, which is luckily going to continue. It for me sounds adequate for WP:PROF#C1. As I mentioned in previous discussions, there is no prohibition of using GScholar or h-index according toWP:PROF#C1, it only cites caution. This sentiment was shared by others during the AfD discussion. Thereby I think the AfD would have been best closed as "no consensus" rather than "consensus to delete". Best.Xpander (talk)10:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus. First, my appreciation to the closing admin and the article author/appellant. The AFD discussion here petered out, and the option of another relist was not attractive. So I have every sympathy that the closer did their best to try to glean a consensus. However, in doing so, their close crossed the line into a !vote, passing independent judgment on the subject's publications' significance (or lack thereof). And I'm not convinced their argument (in the user page discussion pointed to by Xpander above) that WP:AUTHOR is not applicable is correct either; we generally allow articles to quality under any reasonable subcriterion, not force them into one. Bottom line is that as good a discussion as we're going to get (apparently) is leading different people, roughly in numerical balance (ignoring the struck-out !vote and the poorly argued "junk" !vote), with reasonable arguments, to reach different conclusions. That's no consensus, not closer's-opinion-prevails, even if done with thoughtful analysis and the best of intentions. Finally, I also think as an encylopedia, we suffer from biases disproportionately under-covering non-American/Euro-centric content. While that doesn't mean we should relax our notability and sourcing standards, I feel if we're on the knife-edge in a delete vs. no-consensus situation like this one, awareness of this bias should lead us to choose no consensus.Martinp (talk)11:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus.Martinp already covered most of what I had to say about this.Metallurgist, whose well-reasoned arguments are a staple of AfD discussions, atypically went for a JUSTAVOTE here, which wasn't even based on the notability of the subject, but on the quality of the prose. I also find no merit in Ldm1954's unsigned "Speedy Keep". There was nothing in the nomination that would disqualify it perWP:SK. Ldm1954 is experienced enough to know the difference between a SK argument against thenomination, and a Keep argument about thesubject, so I see no reason to second-guess his !vote as a "Keep". I agree with Martinp that the closer seems to have substituted the arguments expressed in the AfD for his own views on academic notability. In the academic world, impact is measured by citations. Not just thenumber of citations, but the weight those citations have on their field, which in turn is measured by the number and weight of the citations of those who cite them, and so on, recursively. That is exactly what theh-index measures. While NACADEMIC cautions us against an absolute, mindless reliance on such measures, those !voting Keep did not mindless rely on the index, but used it to support their argument about notability. I'm hesitant to use the term "supervote" here, as I see no evidence thatDr vulpes had any opinion about the subject or the article itself. But in his well-intentioned attempt to tease out a consensus from an evenly-matched debate, he appears to go one step beyond mere application of our guidelines, into a nonstandard interpretation of NPROF. True, citations andh-index alone do notestablish notability per NACADEMIC, but they certainlysupport it, lending objective legitimacy to the Keep !votes on the AfD, at least to the point where we cannot discard them offhand to reach a consensus to delete that was never there.Owen×☎12:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I dont fully remember this, and being deleted, I cant speak to it, but I am glad to hear my reasoning is generally considered well, and by contrast, this came up short to that expectation. ←Metallurgist (talk)02:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can look at the comments. Even a count is 4 deletes to 3 keeps, so that is definitely ano consensus or should be left open longer if it hasnt met the maximum. ←Metallurgist (talk)02:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have deleted this if I had to close it, but I don't touch anything which NPROF touches anymore - it's such a difficult rule to apply because we assume professors have some sort of notability other professions don't, which seems to be an unpopular opinion around these parts.SportingFlyerT·C15:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn toNo Consensus - The votes are about evenly balanced, and there didn't appear to be any trend or any obvious reason to discount the Keeps or the Deletes. Sometimes a consensus cannot be teased out.Robert McClenon (talk)18:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC because there is not a consensus either by a shear headcount or strength of vote. I find some arguments on both sides to be reasonable but nothing that convinces me that one side is more "right" than the other.FrankAnchor14:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Well within admin discretion to close as “delete”, even if another might have called it “no consensus”. If someone thinks deletion was a mistake, request draftification, improve it, wait six months, and try submission atWP:AFC. An H-index of 51 is good, but a lot of academics with higher H-indexes do not have Wikipedia articles, and so the H-index is not a compelling argument.SmokeyJoe (talk)09:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe, Based onWP:CON admins should "not decide content issues authoritatively", i.e. Closing is not a distinct vote. And about the H-index argument, there are a lot of people withlower H-indexes which do have articles, so for those with higher numbers so instead of doing probablistics maybe we should see what the community decides on a case-by-case basis?Xpander (talk)12:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a panacea. It's a bad indicator where you have an author with one or more groundbreaking publications but their index remains superficially low, even in a single digit, but It works most of the times, especially when it's high enough.Xpander (talk)15:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Countering systematic bias? If so, I respect that. Does the subject have a native-language Wikipedia article? It’s not that I think they need one first, but that writing an English language Wikipedia article is so much easier if there is a native language Wikipedia article first, because it is so much easier to show real world notice thought native language coverage.SmokeyJoe (talk)00:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three votes (including nomination) for delete on grounds subject is not notable, one keep vote only stating the article has sources. This is a run of the mill bus service with nothing either in the article or in any sources shared that suggest it might be notable.Orange sticker (talk)20:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Both this andWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlet Band (below) were part of a rapid-fire, low-effort mass nomination campaign by a nom who filed at least 16 AfDs for bus companies and routes, all within less than an hour. It is unlikely that anyWP:BEFORE was done, as the laconic nomination text suggests. Therefore I, likeDoczilla, would not have given any weight to the nomination when assessing P&G-based consensus. This leaves us with one "weak delete" and one Delete, versus one Keep. Barely quorum, and certainly no consensus to delete. Same goes forScarlet Band. Disclaimer: I was the closer for the July AfD for this page.Owen×☎21:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, wouldWP:BUNDLE have been an option here? I think I tried to make it clear I did carry outWP:BEFORE on these articles, but I am guilty of copy & pasting some of my votes as the articles and the reasons I found them delete-worthy were so so similar.Orange sticker (talk)22:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A well-explained bundled nomination would have been much better. I'd still separate the buscompanies from the busroutes, though, as different notability criteria might apply to them. As a minimum, people expect the nomination to specify which guidelines were used to assess the sources to determine notability.Owen×☎22:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - I don't think we have a full consensus here (and I understand that is notrequired for a no consensus close, but I think it was nevertheless possible). I see the nom. plus two policy based deletes and a policy based keep, but no in depth look at the sources by anyone. Only the last delete !vote actually called out specific issues with sources, but did not specifically say which source was meant for each point. These were indeed part of a series of nominations that showed no evidence of aWP:BEFORE. A BEFORE is not compulsory, but its lack is a good reason toWP:DISCARD the nom.'s vote. But others in this series have got more discussion and were relisted earlier today. I think another week's listing would allow a fuller consensus to develop, and I don't see why that couldn't be allowed since the deletes : keeps were 3:1, or 2:1 with application of the DISCARD.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)22:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A reasonable close given the poor quality of the delete votes (1 flooded AfD with likely lack of BEFORE, and 1 only addressed 3/5 sources and ignored the other 2), so effectively its a 1 v 1. Given the AfD flood I would say its more reason to close as NC than continue the feedback loop of poor discussion from an AfD flood by relisting.JumpytooTalk04:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close of No Consensus. After one relist and no consensus, No Consensus is a valid call by the closer. Another relist would have been valid, but not required. Attempting to tease a consensus out might or might not have been valid.Robert McClenon (talk)06:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to buck the trend here and sayOverturn to delete - if the sole argument for keeping is "several sources cited in the article, nomination does not justify why these are not valid", and then later delete !voters do justify why they are not valid, then that argument is effectively refuted leaving no remaining arguments against deletion.* Pppery *it has begun...06:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. There is sufficient clarity in the delete case, and there's enough substance in the discussion for a rough consensus.—Alalch E.16:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is the keep !vote was as scant as the nomination. The 4 of the 5 sources that aren't dead links were all published within two days of each other, news of the company's closure which comes underWP:CORPTRIV. Is it ok to start a new AfD?Orange sticker (talk)15:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - per above. But note that it isthis one where one of the deletes was expressed weakly. I still think relisting for a fuller consensus would be beneficial.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)22:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete A simple check of the article's sources revealsWP:SUSTAINED is failed, therefore the keep argument - a classicWP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument - does not hold water. The closer must take the initiative toassess the claims of the participants, not just kick the can down the road by assuming that all claims are of equal validity.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)04:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tremendously disagree that this is an "argument that belongs in an AfD". I am pointing out an error in the close itself, not making a deletion argument.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)08:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The delete side is a little better than the other bus DRV above (only the noms vote has issues with the lack of BEFORE), but a NC close is reasonable considering the AfD flooding makes it less likely a relist would solicit more discussionJumpytooTalk04:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close of No Consensus. After one relist and no consensus, No Consensus is a valid call by the closer. Another relist would have been valid, but not required. Attempting to tease a consensus out might or might not have been valid.Robert McClenon (talk)06:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I createdGaza's hunger games and redirected it toGaza Humanitarian Foundation, where "hunger games" is mentioned in both theWP:LEAD and body. But the redirect was speedily deleted under G10. I'm asking that this be listed at RfD (or AfD) so that consensus can be generated. The redirect in question wasn't directly about any living person, so I don't thinkWP:BLP applies.WP:G10 says "Redirects from plausible search terms are not eligible under this criterion." The use of the term "hunger games" in relation to Gaza has appeared in many reliable sources:[2][3][4][5]. I appreciate this is a contentious issue, which is why I think it should go through a regular RfD discussion. Courtesy ping to@ERcheck: and@Peaceray:. If the objection is the redirect should be called "Hunger games in Gaza" vs "Gaza's hunger games", then that is also something that can be addressed during RfD.VR(Pleaseping on reply)18:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Send to RfD. At first blush, the term does come across as rather POV-pushy, so I can't fault the tagger or the speedying admin for their actions. However, the termdoes appear in the target, well referenced, and not just with the Chris HedgesSubstack piece. That doesn't mean it isn't propaganda, just that the POV, if any, is external to WP, and can be covered in a neutral manner here. Whether that's enough to justify the redirect is a question for RfD, not DRV.@ERcheck andVice regent: if you both agree, I can close this DRV, and send the page to RfD with a procedural nomination.Owen×☎19:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thks article's AfD deletion was 2 vs 2 and not a slam dunk.
Also nominator just disrespected the AfD process by asking for an article which fellow editors voted to be kept and questioning the AfD outcome's validity. She did this even though the voting was 3 vs 1 to keep. Note that same nominator was comfortable for this very articleEli Lippman to be deleted even though the votes were 2 vs 2, which was not a "slam dunk".DentistRecommended (talk)07:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This appears to be a retributive appeal, meant to settle a score rather than improve the project. On merits, neither of the twoKeep !votes claims notability, limiting themselves to only asserting verifiability, which was never in question. This leaves us withthree (not "2") valid arguments for deletion vs. zero against it.Owen×☎08:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The two !votes to keep the article did not actually address the concerns raised by the nominator. The nominator's actions outside of the AFD are not relevant to this discussion.Chess enjoyer (talk)10:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved); the keep !votes merely asserted notabilty, rather than presented policy-based argument. They were correctly discounted by the closing admin. As Chess notes, "the nominator's actions outside of the AFD are not relevant to this discussion", and it is perhaps ironic that, in their own actions outside this DRV, DentistRecommended has not yet given a frank answer toBridget'sconcerns vis-à-visWP:PAID editing.—Fortuna,imperatrix12:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Including the nomination, I see 3 reasoned !votes to delete, and two participants who asserted verifiability, not that the subject met GNG. Closer did not need to explain comments that are also refuted in the discussion. --Enos733 (talk)16:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Self endorse noting I'll be better about explaining my closes even when it's clear that some are not engaging with the content and information. NB: unfamiliar with the rest of the score settling here an no opinion.StarMississippi03:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I won’t even say the close should have explained why, but it is understandable that the newcomer editors who !voted “keep”, poorly, might not get the process. Regarding the DRV nominator,User:DentistRecommended, you have a lot of edits and history, but only a single participation at AfD? With just a little experience with deletions, this AfD should be read as an obvious “delete”.SmokeyJoe (talk)09:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As we say, sometimes to the point of overstating and yet we still need to keep pointing this out, it is not a vote. Closer was persuaded by the strength and detail of arguments on one side over the other.DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!19:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
I'm not seeing how this could be interpreted as a keep, considering the policy-basis of the arguments provided by participants (and specifically in this case, reliable sources needed to demonstrate notability). Thefirst keep vote, by the article creator, cites several sources from the article to claim that it"meetsWP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources", but does not address the issues with those very sources that I brought up in my initial statement as the nominator. The two following keep votes vaguely nod to how"independent outlets" or"Independent, reliable sources" show notability. Best,Bridget(talk)04:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate NAC 2 vs 3 is not a slam dunk, and there were several good critiques of the proposed sources that went unanswered. I'm fine with a keep from an admin, NC, or relist given the state of the debate as it was when non-administratively closed. I also don't recognize the keep !voters and sniff a whiff of PROMO, but the simplest thing to do would be to vacate the NAC.Jclemens (talk)05:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other article she nominated for deletion and got deleted was literaly 2 vs 2 and it got deleted. I am just observing from afar and noticing all these inconsistencies.DentistRecommended (talk)07:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir how come the user Bridget did not question the AfD process when the other article she nominated for deletion and got deleted (even though it had 2 vs 2 votes). Suddenly now that it is 3 vs 1 against her choice, she is against the process? It hardly seems consistent and this inconsistency should not stand.DentistRecommended (talk)07:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How come you did not question the AfD process when the other article you nominated for deletion and got deleted (even though it had 2 vs 2 votes), nobody questioned the AfD process then. Suddenly now that it is 3 vs 1 for keep against your choice, you are against the process?DentistRecommended (talk)07:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: DRV: PerWP:DRNOT, this request does not identify any procedural or policy error in the AfD closure. The AfD reached a clear 3–1 keep consensus. The requester did not challenge a previous AfD that aligned with their preferred outcome, even though it closed on an even vote, but is contesting this one despite a stronger consensus. This suggests disagreement with the result, not with the process.
Last deletion was logged as "copyright infringement" due to a Forbes link, but this was a mistaken rationale. PaymoneyWubby is a Twitch streamer, not copyrighted material. The admin who performed the deletion is no longer available for contact.— Precedingunsigned comment added byItsal x0 (talk •contribs)21:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that draft title was indef-salted by a now-deceased admin (which is likely what the appellant is referring to), so I believe this is the right venue to gain consensus for unprotection. In theory, they could create a draft in userspace, but I don't know if that's considered acircumvention of process knowing that the draft title is salted.Left guide (talk)22:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't notice the salt. That's clearly no longer necessary (assuming it was necessary to begin with), so I've just gone ahead and undone it. This can probably be closed unless the appellant actually wants a copy of the deleted version, which I don't think would be very helpful.Extraordinary Writ (talk)22:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD closed as "delete" appears to have misinterpreted consensus and the quality of available sources.
Several delete !votes characterized the article as "LLM slop" with "hallucinated" references. After those comments, multiple, verifiable sources were added or properly cited, including:
a multi-page feature in Inc. magazine (E.O. Welles, "Clipped", Inc., December 1997, pp. 96–109), which was verified via a scan uploaded to archive.org; and
substantial coverage in the books Invention by Design (Petroski, 1996) and Entrepreneurship in Action (Stevenson & Gumpert, 2003), which discuss Ace Wire Spring as a case study in product design and manufacturing.
These are reliable sources with non-trivial discussion of the company, which, taken together, appear to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH for an organization. After these sources were confirmed, some earlier delete rationales (e.g., that the sources were fabricated or trivial) were no longer accurate, but the close still treated the discussion as if there were no significant coverage.
Given the updated sourcing and the presence of multiple keep !votes, a "no consensus" result (or relist) would have been more consistent with the mixed policy-based arguments than a straightforward "delete". I am therefore asking DRV to overturn the delete and either (a) undelete the article for improvement, or (b) allow recreation based on the verified independent sources listed above.Ritchy1125 (talk)14:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and allow recreation in draftspace, subject to AfC. The AfD itself was marginal. Several of the arguments for deletion were based on the content rather than on the sourcing. However, the author/appellant's continuing reliance on LLM for both article creation and discussion makes me reluctant to let him work in mainspace at this point. This is required by policy if Ritchy1125 is, in fact, Richard D. Froehlich, the company's owner, making him a UPE. Please note that hehas been warned about COI editing a month ago.Owen×☎15:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with recreation as a draft. I'm a bit on the fence whether it should have been outright deleted, but this isn't AFD part two and the closer's judgment was reasonable. If recreated -- again, as a submitted draft not just plopped into mainspace -- it's expected to involve no LLMs and fullWP:COI disclosure from any creator.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)17:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without recreation in draftspace per the rationale inNo amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. (Note: I voted to delete on the original AfD, and authored the source assessment table used within it.) Both of these new sources were included in the source assessment table. TheInc article is good, but is borderline acceptable forWP:ORGDEPTH.Invention by Design has a one sentence mention as stated in the source assessment table, and as far as I can tellEntrepreneurship in Action by Stevenson and Gumpert is not a real book and the nominator has yet to provide any evidence that it does exist.Perryprog (talk)17:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as a participant in the previous discussion. The article which previously existed absolutely did not belong in mainspace due to the glaring LLM issues. Multiple sources being hallucinated means the output likely wasn't reviewed, meaning every fact presented in the article had not been verified. Multiple other articles created by this user wereWP:BLARed or deleted underWP:G15 and I personally participated in the cleanup that resulted from the LLM use by this user. I strongly suggest that the article creator stop using LLMs on Wikipedia altogether.Lovelyfurball (talk)18:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
Special.̇CSD log/BodhiHarp – The deletion isspeedily endorsed. The nominator withdrew. Separately, the character between "l" and "C" is in fact two characters, a period and a "combining dot above" (the "hack" that the DRV nominator refers to), which means that the text "Special.̇" was not a prefix, and so this page was in main space (the namespace consisting of pages without a prefix), and there is complete clarity and consensus in this brief discussion thatWP:R2 really did apply. —Alalch E.17:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of thedeletion review of the page above.Please do not modify it.
This is only kind of an R2 redirect. Also, readers may not find this. I'm using a hack to get past the restriction you can't create a page with the prefixSpecial:. Additionally, .̇ is not easily typable. -BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk,contributions)05:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit, I had to bend CSD R2 criteria for this page to fit when I saw this page show up on my list of quarry CSD R2 "error" pages. I have never seen a Special page directed to a User page and I have no idea what the purpose of this one is or why we should allow this.LizRead!Talk!06:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Its technically not a special page, as far as the software is concerned. I don't know what symbol ".̇" even is, but as far as the software is concerned, only the plain old: seperates a namespace prefix from the rest of the page title (which also shows in the fact that you can create it at all, as special pages arenot editable in the usual way). We do have a few special pages that (can) redirect to userspace though, likespecial:MyPage (redirects to userpage or a subpage)Special:MyTalk (redirects to user talk); more atSpecial:SpecialPages § redirecting special pages (except for the Special:Random variants, AFAIK all pages there have the capability to redirect to userspace under various circumstances)Victor Schmidt (talk)08:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thevoiced linguolabial lateral approximant, despite not being used in any language, at least comes across as a bona fide attempt to add potentially encyclopedic content, which is not the case with the newer two.Owen×☎16:41, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion and send to AfD. Some of the prose indeed comes across as promotional, but this does not amount to theexclusively promotional criterion required by G11. I'm guessing BusterD tried to save us from having to go through an AfD that would almost certainly result in deletion, but well-intentioned as it was, this speedy deletion seems unwarranted.@BusterD: if you procedurally nominate the article at AfD, we can close this DRV now, and have the content and sourcing assessed there. The outcome would likely be the same, but this is not an undisputed case, so we need to go through the process.Owen×☎13:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn These promotional-leaning articles are tricky when it comes to G11, but I do not consider this article is unambiguous advertising or promotion and does not exist solely for the purpose of promoting its subject. There is an absence of excessive puffery and weasel words that typically accompany such articles. Some parts which look promotional could equally be seen as credible assertions of significance of the subject.Local Variable (talk)13:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11 and send to AFD if desired. G11 requires an atricle to beexclusively promotional and would need to befundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles (emphasis in the policy). The article will need to be updated with promotional content removed/rewritten, but parts of it are salvageable to at least get it past the very low bar of requiring an AFD.FrankAnchor14:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion procedurally. I owe apologies to the translator; I missed yesterday's personal message on my talk. Seeing this discussion already underway, I'm happy to withdraw my G11 and nominate the page, providing my rationale in the nom statement.BusterD (talk)15:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
I would like to appeal the decision to delete made byUser:OwenX. Two admins had previously relisted the AfD due to lack of consensus and each relist drew additional keep !votes, indicating momentum toward retention. At closure, five editors supported keep and three supported delete, with multiple experienced editors citing policy-based arguments. In ruling to delete, OwenX offered reasoning that was thoughtful but seems to have substituted personal judgment for consensus assessment. The close disregarded a developing consensus and prematurely ended discussion that was either leaning keep or would have remain unresolved - in which case the decision would defer to keep. Reopening the AfD would allow proper consensus to form.Brucemyboy1212 (talk)22:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Supervote. The closer’s original analysis is too much. They should have !voted. If anything, the close should have been “no consensus” because not enough participants were agreeing to delete.SmokeyJoe (talk)23:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the references in the deleted article, the first ([6]) is an interview with a preamble. The interview-proper is non-independent and to be ignored for notability-testing purposes. The interesting preamble is:
It takes a special breed of engineer to record and mix—produce and compose too—the soundtracks to the worlds built by an army of production teams for our entertainment, and one standout in this field, both professionally and personally is, Greg Hayes. To date, Greg Hayes, the engineer’s ‘engineer,’ has 220 credits across music department and sound department to his name. From major motion pictures—”Crazy Rich Asians,” “Ant-Man and The Wasp,” “BlacKkKlansman”—to TV Series and Broadcast Sports—”Perry Mason,” “Daybreak,” and F1 Sports’ “Formula One,” chances are you’ve been immersed in the plot and enjoyed Greg’s special gift. Our interview with Greg is a feature of the artisan and his application of the Chandler Limited EMI / Abbey Road Studios REDD Microphone to his craft, which is the art of sound for film and television.
Is this enough information to write an article? 133 words? That meetsWP:100W. I call this debatable.
Every other reference is primary source scrapping for every listing of his name. No other reference contains comment about the subject.
It is NOT the role of the closer to play the expert adjudicator. The closer's analysis needs to have been in the AfD discussion, subject to reply by the other participants. The community needs to brought along. Too many "keep" statements were good enough to not be summarily ignored.
I think the closer supervoted. Their close should have been a !vote. If relisted, I would !vote “delete”, due to the topic failing the GNG. The SNGs should be read as indicators of meeting the GNG, and the article meetingWP:ANYBIO criterion #1 is trumped by the GNG fail. I consider reference 1 to be non-independent.SmokeyJoe (talk)13:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(closer here)treat the close [...] as a vote to Delete?! Is this one of your attempts at humour? What vote should we ascribe to the two relisters? What is the policy basis for counting a decision from someone who didn't read the article, review the sources, nor has any opinion about the subject's notability--as a vote? I'm used to seeing these baseless "supervote" accusations from you,Robert McClenon, but I believe you're breaking new procedural ground here with your proposal to force people who have no opinion on a topic to be counted as having voted on it. As for your claim that ANYBIO wasnot addressed by the closer, the 2nd paragraph in my closing statement addressed exactly that. Have you read it?Owen×☎15:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the close states "Saying that WP:NMUSIC doesn't matter because WP:ANYBIO criterion #1 is met anyway shows a poor understanding of our guidelines", which is a misrepresentation of the editors argument, which is thatWP:NMUSIC bio does not apply because he is not a musician, but an audio engineer. While this seems like splitting hairs, it is a valid argument that went unaddressed in the discussion and I don't see how the answer is irrefutably obvious from the PAG, rather than a matter of interpretive opinion. Composers/songwriters are awarded Grammys too, but they are not covered byWP:NMUSICBIO, but ratherWP:COMPOSER. Upon checking the talk page forWP:NMUSIC, I found serious disagreement between editors over whether producers, audio engineers and mixers are covered byWP:NMUSICBIO. Either way, the editor who argued that NMUSICBIO is inapplicable was the nominator who wanted to delete the article, not the editors !voting to keep it.
It also doesn't address the Emmy, which is not a music award, but for other audio engineering feats (an argument endorsed by two edits: SarekofVulcan and ChrysGalley) on a movie.Katzrockso (talk)05:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request Temporary Undeletion so that I can view the mentions of the Grammy and the Emmy, but I think that I have seen enough to say that the close should be vacated as a supervote.Robert McClenon (talk)01:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus We have said before that previous relists aren't binding on the next admin to come along... but that's only somewhat true. Each relist got another keep and no one opposed to keeping. Both previously relisting admins have a balanced reputation--they don't hesitate to close things as delete if that's the consensus. I can see 'no consensus' as within discretion, but to close as delete after two weeks of no new delete opinions stretches discretion too far.Jclemens (talk)04:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(closer here) The second relisting comment states Asilvering didn't find theKeeps persuasive, suggesting they were likely already leaning towards aDelete close, but willing to give it another week in hope of a clearer consensus. I could be wrong -Asilvering, please correct me if I misread you.Owen×☎15:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this was something of a rebuke to the keep !voters who were saying "keep because awards" without substantially addressing the concerns raised by the delete !voters, which specifically addressed why those awards were insufficient in this case. --asilvering (talk)17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, if that was the intent, it wasn't really clear to me reading it after the fact. I appreciate relists that give pointers as to what the relister thinks the compelling questions are, but no, a failure of past or future participants to address the relisting statements doesn't seem to be weighting for or against anything in particular. If that's not right, I'd like to see participant expectations clarified.Jclemens (talk)06:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting, like closing, is an administrative role, and you should not be combining administrative roles with opinion. If your contribution is "The "keep" !votes are ignoring "delete" !voters', you should !vote that.
No one is playing games here,SmokeyJoe. When I see an AfD where participants bring up arguments that aren't based on P&G, I try to point it out in my relisting comment, giving participants a chance to beef up their case, rather than surprising them by discarding their !vote when closing. That's exactly what Asilvering tried to do here. Neither Asilvering nor I had an opinion about the article, and there are no "coded comments" here. The relist was a failed attempt to solicit arguments that weren't based on a misguided application of the awards criterion, leaving me with no option but to discount those !votes when closing. Not every relist is an implied "N/C". We routinely relist discussions where P&G-based rough consensus is there, but involves discounting weak arguments, which none of us enjoys doing. Once the clock runs out, we are forced to adjudicate based on what's there.Owen×☎10:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are never forced to adjudicate. You had the option, for example, too !vote.
Slipping into behavioural patterns does not require or imply the playing of games.
I understand what you and asilvering are saying, but I also see that for the ordinary editor, that two relists and two “keep” !votes leading to a “delete” outcome astonishing. Looking at the perspective of User:Indefensible and User:Brucemyboy1212, it is reasonable for them to have assumed that they were succeeding in defending the article, and for the, to have not realised that the relist comments were challenges to them to do better.
I’m also looking at how User:SarekOfVulcan’s !vote received two agreements and no challenges. It’s understandably astonishing to keep !voters to be told that the discussion was leaning “delete”.SmokeyJoe (talk)11:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) The rationale was extremely well-reasoned and not a supervote. Most of the keep !votes were about him winning a Grammy/Emmy, but it seems that he was not the sole recipient and it would not count towardsWP:MUSICBIO, thus it makes sense that they would all be discounted.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)17:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC I get the individual vs. group issue. But exactly how to apply that isn't black-and-white and should be the realm of the discussion, not for just the closer to decide. Between that and the ANYBIO argument, I don't see a way to get to delete. I could see either keep or NC however.Hobit (talk)20:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, treating the closing statement as a vote was not intended as humor. The closing statement was a well-reasoned statement but went beyond the limits of assessing consensus. It was not a valid closing statement because it was asupervote, but it should not be ignored, because it was well-reasoned and should be given some consideration. It was better reasoned than some of the Keep votes. No, the two Relists were valid Relists, and should not be treated as votes. No, I was not trying to be humorous in this case, but was trying to give some consideration to a reasoned argument. I acknowledge that I missed the mention of theWP:ANYBIO guideline. I don't consider it persuasive, but I admit that I did overlook it although I read the closing statement twice. No, treating the closing statement as a vote was not intended as humor, but to give credit to a reasoned statement that was useful although, in my opinion, misplaced.Robert McClenon (talk)21:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are problems with how the AFD was conducted. My biggest concern is not with the closing statement, which I believe is correct in interpreting our policies and guidelines, but with Asilvering's relist. While we do expect editors who relist discussions to push participants to address issues that come up during the discussion (such as "do the new sources found meet GNG"), the comment by Asilvering is more bitey and probably would have been better if it were a delete !vote rather than an administrative action. However, since it was relisted at that point, we have a problem with the close because it looks bad (close of delete after two unanswered keep !votes), not that it was "wrong" in which side of the discussion had the stronger argument. --Enos733 (talk)18:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The novel arguments in the close are not inarguable expositions of settled policy, but the basis for a !vote. This is an article that the content of the article and sources has almost nothing to do with the AfD, as the notability hinges upon two awards received.Katzrockso (talk)05:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus(uninvolved). Multiple keep !votes were given after the re listings with no one arguing for deletion after the re listings and the arguments in the close went beyond assessing consensus and seem better suited as a !vote not a close.So no consensus is the correct option given the split in views amongst the participants in the AFD and the only keep !votes after the re listings.GothicGolem29(Talk)11:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (though I would not oppose that the issue be returned to AFD as a relist or fresh nomination). The issue at review appears to primarily concern whether administrators acted within the bounds of a purely administrative role or have entered into the substantive discussion. A secondary element could be the actual weighing of the discussion, in which we can consider whether a different weighting of the !votes expressed may have been appropriate, whether the described weighting may have been in error and, once arrived at the range given by valid exercise of judgement, which conclusions were within discretion. I find the weighting reasonable, and the close covers points made in the discussion which in turn supports that there is no reason to consider the close a supervote. As it grew to quite some length, I have collapsed my full analysis below.Alpha3031 (t •c)10:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view of asilvering's relist comment
To start on the tangential issue, I would dissent with SmokeyJoe and (partially) Enos's comments on the relisting statement. While, as raised by Jclemens, there may have been differing expectations as to the meaning of the relist statement, and touching on points raised by Enos, there may have been a different phrasing that got across better the point of (something whichappears to be along the lines of)"In my assessment of the comments entered, 'it clearly does' without any reasoning attached would not be weighted highly in determining the question raised in previous discussion." I do no believe such a statement is in anyway improper. Administrators are expected to exclude comments in some cases, and an explanation of how that exclusion is likely to take place (where relevant) is precisely what we would want. It should not constitute entering substantively into the discussion.
The post-relist keep !votes
Assessing the weighting of the discussion, we can return later to the discussion before the first relist, which was assessed asfinely balanced, and examine the two post-relist keep comments. To start with, Katzrockso states that ChrysGalley endorses the argument in favour of the Emmy. Actually reading the comment, I see no reason to believe this is so, and the comment seems quite confused on matters of policy. There are three clauses in their comment, which I will address in reverse order:
The matter was tested in AfC and their logic is presented above. is not really any more substantive than aWP:PERX, and as an AFC reviewer, the editor should be aware that we expect AFD reviews to be substantially more in-depth than acceptance at AFC. I will, however, discuss sksatsuma's comment in more depth later.
and under SNG plus NBASIC. besides BASIC being a part of the SNG, it is not clear how ChrysGalley believes the subject meets BASIC. An argument for BASIC would be greatly enhanced by at least some comment on the relevant sources. It is also unclear which other SNGs ChrysGalley may be referring to. I cannot fault any administrator if they assess this clause as entirely irrelevant.
I read WP:NMUSICIAN as giving the subject notability on points 8 and 10; I can only say that it would beexceptionally helpful if editors participating in the discussion (where there is dispute on a specific point), instead of focusing on the opinion they have (of that point), which is, in any case, implied by their bolded !vote, could actually write down their reasoning as to how they reached the conclusion they did on the point.
Moving on to the earlier comment, while Indefensible addresses the point raised by Stifle in the first relist, assertions that things areclearly one way orstraight out from the NMUSIC policy fall a little flat when the discussion on individual/group recipients also arises fromWP:MUSICBIO #8 and is not addressed substantively in their comment.
The overall discussion
The numerical count of the discussion was 5 keeps (one "weak", but that doesn't really matter much) and 4 deletes, including the nominator.One participant discussed a point of policy but did not !vote. The balance of the numbers is not such that one option is clearly favoured. In assessing the discussion prior to the relist (3k, 4d), we can separate out the discussion on the basic and additional criteria. In my opinion, the discussion primarily focuses on the additional criteria, so it was correct for that to be the focus of the close, and of the limited discussion on BASIC, I can see a rough consensus that the subject does not meet it.
Notably, the article creator seems to accept this. sksatsuma's comments do argue for a BASIC pass, but while her reasoning is a good reason for an AFC accept, the analysis does not appear to describe how they make the distinction betweennot substantial andtrivial, which would be the primary factor where using that clause. In any case, three or four people weighed in against BASIC, so even if we count sksatsuma and ChrysGalley's comments equally, there would be a rough consensus on that point, and I do not see any reason to weigh their point more strongly.
On the matter of the additional criteria, realistically, whether MUSICBIO applies to the case does not make a huge difference. The MUSICBIO criterion discussed is amore specific version of its ANYBIO equivalent, but they are more or less equivalent beyond specificity. It is not clear if Brucemyboy, our article creator, wished to engage with the discussion on whether the awards in question when awarded to a group, met the level ofwell-known and significant we'd typically expect. On one hand, they argue, in response to Edwardx's comment on selectivity and prestige, thatWhether those awards "count" for anything is a highly subjective argument with no basis in policy. on the other hand, they argue bothWinning both a Grammy and an Emmy is exceptionally rare, and thatThere are relatively few solo awards. The Wikipedia policy in question is not limited to solo performers, even if TV broadcasts and media reports focus on individual artists. (I would like to remind the editor that one cannot have itboth ways, and as a paid editor, it gives the impression of wanting to have the cake and eat it too)
In any case, I do not believe that they have sufficiently made the case that it is so incorrect that the discussion is entirely invalid and should be ignored entirely. Therefore, I would agree with Owen's assessment that said discussion is the primary factor in determining the issue at hand (whether the awards in question are sufficient for the additional criteria) LastJabberwocky (d) and sksatsuma (k) primarily focused on the basic criteria, leaving 2k, 3d, which is not unreasonable to characterise as finely balanced, but also not impossible to find a rough consensus from. Both could arise from reasonable exercises of judgement. Even with the relists giving a 4k, 3d, assuming we count both post-relist !votes as addressing the question, it would not be extraordinary to find a rough consensus that the awards are not sufficient (and thus, by extension, that the article should be deleted).
The discussion could be said to hinge on the weighting of Sarek'sGrammyand Emmy, don't see any value in nitpicking over how much his contributions were. As this is something we expect a closer to do, I do not find it unreasonable to downweight, or not downweight such a comment, based on their judgement on whether it engages substantively on whether the award counts or not. Neither is obviously incorrect, and thus I cannot recommend an overturn on these grounds.
Supervote
While the process was somewhat different from by own assessment, the closing statement appears to reasonably be read as how the closer appliedWikipedia:Closing discussions § Consensus. I do not see points raised that were not substantively covered in the discussion, and to enjoin closers from providing such explanations would run counter to our expectations.
Endorse Consensus requires evaluation of the merit of arguments, not just summing up numbers or accepting bald assertions that certain criteria are met. The closer pointed out the lack of logic in the arguments that the SSG was met, as did another contributor to the AfD. This is a borderline call, but I consider this closure was within discretionary range.Local Variable (talk)15:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own close. I've carefully read all the views expressed here. One common theme I see is that my closing statement was "too much". Indeed, I tend to be verbose when theweighted assessment of !votes differs from a simple nose count, knowing that such closes tend to elicit accusations of "supervote". I think some here may have mistaken my analysis of the!votes at the AfD for an analysis of thearticle. As mentioned above, I have no opinion about the article or its sources, none of which I have reviewed. My only inputs were the discussion and our P&G. I note thatSmokeyJoe, who opts for an overturn, saysDelete was the "right outcome", but seems to disagree with how I arrived at it.Enos733, who didn't enter a bolded !vote, suggests the close was correct, but disagrees with Asilvering's relisting statement. I understand the point they make about the poor optics of a Delete close when twoKeeps were added since the first relist. But how are we supposed to address a situation where mostKeeps, including those after the relist, carry little P&G weight, and by the second relister's own admission, the discussion--as weighted by P&G--was already leaning towards Delete? It's never easy to close an AfD contrary to the simple nose-count, and there is indeed the "astonishment" element that SmokeyJoe mentioned. But as long as we weigh !votes by merit, I don't see any way of satisfying the expectation that the outcome match the numerical vote count, asAlpha3031 explained far better than I can.Owen×☎15:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A way of satisfying is to !vote a closing rationale that might astonish, making it then an easier close for the next potential closer who comes by. And it’s less about the numerical vote count than the trend of the later !votes.SmokeyJoe (talk)00:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to echo this: trend matters. A hypothetical sequence of five deletes "no sources", a keep with a bunch of impeccable sources, and two more keeps, with no one revisiting prior opinions, is akeep close. Remember, ties go to not deleting perWP:DGFA, so no, a delete outcome wasnot within closer discretion given the trend.Jclemens (talk)04:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasizing trend makes perfect sense when later !votes consider earlier arguments, or take into account sources presented after the earlier !votes were entered. That is not what happened here. The two post-relistKeeps merely reiterated the same, deprecated arguments voiced by the early participants. To claim that they deserve to be givenmore weight than earlier, well-reasonedDelete views simply because they were entered later in the discussion strikes me as odd.Owen×☎23:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I do not see a consensus to delete. The closing statement reads more like a delete !vote than a summary of the arguments, which were policy based on both sides.Pawnkingthree (talk)00:34, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If you ignore policy, I see a weak consensus to keep. Looking at the actual policy, however, along with the expectation of how we'd apply that policy, the closer correctly discounted those !votes, as this person won the award as part of a team which is a situation directly covered by the policy, and consensus is clear there is no SIGCOV. It is technical, it's not necessarily satisfying, but it is correct.SportingFlyerT·C15:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
