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.
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=2026 February 17}}</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=2026 February 17}}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name isdifferent from the deletion review's section header, then use<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 February 17|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.
The usage oflarge-language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the{{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".
The article was deleted under A7 and G11. However, the subject has significant independent coverage in reliable sources, including The Times of India, The Economic Times, Business Insider India, BBC Gujarati, Tech in Asia, EdexLive, and Dainik Jagran. These publications provide substantive discussion of the platform and demonstrate notability under WP:ORG. The previous version may not have sufficiently demonstrated this or may have appeared promotional, but the subject appears to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines based on substantial independent coverage. I request reconsideration of the deletion decision.Viv inin (talk)10:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just go ahead and create a new article. Both the A7 and G11 deletions occurred over 11 years ago and it's very possible that more coverage has been made available during this time. I have no objection to restoring the deleted version to draft (without having seen it), but if the G11 deletion was valid, that version would need a fundamental rewrite and I do not know how much help it would provide an interested user in creating a P&G-compliant article.FrankAnchor13:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. I see no point in debating two 11-year-old deletions of a promotional 180-word stub (expanded from the appellant's original 49 words). I do find it fitting that the entire contribution history of this SPA consists of three edits to create a page about an obituary website, followed by 12 years of silence, and then resurrected to open this DRV. If the author/appellant "Viv" is cofounder Vivek Vyas, submitting a draft through AfC, with a proper COI disclosure, is the only way forward.Owen×☎13:26, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've notified the closing admin, but did you try discussing this with him? Izno is very reasonable. I bet this could be sorted out without the need for DRV.Owen×☎23:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse "I would have !voted keep but didn't see the discussion in time" is not and has never been a reason to overturn a deletion at DRV. Discussions have definite end dates for a reason. The participation level in this discussion was not unusually low by TfD's standards.* Pppery *it has begun...23:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Recopying the primary sources back into the page - especially when almost the only change that resulted was omitting destinations that had already been marked "terminated" or "airport closed" in the old version - isn't a substantial change either. —Cryptic18:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The wording is "substantially identical" and "sufficiently identical." If someone wants to undelete it for comparison I can reassert my statement, but yes, removing a non-trivial amount of outdated information from a page will generally render a page not sufficiently identical for G4 to apply.Jclemens (talk)21:18, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4, resume AfD Text is not substantially identical per the content of the AfD. Of course, I cannot see it myself, but assuming this to be true because it wasn't debated in the AfD prior to closure. I'll note that speedy deletion criteria like this are a terrible idea to shortcut debate, no matter how much any of us might think the debate unproductive or rehashing arguments made elsewhere.Jclemens (talk)17:21, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4, resume AfD. The closer was wrong to apply G4. Let the AfD play out. Consensus can change, and revisiting after two years is reasonable.SmokeyJoe (talk)21:52, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4, resume AfD, this interpretation of G4 would be contrary toWP:NOTBURO by effectively demanding that editors bring every recreation of a previously deleted article to DRV, simply because the content in each version of the article is shared.WP:Consensus can change and the relevant community consensus on these lists has manifestly changed over time, including an obvious consensus at the latest RfC that primary sources are acceptable for use on these lists, making any claim to lasting crystallized consensus on this issue even more dubious. There is little harm in having an extended discussion here, though I wouldn't be surprised if the final close isn't to keep the article.Katzrockso (talk)00:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With 2,000 revisions, undeleting for DRV is going to be problematic. That said, the edits in 2026 following reversion of the redirect by Jollyfox36 don't align with the assertions above as to content changes rendering this ineligible for G4.StarMississippi00:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Correct per my readthis is the only edit following removal of the redirect that changed content. I restored the others for review. Regardless of whether consensus has changed (I have no opinion there), this does not seem to have changed substantively enough to avoid G4. If the argument is that consensus doesn't apply, that's different IMOStarMississippi14:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Was the content in the article prior to its deletion in February 2024 the same as the content that was restored by Jollyfox36 in this editSpecial:Diff/1337756582? From what I can tell from this archived copy of the article shortly before its deletion, they arenot substantially similar[1]. For one, the column in the deleted article noted which routes were "terminated", along with those routes, does not exist in the version of the article recreated by Jollyfox36. Other changes include which airports are listed, e.g. the Angola airport associated with the deleted article isQuatro de Fevereiro Airport, while the restored version hasDr. António Agostinho Neto International Airport. There is also little commonalities in sourcing. This is obviously not the type of recreation that G4 is supposed to prevent, as this isn't some archived version of the article recreated later to circumvent the original deletion, but rather a good-faith creation of an article that the editor believes in encyclopedic (whether or not the community disagrees overall or in this case).Katzrockso (talk)23:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4, resume AfD the two-year gap and the shift in consensus regarding destination lists make G4 an inappropriate tool here. The article should be allowed a full discussion at AfD to determine if it now meets the revised community standards.EmilyR34 (talk)03:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 and resume the AFD as it is unlikely to be substantially similar after two years and countless edits. And even if it is substantially similar, speedy deletions must be uncontroversial. The presence of a well-reasoned keep vote, a valid rebuttal to a speedy delete vote, and a redirect vote mean this is not an uncontroversial deletion. Consensus can change and it appears to have shifted over two years .FrankAnchor12:48, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 and resume AFD. While I’m not 100% sure if there is substantial change for G4 to be satisfied, the keep vote and its accompanying explanation in the AFD should be taken as aWP:CSDCONTEST, and the discussion should have been left to run its full seven-day course.S5A-0043🚎(Talk)16:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My divination of the cloudy history is that the undocumented rule states:
(1) For six months following the close of the AfD with consensus to delete, G4 in mainspace is strongly endorsed and uncontestable unless there is a dramatic new argument or compelling new sources (new, not newly found) that overcome the reason for deletion. You are supposed to contest a recent AfD delete through AfC.
(2) Between 6 months and 2 years after the AfD deletion, there is a softer requirement for new sources. “New sources” that are re-published old sources, or far below significant coverage, may be dismissed by the admin deleting per G4, although it is becoming preferred that the new article be draftified. It depends on the standing of the editor pushing the article repost, new accounts get little tolerance.
(3) AfDs older than two years are always entitled to a 2nd AfD. If there is a history of several AfDs, the reposted article might be draftified with a message to use AfC.
(4) If the title was protected or semiprotected, G4 gets much or moderately more freedom of use on a the same topic reposted at a different title. This is contentious to a few Wikipedians.
The AfD was closed 23 ½ months ago, very finely not reaching the two-year mark. Reviewing this situation and the unwritten rules I wrote, I thinkUser:Mariamnei might have been better justified to Draftify as an NPReviewer, but AfD is always ok, but their AfD nomination was too brief. Having started the AfD, and seen a “keep” !vote, the AfD should have been left to play itself out.SmokeyJoe (talk)00:24, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 and resume discussion at AFD. It doesn't matter whether the deleted article is substantially the same as the previously deleted article. The views of the community may or may not be substantially the same or substantially different from those when the article was deleted, and the way to determine whetherconsensus has changed is a new AFD.Robert McClenon (talk)05:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lakana –Withdrawn. Artice recreated. If someone feels the reasons for the AfD remain applicable, please open a new one as it has been more than one year. Disclosure:participant and AfD closer, but this is at filer's requestStarMississippi14:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of thedeletion review of the page above.Please do not modify it.
THIS does not resemble any other "pirogues" in other former French territories. It is a very specific design of ancient origin related to the traditionalAustronesian watercraft of Island Southeast Asia and Oceania
Lakana was wrongfully redirected to the very general termpirogue.
To merge it with the extremely general term ofpirogue (a FRENCH term which refers to completely unrelated canoeswithout outriggers in former French colonies) just because it's an alternate name in French-speaking Madagascar; and the modern usage also extends to non-traditional canoes is as nonsensical as mergingwaka (canoe) withcanoe. Of course it is the general term for "canoe" in Malagasy, because almost all canoes in Madagascar are of the same design. It's just anextension of the term which does not make the term meaningless (we do the same in the Philippines, where we use the termbangka, a type of traditional outrigger canoe to also refer to other non-traditional canoes).
Here is an article which discusses thelakana from someone who has actually been to Madagascar, explicitly saying it's the most common type oftraditional watercraft and differentiating it from the French-derivedbotsy.
That alone is a CLEAR ACADEMIC PROOF that it is a distinct type of watercraft, notable enough to have its own article. And that has moreWP:DUE weight than some random Wikipedia editor deciding that its features "[don't] indicate that the lakana is something different." Our coverage of Malagasy culture is bad enough as it is without some random European editor just essentially claiming a significant part of their culture is "just a boat." -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL08:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
relist these are really arguments for the AFD but two sources have been provided that at first blush require scrutiny and the assertion of uniqueness goes straight to the heart of the discussion. I would probably have closed this as no consensus.SpartazHumbug!09:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and procedurally close as wrong venue. The appellant brings up no procedural fault with the AfD. Instead, they argue that the term "Lakana" is different from "Pirogue", and therefore should not be redirected there. Redirects aren't just for synonyms. No one claims the two terms refer to the same thing. The argument about notability is also irrelevant.WP:NOPAGE tells us that notable topics often benefit from being covered on a page that gives a broader context. Phrases such as,from someone who has actually been to Madagascar imply an argument from authority, which is anathema to the core principles of Wikipedia. If your evidence is based on having been to Madagascar or being personally familiar with the canoe, it is inadmissible as original research. Dimissing views opposing their own with phrases like,some random Wikipedia editor further amplifies the sense of arguing from authirity. I oppose relisting a 17-month-old AfD. If there's a better redirect target, the appellant is welcome to boldly retarget the page and merge relevant content to the new target. If they believe the topic is better served by a standalone article, they can start a spinout discussion on the target's Talk page. I see nothing for DRV to do here.Owen×☎13:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was closed on the basis that the Lakana was supposedly just another term for ANY canoe. Which is not the case. How is providing a source, an "argument from authority"? It'sWP:V. One of the pillars of Wikipedia. And one that has greaterWP:DUE weight than the assessment of a random Wikipedia editor that isn't even familiar with the topic.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL05:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
notable topics often benefit from being covered on a page that gives a broader context.
Endorse If you want to prove the lakana is independently notable,make a draft article about it that is long enough to stand separately on its own. If it's not, surely you can discuss with the closer some alternate target that would make sense. Either way, this is not the right forum for this sort of complaint.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)20:06, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article already exists. If that's how it is then I'll just restore it. If this was the wrong venue, I withdraw from this discussion.Please close this.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL05:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AfD couldn't have been closed any other way. But, given the AfD was 1.5 years old, if you have new sourcing that rebuts the arguments in the AfD, feel free to try again with a new draft. The original page is still there in the history if you want a starting point.JumpytooTalk02:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why are so many of you mentioning how long ago it was? If I had found out about this 1.5 years ago I'd have joined the discussion. But I wasn't tagged because the nominator and I have a personal history in ANI, and I refuse to interact with him further. He has beenWP:HOUNDING all the Austronesian-related articles I've contributed to for the past fewyears, apparently still continuing long after I took a break from frustration. Check his history if you don't believe me. But that's even more irrelevant here, because Wikipedia bureaucracy sucks. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL05:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it didn't have a good redirect, why redirect it in the first place? And seriously ONE sentence? That's all you reduced the article to?Pirogue is ageneral term. Merging the lakana there does not work and should not have been done. I'll justWP:BEBOLD and just restore it. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL05:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the role of a closer in a discussion.
Though, you didn't need me to know that. The entire article except for the categories and stub tag fit into the creation log. —Cryptic01:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I dont care about Armenians. I merely created a minimal stub that asserts notability and forgot about it removing from my watchlist. That it was speedied thorough baffled me. I was not even notified. I do not remember now how I run into the "shooting range", but I created several such stubs to cover shooting in red.--Altenmann>talk01:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft While it's a bad A7, the article needs to be fleshed out a bit more, one line stubs don't really cut it anymore. There is also no NSPORT criteria that applies to this person so GNG will need to be met as well. Once additional sources & content is added it can be restored to mainspace.JumpytooTalk02:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The bar for A7 isindication of importance, notproof of notability. Being a European Shooting Champion is a very clear assertion of significance. Whether the article is a one-line stub or a full biography doesn't matter for a speedy deletion; if the claim of importance is there, A7 cannot be used. It should be restored to mainspace.EmilyR34 (talk)04:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the admin who deleted the article per the SD tag, I've restored the page for this deletion review. As an FYI, I did a search prior to speedy deleting per CSD A7 and didn't see notable coverage of the subject, with the single article about her winning the European shooting championship appearing to be aslight rework of this press release from the state news agencyArmenpress. As such that article didn't appear to meet reliability standards. But if consensus is the subject is notable I'm good with that.--SouthernNights (talk)11:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@SouthernNights: consensus here doesn't need to say anything aboutnotability, because notability is irrelevant for CSD:A7. All an article needs to do to avoid A7 deletion is make acredible claim of significance, which this stub did. What you did is check if the article passes GNG, correctly determined that it doesn't, and then incorrectly speedy deleted it under A7. Notability, verifiability and reliability are all guidelines relevant at an AfD, not speedy deletion criteria. That said, I'm glad to see that you restored the page. At this point, since there are no endorsements of the deletion, you may close this DRV as resolved (or ask someone to close it), with or without draftifying the article. If left in mainspace, seeing as you've already done the legwork for this, it may be a good idea if you nominated the page at AfD, where sources and notability are assessed.Owen×☎12:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, when I evaluate speedy deletes I try to carefully follow guidelines and often refuse to delete the articles b/c they don't meet SD standards. In this case, I believed that the only indication of notability coming from a press release met the standard of A7's "No indication of importance." But after reading what you've said, I see I was in error. I'll close this DRV in a moment, and have created the AfD atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gohar Harutyunyan.SouthernNights (talk)14:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD if necessary (or move to draft). The bar for A7 is intentionally set very low as any indication of significance means an article can not be deleted via this criterion. Cryptic's reference provides an indication of significance.FrankAnchor13:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
The article was deleted because "depends too much on sources that are of questionable reliability, make little mention of the subject, and/or depend too much on his own statements", despite the fact that I stated (in the discussion) every reliable source on the page and, while some of these sources have been interviews or trivial mentions (as reported byUser:UppercutPawnch), it still leaves sources such as Hobby Consolas, Automaton, The Verge, GamesIndustry.biz and Gamepressure.com - all reliable, focusing on the subject and not interviews. They also focus on various different topics, making the article passWP:1E.
Also, I did not try to circumvent the deleted Heartbound page, as I started working on the Pirate Software draft before Heartbound was nominated (my first contribution was adding the infobox image).
If this article relies too much on the questionable sources, even with good sources clearly present (as I described above), draftify the page and let me (and others) improve it. Otherwise undelete normally or explain why not do either.Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs)17:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. TheKeeps span the range from the irrelevant (just because they don't meet certain purity tests) and assumptions of bad faith (knee-jerk response from many on Wikipedia, which is to purge and hide articles and mentions of these figures;clearly a whitewashing attempt by fans and shills), to dismissive derision (answering the valid question,Which of the sources are reliable? with,Which of the sourcesaren't reliable?) and outright personal attacks--by the appellant themselves (now redacted). I couldn't find a singleKeep that was anchored in P&G. The AfD was canvassed at Reddit, which may explain some of the inexperienced participation on theKeep side. The proposal to merge the 240-wordOpposition to Stop Killing Games movement section toStop Killing Games was valid, but within the closing admin's discretion. I am, however, in favour of upgrading the page protection from ECP to full SALT, seeing the tendentious effort to keep the page.Owen×☎17:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that a lot of comments are irrelevant, you still didn't address my concerns about sources that may establish GNG. The merge with SKG doesn't really work due to the size, so I understand the admin's decision on that part. Big no on the full salt part.
Oh, and my "personal attack" was "You guys are on crack." Someone must've overreacted.
Edit: also the "tendentious" effort was only really an issue in mid-2025. Now that everything surrounding Mr. Software has winded down, we can discuss his notability without any bias or people not understanding what Wikipedia is and how it works.Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs)17:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who supports the resulting deletion I am unsure how this is a purely tendentious effort given that, as far as I'm aware, this is the first time anyone has made an effort to recreate the page in months[2][3], and the editor here is expressing their willingness to adhere to guidelines in recreation by drafting it instead (though it should probably be something forWP:RFU instead of here).UppercutPawnch (talk)02:31, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Without comment on the article, please be more careful when deleting redirs.Pirate softwarePirate software had been a perfectly valid redirect for twenty years before being retargeted to this person; it shouldn't have been just autodeleted by script. —Cryptic18:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The ratio of keep/delete votes mostly doesn't matter perWP:VOTE. While there have been valid concerns about the page, most of them could be fixed with restructuring the article by basing it on good sources, in my opinion. I have already stated that reliable, non-interview sources that focus on PS exist and may help the article to pass GNG. If anyone disagrees with this, I welcome any comments. As for now, I still feel like draftifying is the best choice.Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs)19:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as I have been mentioned here,Endorse per above. In spite of what in my opinion was hostility and failing to adhere toWP:AGF on the part of some editors to remove that page based on the assumption that it was an attempt to evade adifferent closure, the deletion was also justified and guideline-based. Dabmasterars, This seems like something that would be better suited forWP:RFU (getting the old content to be put into a draft) thanWP:DRV. My recommendation is that you do that and submit it toWP:AFC instead of just moving the page on your ownlike you did the first time.UppercutPawnch (talk)02:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, a draftify request seems to fit better there, especially since drafts have low visibility and won't cause much trouble.I withdraw my nomination @OwenX, feel free to close this thread.
Endorse Editors advocating delete were grounded in policy (both that the subject was OR/SYNTH, and one editor suggested that the sourcing was largely PRIMARY). Keep voters suggested either the article did not violate OR, other articles of comparisons were kept, and the "sources seem fine." To me, the much stronger argument grounded in policy, presented in the discussion, was on the side of removing the page from mainspace. So, I do not believe that there was error in the close. --Enos733 (talk)04:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the page at the time of nomination, I still stand by endorsing the deletion discussion. The entirety of the page is just a table comparing features of various smartphones. There is no prose, and no explanation of either why those features or why those manufactures. "iPhone" is one column. While there are sources, there is nothing that suggests why these features should be compared. Back to the discussion, the keep !voters needed to respond to the OR question. -Enos733 (talk)03:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While numerically there was 1 more keep than delete (though the last week keep sounds more like a delete than keep), the delete vote had stronger rationales so it was within closer discretion to close it as delete. The delete vote provided evidence as to why they believed the article violated OR, and the keep side failed to provide any sourcing to rebut this argument.JumpytooTalk05:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NOR is a policy and N is a guideline. Unrebutted arguments engaging a policy are always more compelling than guideline based arguments. This was an excellent close.SpartazHumbug!09:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. TheDeletes carry significantly more P&G weight than theKeeps. The closing statement explains the logic behind the headcount-defying close. I see no evidence of a supervote.Owen×☎10:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus "Synth" would seem to ring hollow since a comparison is just noting facts in the table, not necessarily interlinking those facts in a way that draws out new information. Otherwise any sort of table on Wikipedia would be immediately disallowed unless all the information was in a single source. I don't think that this interpretation heavily favoring the deletes was merited, and the original nom's rationale doesn't seem to have been accurate.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)17:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like the article restored to see what it was that those who commented in the original AFD saw. Multiple people said it was not original research, so the reason for deletion nomination was not valid. Were there references linking to reliable sources where they compares different smartphone brands? Did some columns list referenced information that the reliable sources mentioned? If there were any columns that shouldn't have been there, they could be removed without deleting the entire article.DreamFocus21:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn to no consensus. I don't think that there is much in the existing article that really needs to be saved, since it is poorly sourced and has very little content, so any version of the article we would want to see on Wikipedia wouldn't be particularly similar, but the discussion did not have an overwhelming consensus. The argument that the article wasWP:OR has been highlighted by other editors here, but there is not really a consensus among the participants that the article violated it - nearly all invocations of OR were mere claims that the article did or did not involve OR (This is WP:SYNTH,agree with nom - WP:OR doing synthesis,I don't understand why this is being framed as WP:OR). With such a poor quality of discussion, I see no compelling reason to weigh any of the votes arguing it was or was not OR more than others. Zxcvbnm presents a compelling point above too.
As noted by the editor Dncmartins, many of the issues raised by some votes are not deletion reasons, but are resolved by editing (Thanks for your suggestions for improvement ... this is not a valid argument why the article should be deleted). Disagreements over the current contents of the article is not a valid reason to delete the article, barring it violates a policy likeWP:BLP. No editors advanced the argument that no version of the article could be created that does not violate theWP:OR policy (even if we accept that it does), meaning thatWP:SURMOUNTABLE applies here to many of the delete !votes.Katzrockso (talk)01:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralhttps://www.businessinsider.com/smartphone-comparison-chart-2015-2 mentions important features that are compared, but that's for individual models of phones, not brands. Searching for "smartphone" "comparison" and anything on the current features list, has anyone found anything? Searching for a "comparison chart" I only find things for individual products, not brands. But the main reason to delete the article was for original research, which is not valid, the majority of those participating in the original AFD said it was not OR. The closer ignored consensus for that, and cast a supervote. Other reason given for deletion is valid though, the comparisons are arbitrary, no reason given why these things are mentioned and others are not.DreamFocus06:11, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse That the majority (6-4) were keep is irrelevant perWP:NOTAVOTE. If there is strong rationale otherwise, they can be ignored. In this case, the article is replete with problems, and its not entirely clear what the scope of comparing smartphone brands would be, especially given some brands have a wide variety of features in their phones. ← Metallurgist (talk)07:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting you want a policy that disallows comparison articles, or do you suggest that is already such a policy, could you reference it?Dncmartins (talk)09:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(closer)Comment It might have been easier if the applicant had tried to engage with me before coming here, but that's somewhat of a moot point now. The first five contributions (all keep !votes) are essentially other stuff exists or assertions with *no* analysis. A statement of "it's not OR" is not analysis, but simply an assertion - it may have some weight in a discussion, but that rapidly *diminishes* when contributions appear that provide analysis in rebuttal to those assertions. The first delete !vote *details* sigificant issues: self-published sourcing (insurmountable), incoherent/inconsistent criteria usage (both insurmountable and surmountable), factually incorrect information (surmountable). Subsequent comments and delete !votes reinforce and extend on those issues detailing the OR/Synth issues. Utlimately, what swayed my assessment most in the discussion was the lack of effective rebutal to the repeatedly raised issue of inconsistent criteria. Yes, some of the issues in the discussion were surmountable, but the insurmountable ones were core policy/guideline failures, once they were raised in a detailed manner the onus was on the keep participants to counter that (for example with actual source analysis) - but no rebuttal came of a weight equal or greater to the failures identified. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk)09:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most comparison articles are similar and would be deleted by the same rationale. Do you suggest that comparison articles should be removed from Wikipedia?Dncmartins (talk)09:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison articles are tricky. Those that are robustly grounded in RS, including both the structure (including scope of the comparison and comparison dimensions) and the individual assessments are appropriate wikipedia articles and should stay. Those that are hopelessly full of OR/SYNTH should go, if they cannot be improved. I would agree with you that there are doubtless many that fall into the latter category. I think your best way forward here if you remain committed to this article is to get it refunded to draft space, and work on grounding your scope of comparison and comparison dimensions in relaible sources. I think there is a chance a good, encyclopedic, non-OR/SYNTH comparison might be writeable here, but it will likely be very different than what this article was, and may end up with a sufficiently different scope and different name once you are done. As a sometime academic, this feels like one of those instances where you submit a paper and get back a journal rejection with pretty fundamental critical feedback, but it is possible to use that feedback to come back with a substantially different paper that may be publisheable and will be much better.Martinp (talk)13:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Articles that can be improved should be moved to draft space instead of removed. How can I ask to move the article to draft space so I can improve it and fix any issues that it may have?Dncmartins (talk)13:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse an excellent close. AFDs are discussions, not vote-counting. This is universally known, but @Goldsztajn's point implicit in the close and made explicit above bears repeating: simple assertions early in a discusion lose their weight if later discussion and analysis tends towards a consensus against that assertion, and the early asserters don't engage further in the discussion to refute. Order of !votes and subsequent participation matters.
Example 1. A,B say "Keep, adequately sourced." C,D,E then reach a consensus that sourcing is OK but it's hopelessly OR. A and B are never heard from again. Closer appropriately discounts the initial comments by A and B as not engaging with the right policy issues.
Example 2. As in Example 1, but A and B return to comment, "OR is not the issue here because ..., we still say keep because the sourcing is enough". In this case, possibly a NC close is appropriate since thoughtful people continue to reach different conclusions with engagement on the same issues.
Example 3. As in Example 1, but A and B's !votes follow the C,D,E discussion. This case is more like Example 2 than Example 1, since it is reasonable to assume A and B read the discussion by C,D,E and were implying they don't find it persuasive versus their point.
Example 1 is what happened here (plus some more noise in the discussion there and here on other-stuff-exists). Initial discussion focused on sourcing, later discussion highlighted the issue was OR/SYNTH instead, and reached consensus, interpreted correctly by the closure.Martinp (talk)12:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of trying to be helpful: "policies" vs "opinions" is a false dichotomy. Editors express their opinions as to which policies apply (I'm eliding distinctions between policies, guidelines, essays, etc here). A discussion occurs and either a consensus emerges or it doesn't. In this case, consensus emerged that while reliable sourcing of individual entries in the comparison table was present, there were fundamental issues of original research and synthesis in the scope and framing of the comparison, and this went to the core of the existence of the article. Dncmartins (not pinging you since it appears you are disengaging, though you will see this if you are continuing the follow this discussion), you are looking for consistency across all comparison articles. This is unlikely to occur since such comparison articles vary in the level of OR/synth in their conception and structure. In this case, that level was particularly high. You have nownominated another comparison article for deletion by analogy with this one. That is actually a WP:POINT violation, since in the discussion here and there you make it clear you don't actually feel either article should be deleted. You have also found little (but not no) support for your nomination there since that article is quite different. While I emphathize that this feels inconsistent to you, the issue is we don't have a policy on "comparison articles" per se, we have a range of policies which get applied to all articles as best judged to be applicable (this is where what you call "opinions" come in). The outcomes for comparison articles will and should vary based on each individual article's specific situation.Martinp (talk)14:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while there was a numerical majority for "Keep," those !votes were largely assertions that did not substantively rebut the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR concerns raised by the "Delete" side. In a conflict between a headcount and a policy-grounded argument, the closer is expected to favor policy.EmilyR34 (talk)03:59, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Sambucha – Draft restored per unanimous consensus, including the deleting admin. I removed the page protection I placed on the page and the G11 tag, and reverted to the last pre-DRV rev. Yes, I am involved; any admin is welcome to revert or reclose this.Owen×☎13:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of thedeletion review of the page above.Please do not modify it.
This draft was deleted byDeb because it was identified as "unambiguous advertising or promotion", but I don't believe it wasthat spammy the last time I visited it. I left a comment asking about it on Deb's talk page, but I haven't received a response yet.
I request that this draft berestored to draftspace. If anyone agrees with its deletion, they should open a discussion to figure out whether or not consensus supports deleting it for good. Given that Sambucha drafts have been declined numerous times, I probably shouldn't be surprised if consensuswould favor deleting this draft after all. –MrPersonHumanGuy (talk)11:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have deleted this as G11, but are you really arguing to waste two weeks of community time (here, MfD) on a rejected draft @MrPersonHumanGuy? If you want to improve it, I'd refund it for you, but I'm not in favor of process for the sake of process if you have no interest in the draft.StarMississippi 13:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Edit: given the sock, I guess we have no choice but tooverturn. I understand why the deletion is wrong, but I still think this is all a colossal waste of time.StarMississippi03:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This does not qualify under G11. I agree with the various AfC reviewers that the subject fails our notability guidelines, and would likely fail AfD, but that doesn't make it eligible for speedy deletion. Draftspace was created specifically to allow work on subjects with marginal or deficient notability, without the sword of deletion hanging over their head. Send to AfD so we can G4 future attempts, or let it run out the G13 clock. This isn't process wonkery. It's about demonstrating to editors that admins are subject to the same policies everyone else is.Owen×☎13:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Request temporary undeletion: I'd like to see for myself whether this is blatant advertising. That being said, there seems to be consensus that it wasn't, so don't let this stand in the way of a close.Chess enjoyer (talk)10:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the tagging editor being a sockpuppet is good enough reason to overturn. It would be a good reason to remove the tag, but once it's been deleted the situation is similar to the exception inSK4. I assume that Deb deleted the page because they agreed that it met the criteria ofG11, which is similar to an editor !voting to delete a page in a nomination started by a sockpuppet. In that situation, the nominator's statement would be struck, but the discussion would proceed. I think, for the purpose of this deletion review, we should treat this as if Deb had deleted the page on their own, without the sock being involved.
Overturn: Whether a page is eligible forG11 is moreambiguoussubjective than some other Speedy deletion criteria (ex.G13), but in my opinion this doesn't even come close. It simply isn't that promotional. Whether the subject is notable doesn't matter, asdrafts aren't checked for notability. I'm against requiring a listing atMFD, as I find it highly unlikely that it would be deleted there, making itunnecessary bureaucracy (of course, any editor may nominate it after this deletion review if they want to). Whether there's a point to overturning a speedy deletion of a rejected draft is a valid question, but I think it's important to hold admnistrators accountable when they make an error. This was an improper speedy deletion, and no reason forignoring the rules has been given.Chess enjoyer (talk)16:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)(Underlined added 07:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy overturn as socks do not have standing to tag pages for speedy deletion. Also, based on analysis of admins who have reviewed the page, there is some gray area as to whether it qualifies for G11 such that speedy deletion was not the correct route. Optionally send to MFD.FrankAnchor15:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After review of the temp-undeleted article, I do not believe G11 was correct. It was notexclusively promotional, a requirement of G11. If it were an article, it would stand no chance at AFD, but we are discussing the speedy deletion of a draft, which was out-of-process.FrankAnchor19:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm withChess enjoyer on the tagging issue. Ultimately, the deleting admin is accountable for the deletion, not the tagger. A deletion isn't invalidated just because it was suggested by a sock, or for that matter, by a bot. It can be invalidated if it was out of process, which was the case here.Owen×☎15:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. It's not a G11. The draft is just a weak stub, not spam. Tags from socks are irrelevant, and it should not have been speedied.EmilyR34 (talk)04:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dare to Dream (Olympic theme song) – This is a combination procedural (you're appealing prejudice against LLM use, which is community consensus), SNOW (5-0, no supports so far from a variety of experienced participants of diverse perspectives), and merits (it's already had an ATD implemented and nothing is salted so you can improve it yourself if sourcing improves). For any of these three reasons, discussion here is unneeded, but can be reconsidered if any administrator sees fit to overturn this NAC(non-admin closure)Jclemens (talk)18:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of thedeletion review of the page above.Please do not modify it.
I'm asking for a review because the closure didn't actually account for the sources I found. My comments were collapsed as "LLM-generated," and because of that, the evidence for the song's notablity wasn't properly considered. I did use an LLM to help clean up my writing to save time, but the sources themselves are real and they prove the song meets the rules.
This was the official Sydney 2000 anthem, not just a random album track. It has solid coverage in La Nación (2000), a long retrospective interview on ABC National Australian Radio (2020), and it's even in the "Towards Tokyo" documentary produced by Channel 7 (Australia). None of the "Delete" editors actually replied to these sources because they were hidden.
I really believe the song deserves its own page for archival reasons. It's an important part of history and a dedicated page makes sense because there is so much specific info about the writing and selection process that came out in the documentary and is interesting/historic. Also, even current Olympic athletes have recently highlighted how this song inspired them in their own success and medals (which I included in the original page). I'd appreciate the page being judged on these actual facts rather than the novice mistake I made with the formatting.StriderL (talk)04:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close but allow revisit if a human (not LLM assisted) gives links to important sources that were not considered. Since LLMs routinely make up sources and plausible-sounding but vacuous arguments, comments which appeared LLM-written (it went beyond "formatting"...) were properly collapsed and not considered, as if they were never said. To the appellant: nobody is going to go and hunt them up (they're not even linked!) to see if those sources are real and whether the LLM-written argument that their coverage is nontrivial is correct or not. However, deletion can be revisited if new sources, that were not considered, are found. If you, based on your own, human, non-AI-assisted analysis, can supply e.g.WP:THREE sources, properly linked, with your own explanation why these sources warrant a standalone article, it's possible others will agree with you. Those can be the sources that the ignored LLM-generated text included (and which were therefore not considered in the discussion), or other ones, but the important thing is a human needs to have read them, evaluated them against wikipedia criteria, and explain why they qualify as substantive coverage inWP:RS.Martinp (talk)07:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Martinp, I appreciate the point about links. Part of the trouble is that 24-year-old archive links often lead to dead ends or syndicated feeds now. But the sources are definitely real — I’ve just manually verified the 14+ citations in the page history before it was redirected.
Here is what I can actually verify:
1. Selection Process: The song was chosen by SOCOG from 5,000 international submissions. In the 2020 Channel 7 documentary (Towards Tokyo: The Opening Ceremony Sydney 2000 Uncovered), songwriters Paul Begaud and Vanessa Corish describe seeing their demo on a table of 5,000 other songs.
ABC Radio National (August 2020): An interview where the songwriters discuss the "hope and a dream" of the track and its lasting legacy, with Corish calling the performance one of the "greatest joys" of her life.
2. Enduring Impact on Athletes: This isn't just a 2000 relic. Noemie Fox (2024 Gold Medalist) recently stated on Instagram she was "obsessed" with this performance and used the song for inspiration in Paris. Similarly, Jaclyn Narracott (2022 Silver Medalist) told Channel 7 she listens to it as part of her pre-race preparation.
3. Rolling Stone Magazine: They officially ranked it #13 on their list of the "15 Best Olympic Musical Performances" of all time (July 2024).
The song was a major part of the Sydney Games, performed for a global audience of billions. I’m trying to make sure a piece of Australian music history doesn't get deleted because I made the mistake of using an LLM to help me format the initial post. I'm happy to keep digging, but these facts meet WP:GNG. I am asking for a Relist so these verified sources can be properly considered.StriderL (talk)10:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To save time, here are direct links to verify the sources cited above:
The first link doesn't mention the song and is a press release. I'm not watching a documentary without any context or explanation of what it contains
The second is an interview so not independent
Instagram? Really
Rolling stones is a list with no meaningful content.
Based on this Iendorse. The nom does not appear to very mindful of the time and attention span of other users and needs to remember that we are volunteers and our time is precious.SpartazHumbug!11:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When you combine a Parliamentary record from 2016, a 20-year ABC retrospective from 2020, and a Rolling Stone "All-Time" ranking from 2024, you have a 24-year timeline of independent coverage. That is exactly what "enduring notability" looks like under WP:GNG. I’m just asking for a relist so these facts can actually be considered.StriderL (talk)11:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
StriderL, thank you for providing the links and explaining your thinking in your own words. I have clicked through and evaluated. However, I don't find these sources sufficient for a meaningful, standalone article. They don't provide the quantum of independent, reliable, substantive-enough sources that would focus enough on the song itself to warrant an article. Therefore, considering there as new sources provided, I don't see an argument to reopen this discussion since I can't see how they would change the consensus. Therefore Iendorse the previous close.Martinp (talk)16:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, our posts crossed—I've just provided a 2016 NSW Hansard record above which I believe addresses the concerns about triviality and dross. I'll step back now and let the reviewers consider the timeline of the sources.StriderL (talk)11:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse although a brief look in some old books suggests that theremight be more RS in offline sources sufficient to write a page to the normal standards. The applicant, if they really want to do this, needs to find better sources than came up in the discussion and rewrite the page without looking to an llm for help. I suggest to them that unless they have sources to hand that they haven't mentioned, they might want to focus on something else.JMWt (talk)14:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even if the closer reviewed the LLM text, sources, and comments, consensus in the discussion was that a stand-alone article was not desired. --Enos733 (talk)16:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
07:40, 5 February 2026Anachronist (talk·contribs) deleted pageDraft:Winston Weinberg (G6: Technical deletion (uncontroversial maintenance): Deleted rejected draft created by editor who created several sockpuppets and is still being edited. Deleted to remove exposure of possibly misleading information about a living person.)
This was not a validWP:G6. Neither was it a validWP:G7 as the admin subsequently tried to argue (discussion atUser_talk:Anachronist#Misuse_of_G6. I have a project-focused reason for continued use of this page, but arguing that point is seriously not the point. Admins are supposed to follow Policy, and when errors are pointed out, they should promptly revers their error.SmokeyJoe (talk)08:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant community-wasting discussion:User talk:Esqmark922 should make it clear that restoring the draft for the convenience of SmokeyJoe is not a net benefit for the Wikipedia project. That was basically the deletion discussion, and now we're wasting even more time on it. I deleted the draft because (a) deletion was requested, and (b) deletion defused a bad situation getting worse. I think it's the only time I've ever needed to invokeWP:IAR as an admin. My log entry was completely wrong, I admit.
What is SmokeyJoe's encyclopedia-related reason for wanting a rejected draft?
If SmokeyJoe wants to prepare a new draft on Winston Weinberg, why can't he use the article that was redirected to Harvey? Why isn't that a better starting place than a draft that hasconflict of interest and possiblesockpuppetry?
Would it be simpler to email the rejected draft to SmokeyJoe than to restore it to draft space?
The deletion of the rejected draft is clearly contentious, because we are here. Why can't the rejected draft be sent to MFD, as mentioned in the discussion?
Why is it important to restore the deleted rejected draft?
Why is it important to keep the rejected deleted draft deleted?
This draft is, I believe, an extraordinarily good example of a public figure who is not quite Wikipedia-Notable, where there are multiple reliably and reputably published in-depth interviews that were being used to assert Wikipedia-Notability. This is a very long running issue, the confused debates about whether interviews can be used to establish notability, in the absence of any other GNG-compliant evidence of notability.
Ironically, the subject is an AI company founder, and the lead account displayed a lot of AI flags, but not entirely. Understandably, this annoyed Wikipedians, the shallow typical forceful arguments. After being blocked, socks appeared, completely unsurprisingly, and further annoyed. Being annoyed is not justification to delete per G6.
There are plenty of records, including behind the mainspace redirect, but I want the draft review comments and draft talk page record. I was following intently, but disengaged to not overly influence to outcome. Speedy deletion was unanticipated. If sent to MfD due to tendentious resubmission or resubmission after rejection (the proper process), then I planned to use the week at MfD to extract what I might want to keep. This includes the draft comments by reviewers (including mine) and the talk page discussion.
I suspect the sock farmer wanted the evidence deleted because it painted quite a picture. There were no BLP problems, all the information was well sourced, to the source!
All that aside, it really is outrageous that old admins think they are above policy.
Endorse deletion, even if it turns out to beWP:IAR Deleting it stopped a time sink, and anunreasnably assertive new paid editor who picked up the blocked sockmaster's draft, intemperately created post AfD of the original. Having endorsed this, rather likeHerb Cohen (negotiator), 'I care... but not that much'. This is not a hill to die on. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸23:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
IAR please move on. So much time and energy has been wasted on Weinberg. Congratulations, we've all fed the trolls, myself included. I think@Anachronist: unwittingly gave into the latest editor who essentially took his ball and went home because he couldn't control the draft. In the process though, he got what he wanted - the draft deleted. It was an incorrect deletion because it wasn't G6 or G7 eligible, but do we want to waste a week at MfD? I hope not especially considering the amount of time already wasted at AfD and the prior DRV. I don't think it stands a chance at being retained.@SmokeyJoe: can you not achieve your goals through an emailed version? Can someone userfy the draft comments with the first editor arguing the paint off the wall? For me at least it was not an AI issue but rather IDHT/I'm Right And You're All Wrong (and unqualified, per the last editor). Can AISIGNS help with another case? I'm not saying you're wrong to want this, but I'm tired of feeding this particular attention grabbing sock group.StarMississippi03:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sure that you’re mistaken if you think this AI experiment is defeated by deletion of their now obvious failure. Deletion of their edit history makes it harder to catch their next incarnation.
I am particularly interested in the AI UPE farm (their AI training) having picked up misleading statements in WP:Interviews, and other things. I really want the diffs, because WAID rightfully demands them over unverifiable reports of my inferences.
This means edit histories are needed, not an emailed version. A userfied page would work great, but let’s not forget that admin arrogance is really frustrating. If you really endorse this deletion, go document it atWP:SD.SmokeyJoe (talk)06:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't endorse it @SmokeyJoe, I just think we're continuing to give them the attention they want and helping them train themselves. Interviews failed, so they went with BLP. I happen to disagree that it's harder to catch since they left their splatter across several locations and can't resist telling on themselves. But alsono objection to userfication if it helps you. Bolding for the closer.
overturn speedy Doesn't meet any rule for speedy deletion. No reason given why an XfD isn't viable. Speedy deletion is easily abusedPages are eligible for speedy deletion only if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD). Because deletion is reversible only by administrators, other deletions occur only after discussion. IAR in CSD is generally discouraged, but in order for it to have a chance, there needs to be a reason that having a discussion was a really bad idea. No such justification was provided.Hobit (talk)03:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A mistake was made, and mistakes happen when dealing with contentious messy stuff, but the greater mistake appears to be the amount of energy being spent trying to correct a mistake that isn't worth correcting.Robert McClenon (talk)04:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your questions: I have no idea what is in the draft. So I've no idea if it's useful. There is a claim, which I can't verify, that the history itself is interesting. But frankly, my larger concern is that CSD is rarely the place for IAR and should rarely be endorsed by the community. It's difficult, if not impossible, for non-admins to review. It is a bad idea to start allowing speedy deletion for things that don't clearly meet the CSD criteria--I'm worried about the slippery-slope there. IAR can apply here, but it should be for a clear need. No one has articulated such a need that I can see.Hobit (talk)19:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Speedy Deletion - Hobit's argument thatSpeedy Deletion should very seldom be covered byIAR is persuasive, because speedy deletion is intended for non-contentious cases. I acknowledge that several editors say that the argument over this page has become a timesink. However, this is a case that will suck up volunteer time no matter which way it is resolved, so it is best to follow the most transparent procedure in order to maintain trust. Sometimes when experienced and inexperienced non-admin editors are told by the admin corps to "Trust Us", it erodes trust, and an erosion of trust is worse than a timesink. Correcting the mistake will consume time, but a handwave around a mistake will consume trust. Restore the draft.Robert McClenon (talk)04:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I opened the page and just saw this message, as someone linked in on my talk. From what I understand, @SmokeyJoe seems to be upset that the draft was deleted. He did not have any objections when I made the request. I saved the draft here, and had no idea it was so important to you. You can read it here, it is still available. https://web.archive.org/web/20260116135555/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Winston_Weinberg
I am having trouble understanding why you need a rejected draft that was poorly edited. I reviewed all of its versions, and this was the best one available. None of the sources used were suitable for the information in the article, and the content was misleading. I requested that a new draft be created with proper sourcing and formatting that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is a large company, and both the founder and the company receive significant publicity, it is important that the information be verified. Just yesterday, the company announced a new valuation of $11 billion and new funding round.https://www.forbes.com/sites/iainmartin/2026/02/09/legal-ai-startup-harvey-in-talks-to-raise-200-million-at-11-billion-valuation/
I believe that having unprofessional comments, improperly sourced material, and a poorly edited article with 500 views about the CEO of a company valued at $11 billion, currently actively growing and raising new capital is damaging to the individual and to the company. That is far more important than your @SmokeyJoe reasons for keeping a rejected draft. I believe my deletion suggestion was acceptable. I did not demand it. I presented it as a suggestion and a preferred solution.Esqmark922 (talk)20:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Clearly does not meet the criteria for G6 or G7. I support moving to user space as per above arguments, with returning to draftspace being my second choice.FrankAnchor15:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and userfy this was not G6/G7 eligible. While I sympathize with the admin's desire to defuse a disruptive situation, the case was contentious and required WP:MfD for proper transparency.EmilyR34 (talk)04:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:NUM has explicitly allowed (since at least 2013, apparently) abbreviating dates "in limited situations where brevity is helpful […] For use in tables, infoboxes, references, etc.".
At this template's TFD, I specifically noted this, sayingMOS:DATE allows for the abbreviation of months, which can be a boon in some infoboxes (where these templates are used). Unless I'm missing something, while{{death date and age text}} allows for this […],{{death date and age}} does not. As such, I wouldoppose redirecting or changing the template.
WhenI asked about fixing the functionality that was inexplicably lost upon redirection, the deletion-nominator said that (despiteMOS:NUM and the previous TFD opposition)If [abbreviating the month in the birth/death date] is needed/desired I think consensus should first be reached as to whether that is valid. Since my 29 January reply, there has been no further discussion.
Looking atthe deletion discussion in October 2025, it sounds like the desired functionalityhas been implemented. But then looking atthe talk page discussion in January 2026 it sounds like it has not. In that second discussion there is apparently a dispute over whether abbreviated outputshould be implemented. I suggest it would be more productive to have that discussion. If the answer is "no", no new template is needed. If the answer is "yes", the desired functionality can be implemented in the existing template as originally planned. It looks likeModule:Date already supports abbreviated output with "%{monthabbr}". --Beland (talk)19:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My specific comment in the deletion discussion was thatMOS:DATE allows for the abbreviation of months; I was even told in reply that{{death date and age}} overridesOct withOctober. It still works just fine! It just overrides the display value. Thank you for pointing this out. It should be a very easy fix. […] Iwill fix it so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed However, that fix for abbreviating clearly wasn't implemented, but the redirection happened anyway.As for whether months should be abbreviated in infoboxes or not, the MOS explicitly has allowed it for some thirteen years, and I began a new discussion atWT:DATE#confirmation of abbreviation allowances, but until consensus changes the MOS, it is allowed and the abbreviation functionality wasn't added as both promised and alleged in the TFD, which was redirected anyway. —Fourthords |=Λ= |19:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DR isn't the place to re-raise TfD arguments but to talk about the actual close. I'm also unclear why DR allows opening a discussion without pinging any of the editors from the previous discussion. Pinging @Zackmann08 @Frietjes.Gonnym (talk)12:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DR isn't the place to re-raise TfD arguments That's why I'm arguing that the discussion was wrong to have been closed in favor of redirection when that outcome was predecated upon{{death date and age}} having the same functionality as{{death date and age text}}, which was claimed to have been done, but wasn't.I'm also unclear why DR allows opening a discussion without… I just followed the directions atWP:DELREVD. Do you require me to notify those editors you've named? Is there an official template for doing so, of would something like this suffice:I've begun [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 February 8#Template:death date and age text|a deletion review of]] {{template link|death date and age text}}, a page for whose [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 23#Template:Death date and age text|original TFD]] you participated.? —Fourthords |=Λ= |13:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I oppose reopening this. If the desire is to keep the ability to use an abbreviated month, that can be implemented in the current incarnation. I fail to see why that is such a vital case though... I would like to know what the use case is here where having an abbreviated month is of such important need as to have a second, far more complicated and difficult to maintain template.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)15:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about an improper close. Atthe original discussion,Zackmann08 (talk·contribs) said thatIt just overrides the display value. Thank you for pointing this out. It should be a very easy fix. […] Iwill fix it so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed. They later said,This can now safely be merged as the mf/df format is now preserved and the two templates do the same thing. The target template wasn't fixed so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed, and the two templates didn't and don't do the same thing, yet it was on that erroneous claim that the discussion was closed and the template was redirected. As such, the closure was in error, hence DRV. —Fourthords |=Λ= |15:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to the holding pen (WP:TFD/H) to avoid breakage until the discussion on if the abbreviation feature should be preserved concludes (and if preserved, until it is implemented). No fault on the closer; I would of believed the missing features were implemented as well.JumpytooTalk02:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
seems like the simple thing to do would be to implement preservation of month abbreviations, similar to how it currently preserves dmy vs mdy.Frietjes (talk)19:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(involved) This was closed as redirect but there were 4 keeps and 3 delete/redirects. The closer said the redirect side had stronger arguments. The four keep votes cited significant coverage as their reasons for keeping.~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk)23:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. Not an appropriate NAC (had been relisted, not uncontentious), wrong on the numbers (per appellant), and wrong on the merits (the redirect arguments are not more P&G compelling). Relist or NC might be reasonable but less preferred options... but it went a whole week after relist with 2 keeps. That's normally a keep close.Jclemens (talk)23:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – This was the difficult close the non-admin made, honestly, but it's the correct one IMO. Sure,WP:NOTAVOTE has been no longer a rule for years, butWP:NOTDEMOCRACY still is a rule. The "keep" votes cited GNG and tried to dismiss the BIO1E arguments, but I've been doubtful about the weight of these arguments other than numerical superiority. Not to mention that, well, arguments from both sides were basic, IMO, despite number of words and all and Jclemens's arguments in favor of overturning the outcome. The "redirect" arguments didn't need to explain the rationale for their votes, do they? —George Ho (talk)23:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC); corrected, 00:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the 1st and 4th keeps directly addressed BIO1E. We don't require intervening keep !votes to reiterate each rationale above them, and has been pointed out elsewhere, the redirect !votes didn't give rationales either, hence my statement that the redirect side does not have P&G priority over keeps.Jclemens (talk)05:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep Would of been a bad close even if it was done by admin. Both redirect votes areWP:JUSTAVOTE, while the keep sides cited sources that were not contested by anyone but the nominator, which makes the redirect close a clearWP:SUPERVOTE.JumpytooTalk00:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure,WP:JUSTAVOTE can be a reason to easily dismiss these votes, but the intro of theWP:AADD essay says:a discussion rationale which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", may still contain the germ of a valid point. Furthermore, it says:As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering thekeep ordelete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged. To put this another way, those "redirect" votes are neither "keep" nor "delete", and I found considering these votes as such hard to do. Furthermore, dismissing these votes just because they lacked rationale is... dunno, prejudicial perhaps?
Thegerm of a valid point of the redirect voters was that there is a valid redirection target and thus an alternative to deletion. However, when there are multiple keep votes that cite sources, a vote that does not elaborate why the keep voters are incorrect will be weighed very weakly per NOTDEMOCRACY.
The closer may not have elaborated much on why "keep" votes may not have had much weight, but I dunno whether it suffices to overturn the outcome. Re-readingthis reply at original AFD (link), I think I should've rebut that one because that source briefly mentions her win inThe Challenge: USA and promotes her then-upcoming appearance in anotherChallenge spinoff. Nonetheless, even other "keep" votes were just... Unsure whether they're justWP:LOTSOFSOURCES votes, but I guess I was the only one refuting and analyzing the sources. The two subsequent "keep" votes after the relist were just... The first one post-relist (by Bearian) is just"per above" vote, like one "keep" vote by the appellant. The second one was just making an argument as some basis of the guideline and anotherWP:LOTSOFSOURCES vote IMO and citing an essay, which I also refuted.George Ho (talk)01:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not to say that I'm not trying to fully dismiss these "keep" votes as such (just by citing the applicable essays), but treating sources (especially ones I refuted) and policy as if the "keep" votes weigh more than the other side seems... (If it's not "unfair", then how else do you call this?). Moreover,WP:ATD-R was implied.George Ho (talk)01:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even the least favorable reading of this afd, I think, would still be no consensus. Kelob2678's sources weren't adequately refuted (nobody but the nominator even tried) and Rublamb's weren't addressed at all. The close does the sort of analysis that just isn't proper there - there's very little discretion available in this regard, on the order of discarding delete votes claiming a page is entirely unsourced when it's not - and would have been better stated as a !vote. —Cryptic01:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Like Crypic stated, the closing statement would be better as a !vote. That said, I don't think the editors advocating for an AfD adequately or persuasively rebutted the sourcing provided during the discussion, as evidenced by the editors supporting keeping the article after the relist. Also, while a closer should evaluate all comments (both before and after a relist), if the direction following a relist is in only one direction, it is a decision for a closer to close a completely different way. --Enos733 (talk)02:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
A message was left on my talk page sayingThe AFD nominator has requested to withdraw due to improvements made on the article, would you mind reviewing? so it might be time to review this.~2026-36939-5 (talk)13:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as the appellant is not challenging the AFD closure. AFD was withdrawn by its nominator after significant improvements, but was not closed due to a standing delete !vote by the same IP who started this DRV. I believe the IP misunderstood the request on their talk page, asking to reconsider their delete !vote in light of the request to withdraw. If the IP is in fact challenging the closure, I would vote to endorse as there is clear consensus to keep.FrankAnchor14:38, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close AfD came to the correct conclusion, as agreed by all participants but one IP. Not seeing any reason to change the close, nor any reason for BADNAC.Jclemens (talk)05:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close clear Keep consensus at AfD following the withdrawal and improvements. The appellant seems to have misconstrued a talk page message as an invitation to DRV. No procedural error here to address.EmilyR34 (talk)06:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The temp account was the only "delete" vote, and all others were keep, and the nominator had withdrawn, which is why I left the note for the temp account to review in case they were willing to allow the AFD to close as withdrawn.BOZ (talk)14:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is too late, but, the closed as No Consensus. I disagree on this 'cause one editor voted as Redirect toLeah Navarro, perWP:MUSICOUTCOMES and I already checkWP:BEFORE. OnWP:NSONG:Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups., It is indeed that there's a notable cover from the notable artists. However, thecoverage from the song are lack. It should be applied theGNG here also. The closing isn'tBADNAC, but there's a misunderstood that this is not really passed on NSONG.ROY is WARTalk!01:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as NAC): I haven't done any closes since mid-January, so this one is unsurprisingly older. I understand exactly what @Royiswariii means here, regarding there being multiple factors involved. I did say in the closing statement that I was open to relisting this for a final time should somebody feel another week was appropriate. As it's been quite a while now, I'm not willing to do that without the confirmation or consensus confirming that's allowed so many weeks later. I support whatever consensus eventually forms here. Thanks!11WB (talk)01:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but feel free to renominate if you believe participants ignored key evidence. I'm sure the closer would agree that this could benefit from a few more pairs of eyes examining it.Owen×☎01:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review is for situations where the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not for situations where you just disagree with the outcome reached. As others mention, a renomination would be the best way forward.Stifle (talk)08:59, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to @Roy, multiple participants in the AfD cited GNG, which I failed to mention in the closing statement. That is an error on my part. I focused only on the music specific notability guidelines, and not the general guidelines as well. As a non-admin, I should not have performed an NC close, which automatically violates point 1 ofWP:BADNAC. I actually disagree with @Roy about it not being a BADNAC. The fact it was brought to DRV means the AfD was contentious and should have been left to an admin.11WB (talk)11:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add on to the above, based on this DRV and my recent poor record with AfD nominations, I've made the personal decision to not return to doing closures until I relearn the P&Gs.11WB (talk)11:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It is generally a bad idea for a non-admin to close a discussion which was relisted (especially one that was relisted multiple times), as that is an indication that the discussion is at least somewhat contentious. However, this is not aWP:BADNAC as the close was correct. There is clearly not consensus to not keep a standalone article. A keep close would have also been reasonable, but NC is the best option.FrankAnchor13:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The two relists were both bad relists. Pointless procedural noise of no consequence. The existence of bad relists in a discussion should not limit a good closer.SmokeyJoe (talk)22:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To label them both as bad relists is a tad unwarranted. An AfD cannot be closed as NC after just one week, a keep close could have been actionable after the second week, but @Svartner chose to relist again. Whilst the consensus here is that my close was correct, it was also timed correctly.11WB (talk)11:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bad relists include all comment-free relists. To do a relist, you should be competent and qualified to close the discussion, when you decide it is not ready for closing. The least a relist should include is a statement as to why it is not ready for closing. A good relist includes a focusing statement that helps past and future participants contribute more helpful to a later close.SmokeyJoe (talk)04:37, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't aware this was still open. 'Bad relists include all comment-free relists.' - I have no issue with saying this is not correct.11WB (talk)00:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a close of No Consensus because there was no consensus. On the one hand, the closer admits that they made a mistake in making anon-admin closure because the discussion was contentious. More generally, it is usually a mistake for a non-admin to close a deletion discussion as No Consensus, because the lack of a consensus usually indicates the presence of contention. On the other hand, we, the community atDRV agree that this was the right closure, so we can accept this as our closure. Reopening this would be silly when we agree with the result.Robert McClenon (talk)20:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect. The keep votes did not provide a substantive rationale to keep based in policy, the !vote by NegativeMP1 sufficiently explains how the keep votes ignore policy. The close repeated the erroneous interpretation ofWP:NSONG promulgated by several !votes, but this was rebutted by NegativeMP1.Katzrockso (talk)04:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with this. The article is very short at about 40 words (approx). It also lacks a reception section where SIGCOV is usually demonstrated. A redirect would retain the revision history and could be restored in the future should more coverage become available. I do not oppose overturning to redirect.11WB (talk)14:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, good close. The AfD nomination was inadequate, and such nominations often doom the discussion to a “no consensus” close. “Redirect” should have been addressed by the nominator, and the nomination failsWP:BEFORE. I do not support this DRV finding consensus to redirect, but do suggest that any editor may boldly redirect, and that disagreement should be discussed on an article talk page before going to AfD, as deletion is not a serious proposal.SmokeyJoe (talk)22:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
Category deleted 19 years ago. Though I understand that it's not standard to have categories for a person's clients, I believeScott Boras is an exceptional case. Boras is so powerful that his clients are generally seen as their own category in the world of baseball contracts, seethis NYT article for example that treats them as such. (If "Boras Corporation clients" is more acceptable that's fine.)William on Tires (talk)02:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems silly to review a deletion discussion from 2007, but g4s tend to get enforced for categories for ridiculously longer than for anything else. —Cryptic05:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the appellant is asking to review the close, but to recreate the category without regard to the close. I think that the reason why category G4s are enforced forever is that the title of the category defines the category and so is the category, so that a recreated cat is substantially the same as the deleted cat. At least that is my understanding. Maybe there should be a rule as to how many years the deletion is still current.Robert McClenon (talk)21:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation but without prejudice to a new CFD. Basically per Robert and Cryptic (who I think is supporting this request).Hobit (talk)22:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was a perfectly good NAC. Experienced editors armed with valid sources convincingly rebuffed your nomination. There was no other way to close this AfD. Uncivil demands and threats, likethe one you made against Svartner, along with similar hostile or offensive language you've used in AfDs, will ultimately lead to you getting tbanned from project space. The community has a very low tolerance for bullying.Owen×☎18:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep (10:36, 31 January 2026) was a refute of Oblivy’s !vote. Therefore Oblivy does not count as a rebuff. Cunard’s vote was very late, and he only counts here as one unrefuted experienced editor. There was obviously a way to not close the discussion so soon.SmokeyJoe (talk)03:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the difference between a rebuff and a refute? You use the word rebuff here with respect to my contributions, and then refute below. Rebuff is a criticism, which clearly happened (and is, in my opinion, all that happened). Refute is proving error, which wasn't even attempted. Scope Creep did one of his source analyses claiming it was consistent with the policy, a claim he's made before, and I pointed out an error in his logic (purpose vs wording). We have language in NORG distinguishing paid media and earned media, and it is not consensus that the mere existence of information sourced from an article subject is fatal to SIRS.Not that it should matter much, but in your retelling is my contribution being discounted as not an "experienced editor"?Oblivy (talk)01:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Refute means conclusively countered. I read ScopeCreep’s reply to your proffered sources as conclusively countered. Rebuff is a weaker word. Rebuff is good in a discussion but refutation is conclusive.
Re experienced editor. Owen wrote “Experienced editors armed with valid sources convincingly rebuffed your nomination”. I don’t mean that you’re not experienced, I mean that your sources are not valid GNG-compliant sources.SmokeyJoe (talk)07:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your explanation. I respectfully disagree my sources were "refuted", and instead suggest Scope Creep engaged in results-oriented rejection (which I guess is a rebuff). IMHO idea that we have winner-takes-all battles of source validity among experienced editors is not a healthy way to approach AfD's.Oblivy (talk)12:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I disagree with it beingWP:BADNAC because there was no support for deleting (I confess I don't remember Oblivy, but Piotrus and Cunard are regulars). Btw I don't object to a relist (I've seen it requested and accepted in other AfDs).Svartner (talk)18:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse reasonable NAC based on unanimous support to keep (excluding the nom) amongst longtime contributors who presented valid references. No need to relist as there would be zero chance of consensus swaying all the way to deletion of the article.FrankAnchor19:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -I can't cannot believe haven't given me time to even reply to a comment that was put up yesterday. is probably an inappropriate comment, but is garbled. Ungrammatical hostile comments can be ignored. 00:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Endorse andscope_creep if you try and DRV a keep AfD where not one other person supported the deletion, you're likely to be disappointed with the outcome. You protesting a lot doesn't mean it was found compelling.Jclemens (talk)03:48, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse "I don't like the close" is not a part of BADNAC and recommend you withdrawing this. I and many other admins would have closed this the same way, and am happy to if Scope creep really would like to see that. Scope, if you want folks to see your side of a nomination you're going to need to give more information. As it stands, you just stated your opinion.StarMississippi03:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
DRV doesn't overturn anything to delete, and it's not going to relist a unanimous-except-nominator afd that ended in a keep. Understandably frustrating that a poorly-sourced article about a company in a niche market didn't get deleted, but it turns out this is a notable one. (Also, for the absolutely nothing that it's worth, I have three of their cubes sitting on my desk as I type this.) —Cryptic04:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the applicant is leaving us guessing as to what was the exact issue (just being a non-admin isn't enough). I don't see how this could have been closed as another else other than maybe NC. Given the high level of experience of the applicant, this all feels surprising and I'm curious what I might be missing.Hobit (talk)22:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: I see no issue with the close. @Svartner is a long-time NAC at AfD. The comments left on their talk page by the OP are disappointing, butWP:FOC forbids me from saying anything further. As a sidenote, I'm interested to read the RfC or discussion that confirmsthis claim.WP:THREE still links to a user page essay at this time.11WB (talk)05:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - After waiting 36 hours for an answer as to why this was abad non-admin close, I am concluding that the appellant was just yelling "BADNAC" to win a dispute, and just saying the close was a bad non-admin close doesn't make it a bad close.Robert McClenon (talk)18:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - To be honest, I'm not seeing the issue that would have justified extending the discussion or closing it with any outcome other than "Keep". The discussion was already relisted once, and everyone except the nominator !voted to keep; none of the keep !votes lacked substantial reasoning, either. The non-admin closer, as far as I know, does not appear to have engaged in any actual wrongdoing, nor were they involved in the discussion prior to their closure. –Epicgenius (talk)19:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (relist). It was not a good close, therefore not a good NAC close. The nominator was making a heavily argued case for deletion, and well, but then Cunard unloads a big “keep” with difficult-to-analyse sources. Without Cunard, I would accept a “delete” close, although it would come close to a Supervote. Cunard’s substantial !vote requires time to be read, let alone analysed. The AfD should not have been closed so soon after.SmokeyJoe (talk)03:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard’s #1 “The sources found by Oblivy” ignores that Oblivy’s sources were refuted.
Cunard’s 2-4 new sources could be good, but are very difficult to evaluate for independence. Cunard asserted the GNG quote but gave no evidence or argument for independence. Fir a commercial product of dubious Wikipedia-notability, sources are often non-independent on deep analysis.
I’ve now read throughhttps://eu.36kr.com/zh/p/3060304686507396. It initially looked good, but on second read, the information is either puffy, or based on explicit quotes from the company founder, Jiang Ganyuan. The information of substance is very close perspective. The “independence” of this source is very dubious.SmokeyJoe (talk)21:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is not reasonable to call any of the sources that source from the founder “independent” of the founder’s product. I stand by “refuted”.SmokeyJoe (talk)07:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is the closer supposed to take the particular position on the interpretation of NCORP and endorse the particular position that no quotes from the founder of a company's may be included for the article to be independent regardless of how widely endorsed that position was in the AfD?Katzrockso (talk)17:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. The closer is supposed to wait for a participant to take a position on the interpretation of NCORP. Or wait long enough for it to be supported byWP:Silence. How long is that? Seven days? Given the detail, and foreign language in Cunard’s proffered sources, I think 36 hours was too short.
the particular position that no quotes from the founder of a company's may be included for the article to be independent. You appear to grossly misconflate the requirements for meeting the GNG and for being included in the article? I’m not sure. Your sentence is too long and is confusing. But the answer is certainly “no”. None of these things are the role of the closer. Arguments and evidence should come from AfD participants and not from the closer.SmokeyJoe (talk)02:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When I stated "article", I should have said "source", since I was not referring to the Wikipedia article but the news article.
The implication of your comment here is that the closer should have regarded Oblivy's sources as "refuted" despite disagreement among AfD participants over whether they contribute to notability under NCORP. I don't see how that is possible without the closer taking a specific interpretation of NCORP and independence.Katzrockso (talk)03:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as Piotrus withdrew his Keep vote, stating,I am changing my vote toabstain. Two Keep votes are not enough to close the AfD as Keep.Kelob2678 (talk)12:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just my observation of how AfDs are closed. Especially taking into account that one of the Keep votes was questioned by two other participants, and there was little time to examine the second one.Kelob2678 (talk)23:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think “Two Keep votes are not enough to close the AfD as Keep” would be a good rule. I suggest a better rule would be “After an apparent tide-turning !vote, 36 hours is too short to then close, accepting that last !vote on face value”.SmokeyJoe (talk)07:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse on procedural grounds. Specifically, five days have passed without @Scope creep explaining their grounds for BADNAC and I don't think the community should have to fill in the blanks. After reading the views expressed here I do see how the closing could be seen as premature, but as we often tell the newbies and disrupters, communication is required.Oblivy (talk)12:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never realised this was actually still open or I would replied earlier. I forgot about it. The reason I posted it as a BADNAC was I didn't have a chance to reply, which was clearly stated in the comment to Svartner. I was away for 2 days after Cunard posted. It shouldn't have been closed when new references just turned up and nobody being able to discuss them. There is need to discuss them, when somebody posts something new. That is a cardinal rule, unsaid. That is the whole point and that wasn't done here. So it was never a real close. It was also not a keep decision by any kind of definition. Oblivy’s references weren't NCORP compliant, all of them failedWP:ORGIND and Piotrus had basically left by abstaining and hadn't posted anything either. The NCORP policy was completely ignored here as though it didn't exist but that is normal and reason that Afd is broken. Thanks for turning up. This can be closed.scope_creepTalk12:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So your point is exactly what? I was away most of the two days and went around the houses in the small time I had available, which wasn't a lot. I still didn't have a chance to rotate around to it and examine your sources. I was running the Afd and always come back to comment when new sources are added. Like everybody at the Afd, you completely ignored NCORP as well as being canvassed, which was a extremely poor decision on your part.scope_creepTalk13:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder ofWP:FOC. @Scope creep, there are appropriate venues to discuss article sources after an AfD has been closed, the primary one being the article talk page. If an AfD is due to close, and is then closed, whether or not you have had time to reply is no longer relevant.11WB (talk)13:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was no other way that a closer could have closed this discussion. A relist would be acceptable, but is unnecessary as there is little chance of the outcome changing upon a second relist (at best to no consensus, which a relist to obtain a no consensus close is pointless bureaucracy). We should otherwise oppose a relist per OblivyKatzrockso (talk)03:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
I withdraw my nomination @OwenX, feel free to close this thread.
