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 a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
if the deleted page is still deleted after an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
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.
Deletion review should not be used:
to request undeletion of a page deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion. Place such requests atWikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
creation protection – request removal of the protection from the protecting administrator or, if the administrator is unavailable or non-responsive, request atWikipedia:Requests for page unprotection.
because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may berenominated after a reasonable timeframe);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to point outother pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go toWikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go toWikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwiseprohibited content will not be restored.
Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
Check that it is not on the list ofperennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with aPROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please useWikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
1.
Click here and paste the template skeletonat the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill inpage with the name of the page,xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), andreason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files,article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
{{subst:drv2|page=File:Foo.png|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png|article=Foo|reason=}} ~~~~
2.
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach<noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 October 27}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
If the deletion discussion's subpage name isthe same as the deletion review's section header, use<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 October 27}}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name isdifferent from the deletion review's section header, then use<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 October 27|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of theestablished criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at theappropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decisionand optionally an(action) per theGuide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete andvice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correctinterpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions ofpolicies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced byRelist, rather thanOverturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the{{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of thepolicy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether aconsensus exists. If that consensus is toundelete, the admin should follow the instructions atWikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was torelist, the page should be relisted at theappropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion wasendorsed, the discussion should beclosed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review asno consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
If the decision under appeal was aspeedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at theappropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close asoverturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Where the nominator of a DRV wishes towithdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other thanendorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, alarge language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed atWP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".
There was not a consensus to delete here. Beyond mere pointing to NEWSORGINDIA or unsubstantiated accusations of the sources being unreliable, editors did not address the significant coverage listed in the deletion discussion. By a pure head count, there are 4 keeps, 8 deletes, 2 merges, but 2 of the delete !votes suggested merging or redirecting as ATD as well. I tried to discuss this with the closer at theirtalk page, to no avail.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKatzrockso (talk •contribs)04:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer gave the appellant a clear, detailed explanation as to how he arrived at theDelete result. The appellant has not brought up any argument that hasn't already been adequately addressed byDoczilla. No objection to anyone adding verified, encyclopedic content about the subject, if any exists, to one of the proposed merge targets, and recreating the page as a redirect.Owen×☎13:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The closer discounted PARAYANKA's vote based on the misguided notion that they were expressing a personal point of view, which is not an accurate reflection of their !vote by any plain reading of it. Closer failed to address the strength of the arguments instead of mere headcounting - a mere vague wave to "policy-based arguments" is not a "clear, detailed explanation" as to which policy-based arguments were the basis of the decision to close. Any appeal to AADP to discount Svartner's vote would discount an equal or greater amount of delete !votes that similarly made other "arguments to avoid" (as I already noted at the closer's talk page).Katzrockso (talk)15:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The closer is under no obligation toaddress the strength of the arguments to a level that would satisfy you, and I see no evidence that he engaged inmere headcounting. The explanation he gave you on his Talk page went well beyond what he was obliged to do as a closer. The fact that you aren't pleased with the result changes none of that. Even with a very accommodating read of consensus there, I don't see how this could be closed as anything other than Delete, or at best, Merge.Owen×☎17:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've got a response atWP:REFUND now, but they ended up saying:
BodhiHarp, I'll be honest, regardless of whether that page technically met WP:A10, I really can't see how it could be considered useful... — Salvio giuliano 20:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment from deleting admin The page, as created, basically stated that 3+3=6 and listed several other basic addition and multiplication facts (e.g., 2+4) with the same result. One can find this same information (arithmetic facts) in the table atAddition#Single-digit addition – with the new article neither substantially expanding on it nor the title making for a plausible redirect – so despite not being a word-for-word duplicate, I believe this still falls within the scope of A10. And while I will not veto another admin undeleting it, I'm reasonably sure an AfD would conclude with aWP:SNOW delete.Complex/Rational21:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BodhiHarpl: This is the second low value DRV that you have raised recently. You either do not understand community norms about content or are trolling. Either cease the trolling or go spend some time in mainspace and learn a few things before asking for any new discussions.SpartazHumbug!21:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources have been discussed atWikipedia talk:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia? and added toWikipedia:Source assessment/Battle for Dream Island as potential contenders for reliable independent significant coverage of the series. They are currently cited on a draft article,Draft:Battle for Dream Island. TheComics Beat source is being discussedhere (permalink), and there seems to be some agreement that its coverage is partially significant given its interview nature, but after the release of the/Film source, editors have called for a new DRV in the essay talk page.
Overturn as one of the authors of the BFDI essay. The draft contains multiple independent, reliable sources, and the fact that a non-stub draft can be derived from the cited sources indicates significant coverage, satisfyingWP:GNG.Catalk to me!14:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The topic was not wiki-notable but it is it wiki-notable now. Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that justifies recreating the article. Technical obstacles to creation should be removed.—Alalch E.16:50, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. I haven't looked into notability, so this can still possibly be taken to AfD, but enough time has passed since the disruption caused by supporters that this should be treated no differently from any other article.Phil Bridger (talk)18:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On first review, I am inclined to agree that we should allow recreation. I will review again more carefully. In view of the long history of disruption, we should avoid an early closure, even if ice crystals (which are objects) are showing up as precipitation in both the Arctic and the Antarctic regions in October.Robert McClenon (talk)18:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt and allow recreation: by a liberal estimate, this article has 4 sources which all are reliable, independent and have significant coverage and two sources which are reliable & independent, but gives restricted coverage about a specific meetup or theater screening from the show. Now, if you want to be restrictive, you could argue that one of the source is only "minimally reliable" (PluggedIn), or that two of the sources lack independence because they contain interviews with creators of the show, but the fact that there is a reasonable view for notability shows that trying to create another article wouldn't be trolling or in violation of guidelines.ALittleClass (talk)04:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt andAllow Recreation by appellant. I have reviewed the sources and have created a source table that is the same as those sometimes used inAFD discussions.
@Robert McClenon: Curious as to where you got the "review of some episodes" remark for Bubbleblabber from, as the article is very brief and only quickly summarises a specific detail from the ending of TPOT 19. Not sure of its reliability but its significance I would put as a straight "no".Jurtatalk/contribs15:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - First, we only need to argue about the specific values in the source assessment table at AFD. At DRV, I think that we have established that we can have a reasonable discussion of a source assessment table at AFD. Second, we will only need two or three rows that are checked across in order to pass AFD. Third, I have collapsed the previous table and am offering a new table below which I will also put on the talk page of the draft, so that it will be available at AFD. Fourth, there are two different tools for generating a source assessment table, the Excel spreadsheet to wikitable tool, and the template. Some editors use one, and some use the other. I use an Excel spreadsheet and the Excel to wikitable converter. Some of the comments seem to be oriented toward the template. I plan to continue to use the Excel to wikitable tool. Here is a revised table.
The point that I think I have made, and that I think that we agree on, is that the sources are good enough that they can be argued about at AFD. Our responsibility at DRV is to unsalt the title and to allow the draft to be reviewed. After six more days of arguing about the sources, we can close this discussion by unsalting the title and removing it fromDEEPER. And thanks toUser:ObserveOwl for finding a mixture of reasonable sources.
Non-admin closure, where I don't see a consensus to delete, not even close. Furthermore, I don't understand the rationale. The categorization is very relevant - we want to know all the players, past and present, with Wikipedia articles who have played in the Swedish Hockey League. Deleting a category for[league] players would be unthinkable in the football part of Wikipedia. It isnot possible/feasible to find SHL playersvia club categories. I seeek an overturn, the category reinstated and probably relisted - though it should probably be as a2nd nom.Geschichte (talk)13:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Geschichte, I hope you'll forgive my hazy memory, this was two years ago after all. As I recall, the category was by and large a container category; it didn't contain individual players. (It is not possible/feasible to find SHL players via club categories. - you seem to agree with the deletion here.) I still see a consensus in that discussion - there was no one who outright objected to it, and Kaffet i halsen (as nom) and Peterkingiron (who suggesting merging which was functionally equivalent to deletion in this case) explicitly supported, and Crowsus concluded withThe question is whether it should be repurposed to mirror the football usage (a lot of work), or just deleted. which implicitly offers weak support for deletion. CfDs are very rarely relisted more than twice, and I saw no reason here to break with tradition. — Qwerfjkltalk15:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation/restore The close wasn't obvious and wasn't explained. I see the argument provided above and I get it, but while CfD generally deletes with a lower bar than most xfDs, I don't think we're there in this discussion. Now, it is 2 years old and I've no idea how much of a technical pain this would be or what has changed since then. So if there is a good reasonat this point to not restore, that would change my view.Hobit (talk)21:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(original nominator) I can confirm Qwerfjkl's memory that it was a container category, with 15–20 somethingplayers of team categories (the same construction as e.g.Category:Liiga players) with teams that had also played in other leagues than Elitserien/SHL because of promotion/relegation and being active before 1975 (start of the league). This may not be entirely clear from only looking at the discussion now.Kaffet i halsen (talk)22:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was a consensus to delete the category, it is clear what was deleted and why, the close is correct, treating "merge" as cognate with "delete" in this particular case was an objectively accurate interpretation, there are no NAC-related concerns, and discussion having been closed by a non-admin is in line with established CfD practices.—Alalch E.17:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was deleted because it was a container category. If Geschichte wants to recreate it as something other than a container category, then he's free to do that andWP:G4 wouldn't be an obstacle. I don't think there's anything for DRV to do here.Extraordinary Writ (talk)21:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Matthews (writer) – Speedy closing and restoring the pre-hijack article. This isn't controversial - if someone had noticed and requested a history split before the AfD I would have done it in a heartbeat and then we would have had two separate articles, only one of which would have been deleted at AfD. If someone wants to take it to a new AfD they are welcome to.* Pppery *it has begun...17:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of thedeletion review of the page above.Please do not modify it.
An afd for one subject that deleted a second. Yes there was clear consensus that there should not be an article for the Stephen Matthews that occupied that page at the time. No disputing that. However there was no consensus to delete an article on another subject, Stephen Matthews (1946-2024), who had occupied the page prior to Hijacking. I believe that part of the page should be restored. The afd was about the one Matthews (and largely focused on the current state of the article) and the the only non vague wave to the other Matthews suggested merging and not deletion of anything on him.duffbeerforme (talk)13:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore old version - This is an unusual case that requirescommon sense byDeletion Review (us). As Duffbeerforme notes, the deleted article had hijacked a previous article about a different person with the same name. I have my doubts as to whether the previous article satisfiesbiographical notability, but the previous article was not discussed. The deletion discussion was about the (lack of) merits of the replacement article, so that its deletion should restore the old article rather than delete it.Robert McClenon (talk)17:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
WP:NAC. While acknowledging the ratio of Keep! votes, there was little substantial engagement with the arguments or policy-based reasoning, as most Keep! votes were variations ofWP:ILIKEIT andWP:WAX, which was also noted by another editor. Closer cites the essayWP:AIRCRASH, which is explicitly marked as non-policy and recommended not to be cited in AFD discussions.XYZ1233212 (talk)09:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closer here. I agree that the quality of discussion had room of improvement (and debated whether I should wade in myself), but the thrust of the opposing !votes was clear disagreement with your claim that a jumbo jet crash leading to fatalities at a major airport is a "routine kinds of news event" (WP:EVENTCRITERIA #4), which was the only policy-based reasoning you cited as justification for deletion.WP:RAPID was also correctly cited in the arguments, and it was an oversight on my part not to list that in the SNOW rationale.Asamboi (talk)09:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above andWP:RAPID. We can expect further actions and responses in the coming days (such as criminal investigations) which, if true, would give more notability to this accident. If not, an AfD request may then be submitted again. It may also carry enduring historical significance (the deadliest aviation accident in the Hong Kong airport sinceChina Airlines Flight 642) but it would take more time to shed light on this. ~~J. Dann10:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen. While the initial avalanche of keep !votes was voluminous, there was very little engagement with policy in them. In particular, most if not all participants seem to be using "notable" in the sense of memorable, unusual, or interesting; rather than engaging on actual WP:N elements. One of the reasons we by default run deletion discussions for days is to give a chance for a discussion that starts off not very policy-based to migrate to a more policy-based one. The early closure here precluded that. While applauding the closer's enthusiasm and desire to help, this was not a good candidate for a speedy NAC close.Martinp (talk)11:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Closure was appropriate. Hull losses of major airliners generally result in articles. Such articles generally survive after AfD discussions.Mjroots (talk)12:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen perMartinp. The !votes during the first few hours of an AfD are often unrepresentative of the community, since they usually come from those involved in editing the article or those canvassed by them, rather than by those who find the discussion as part of their regular AfD scan. In this case, it resulted in mostKeeps basing their vote on a fundamental misunderstanding of whatnotable means on WP. There was no valid reason to cut the discussion short after 7 hours, especially seeing the poor quality of arguments entered up to that point.Owen×☎12:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen or start a new AfD –WP:SNOW is not a policy, and the essay itself states that "... there are sometimes good reasons for pushing ahead against the flames anyway; well-aimed snowballs have, on rare occasions, made it through the inferno to reach their marks." If the arguments were well supported by policies and guidelines, a SNOW close would have been warranted. In this case, the discussion, which had majoritarily garnered low quality arguments, was closed less than seven hours after it was opened, with the given rationale leaning towards aWP:SUPERVOTE: The closer states that "The nomination has gathered 15 Keep !votes and no support since it was proposed...". However, Wikipedia isnot a vote and the АfD had only been open for seven hours prior to the closure, effectively removing the possibility of anybody supporting the nomination. The closer also went on to citeWP:AIRCRASH, an essay that has no bearing on notability, and something which nobody else had cited. Deletion review is not a place to rehash arguments and determine whether or not the accident is notable. It's here to determine whether the closure was correct. Taking all into account, along with the fact that this was closed by a non-admin, the discussion should be overturned and reopened.Aviationwikiflight (talk)14:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse while SNOW was at one point understood to need 6 unanimous votes/24 hours, this was 15 votes in 6 hours-ish. The arguments are sufficient. Follow RENOM after appropriate delay and work on improving the article in the mean time.Jclemens (talk)15:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, one has to begin to question whetherWP:NOTHERE applies to the AfD/DRV filer. This is a relatively new account,XYZ1233212 sprung forth fully formed earlier this year and has been participating in current events coverage to the near exclusion of other participation. While it's certainly a possible legitimate usage pattern, the brief survey I have done of contributions suggests a less than organic or typical editing pattern, suggesting prior participation not visible in the contribution history of this account.Jclemens (talk)03:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a valid application ofWP:SNOW given how lobsided the vote was. The article can always be re-nominated in the future for AFD is editors feel the issues are still present. And while one can argue that the AFD was closed to quickly, it can also be argued that the article was hastily nominated for deletion as well.Inter&anthro (talk)18:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Planespotter.net is not reliable and honestly, i think it should be blacklisted and deprecated from here as it is heavily user-generated and other deprecated source such asEncyclopaedia Metallum andCrunchbase were deprecated for reason that i think are very similar to planespotter.netStmbus (talk)22:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HotMess The flightradar24 source is aWP:BLOG (see the URL) and should not be used overreliable sources. Also your signature was slightly challenging to decipher, I don't suppose you would consider making it easier to read for dark mode users like myself?11WB (talk)17:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11WB In all fairness, I noticed that the flightradar24 source had already been cited on the article in question (and nobody raised any objections to that previously being cited in the article), hence why I pointed to that source. In the meantime, it looks like someone else found another source which mentions it (in chinese), and I've found yet another source (this time in English) which also mentions it (which has since been added to the article).
Also, re signature - is this version more legible in dark mode? Not sure if you're using the dark mode gadget or some other dark mode tool, so idk how to properly fix it on your end. (As a sidenote, is your username meant to be 11wallisb or 11WB? kinda hard for me to tell from your signature)🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits)20:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to continue the signature discussion on a talk page, I merely mentioned it here as a sidenote. I haven't checked the sources you've mentioned, but as long as they aren'tself-published, they are probably fine.11WB (talk)20:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the unreliable Dimsum Daily source with one fromFlug Revue [de], a wholly more reliable aviation subscription journal from Germany. The article also had a source fromTimes Now, which is not reliable perWP:NPPSG. TheFlightRadar24 blog should also be changed with another source that isn't a blog.11WB (talk)17:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this request open? If this isn't maliciously attempting to use wikipedia guidelines against itself then I don't know what is.This is an international news event, because it is a major hull loss, by an international airline, coming from an accident, at one of the major airports of the region, with loss of life, with the added peculiarity that the plane ended up in the water, and the unusual circumstance that this major incident occurred after the plane was already on the ground. Taxi incidents of major airlines that lead to hull loss and death can be counted on one hand in the history of aviation.2001:4C4C:135E:4800:F5D4:9FE3:710A:C48B (talk)02:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse overwhelming support to keep the article such that there was zero prospect of the AFD closing in any way that would not result in the article being retained, making this a highly appropriate SNOW close. My advice to the appellant is to consider a better rationale for deletion in at least two months and after news of this topic dies down, or to improve the page.FrankAnchor03:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No matter if there is no fatalities happened. I suspected the nominator is abusing the guidelines and should be labelled as vandalism. Fatalities, plane heavily damaged. Everything enough for label the incident as an "accident". I don't know why AfD could be reopened or restart. The result was Keep per WP:SNOW but in my opinion, it should beSpeedy keep orSpeedy close, which no one thinks of, instead.KyleRGiggs (talk)05:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Goes againstWP:NOTNEWS if we're going by the letter of policy, so the nom is technically not wrong, but in this case it's 99.9999999% certain it will have sustained notability simply due to the nature of the article as a major airplane accident so an AfD didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding and using some common sense was in order. I think the closure was therefore accurate.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)12:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain in a bit more detail how you think NOTNEWS applie to this,Zxcvbnm? I'm obviously of a different opinion, but I genuinely wonder how you think that policy could be used to delete this.Jclemens (talk)21:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? Some events, like this one, are obviously going to get sustained coverage based on historic patterns of coverage for previous similar events. I'd invite you again--whatspecific wording in NOTNEWS did this run afoul of at the time it was nominated?Jclemens (talk)01:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the divided participation between keep and merge combined with canvassing suspicion, I disagree that this merits an unexplained speedy SNOW keep by a non-admin after being open only two days.Left guide (talk)05:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Left guide did not follow DRV procedure by coming here instead of posting on the closure's talk page.
Anyway, I ask anyone to look at the discussion and see whether it could be closed any other way, at the time of closure or five days later.
There is a real cost when current events are put up for deletion that efforts are diverted from improving the article to participating in the AfD. (t ·c)buidhe05:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This is an entirely reasonable instance of what we're discussing atWT:SK currently: deletion discussions left open on current topics of general interest make us look bad. I applaud the closer for taking the initiative, and agree that SNOW keep, at least for now, is reasonable. However, in the spirit of that discussion, a relatively speedy renomination, 2-4 weeks, should allow the news cycles to run and see if this has lasting coverage. I suspect it will not, but little is gained by fighting over this right away.Jclemens (talk)06:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy renominate, this time EC-protecting the AfD, asWP:CT/AP allows us to do, in hope of curbing the canvassing. The closer, who acted in good faith, was tricked by a barrage of canvassed voters into misinterpreting the discussion as SNOW. I see none of the AfD regulars there. The mostly inexperiencedKeeps exhibited gross ignorance of our guidelines, making their pile-on (!)vote meaningless. Relisting would be fruitless, since the discussion has already been befouled by the canvassed votes. The current Wait-and-See RfC atWT:SK isn't likely to pass. This means our existing guidelines are still in force, requiring us to wait for notability before publishing, rather than wait for the dust to settle before deleting.Owen×☎08:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Making major assumptions about canvassing. Just because some, for example, were not "one of the AfD regulars" doesn't mean that canvassing took place. This is a subject area that interests a lot of people, so it's no surprise that it caught the attention of newbies.172.56.13.52 (talk)20:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see the SNOW rationale was open to reasonable objection but it looks to me a speedy close was valid byWP:SKCRIT#1 because the nominator was "only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging) and no new delete rationale appears in the deletion discussion". The nomination and discussion were unsatisfactory.Thincat (talk)09:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad close summary. Change it to “The result waskeep per WP:SNOW; merge proposals can move to the article talk page”. “Speedy keep” is not correct. Advise the closer to readWP:SK#NOT.SmokeyJoe (talk)11:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am someone who rarely participates in AfD discussions (and votedKeep) but that doesn't mean that I'm ignorant of how they work. Maybe speedy keep was the wrong play, but this is a topic of, at this time, international significance at the moment and the options were keep/merge. A later relisting seems fine but I also think keeping it for now seems merited.Jessamyn (my talk page)15:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose, at minimum, per SmokeyJoe. That said, merge proposals (as well as redirects), may get wider participation at an AfD than on the talk page of an article, and closers should not prematurely close a good discussion about an article, just because it may meet the criteria of an early close. In this case, a 7-day discussion probably would have led to more clarity (although at the end, the result probably would be the same). --Enos733 (talk)16:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge proposals belong on talk pages. Merging is too complicated for AfD. When it comes to actually doing the merge, the merge material might get rejected at the target, and further talk is needed, which is not compatible with it having been decided at AfD.
Redirects are well discussed and decided at AfD.
At this AfD, there were a few “merge” !votes and zero “redirect” !votes.
Reclose as a non-snow speedy keep (SK#1) and start a proposed merge at the suggested target article's talk page. This laughable AfD(-in-name-only) was not a deletion discussion; what editors would like to do is discuss merging, and they need a bit of procedural assistance.—Alalch E.11:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reclose. It's a clear keep. It can be re-nominated in a few months if necessary. In the meantime, I'd like a section added to the article about reactions frompublic intellectuals and non-partisan groups such asNAACP, theAnti-Defamation League, if they exist and are sourced by reliable sources. The article could also use some careful copy editing.Bearian (talk)16:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relistall This is a case where admins trying to stop a spamming user got a bit overzealous. SeeThatOneVideoGamer, which I created in 2023 and it got deleted with R3 even though it's not recently created and it's mentioned in the article andthis edit where an admin reverts a valid addition to a name SIA because of a false positive by CluebotNG. In my opinion, this shows that all redirects toThe Completionist that were deleted recently need to be checked. This includes "Jirard" which should get the full 7 days at RfD like any other redirect.Warudo (talk)14:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The discussion was closed after just a few hours with no explanation and against the sole !vote. If there was some newly discovered speedy delete reason or some other development, this should have been explained in the close or in a comment to inform the assessments of other editors in an ongoing discussion. Sometimes editors with a history of bad redirects create one that is appropriate. The standard 7 day discussion allows other editors to weigh in. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)14:59, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relistall andWP:TROUT the closing admin for this obvious overreach. One user’s opinion is never consensus to delete, particularly with a good faith keep !vote present(as in the case of Jirard) and particularly when it was only listed for four hours (though I support relist even if this RFD ran for a full week).FrankAnchor15:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist all. RfDs and CfDs are often poorly attended, forcing the closer to determine the right course of action based on just a couple of !votes. But in closing the RfDs within 4-6 hours after they were opened, this was essentially a speedy deletion, with no CSD criterion spelled out by the closer. I'm reluctant to pull out the old trout before hearing whatBrandon has to say. For all we know, this could have been a clerical mistake that he can correct by relisting and procedurally closing this DRV. Personally, I cannot think of any valid reason to keep phrases likeLook At It! orPlay It! as a redirect to a Youtuber who happens to use those expressions. But I also cannot in good faith dismiss them as CSD-grade patent nonsense or vandalism. This means that once started, the RfD should be allowed to run its course.Owen×☎17:17, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
endorse all besides jirard. i guess we can just consider them snow blocks, since they weren't really plausible. no opinion on jirard, though, since i can't really name other people with that name. also, note that some of those are being undeleted also without discussion, which is kind of annoyingconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)19:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
This is an odd case, but I have requested undeletion atWP:Requests for undeletion. However since articles deleted per a deletion discussion cannot be undeleted there, now my option is to ask the deleting admin, but they said no, so now my only options are to do a deletion review or contact other admins. I have improved the article in mysandbox and I want it to be restored in a user subpage until it is notable, which will be when an editor reviews it. -BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk,contributions)16:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and decline draft.The new draft is no better than the deleted version in terms of sourcing, relying entirely on a PhD thesis that--as far as I can tell--has never been published outside that university. I have no objection to adding the subject as a line to the table atLinguolabial consonant, and recreating the deleted page as a redirect to it.Owen×☎17:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and respect the AfD decision for at least six months. Your sandbox draft has weak sources, and I suspect that on deep analysis it might be revealed to be largely Original Research (WP:OR), whether yours or the PhD thesis. It looks hyper-focused, and good, but Wikipedia needs it to be covered, explicitly, elsewhere before it is covered as an article in Wikipedia. I like the advice above for you to add some information atLinguolabial consonant.SmokeyJoe (talk)21:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is way too skinny for an article. I lean to thinking that it is not worth even a mention. Maybe we can label it “too technical” for Wikipedia.SmokeyJoe (talk)10:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What is being requested fromDeletion Review, and why? The appellant has created a draft in a sandbox. It appears that the appellant is requesting that the deleted article be refunded to draft space. Why? The appellant can submit the sandbox for review. OwenX says that it will be declined, but DRV does not review drafts, although any of its editors can. The appellant does not need the deleted article, either in draft space or elsewhere. What is the purpose of this request?Robert McClenon (talk)04:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This is functionally a waste of volunteer effort. The nominator should step away and learn how to use the GNG appropriately to assess sources. Until then, their efforts to get this blatantly non-notable crud into main space need to stop. This is only barely borderline disruptive at this pointSpartazHumbug!04:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. The last AfD has not been challenged. Pro forma "endorse". This is about whether a user can have a certain user subpage; they want the subpage to be created via undeletion of an AfD-deleted article. But at the same time, the user has created a new draft, so the user does not need this. Therefore, it appears that the user is asking for something they do not need. That's the only thing which makes for an odd case here.—Alalch E.11:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, maybe I could do it this way instead:
Keep developing the draft, which is now auser subpage.
When I believe it is notable, I will have an editor review it.
If accepted, I will request that the pageVoiced linguolabial lateral approximant be undeleted, right after being restored, I will paste in my improved version, and I will request deletion of the user subpage.
It is possible to move a draft to article space. More importantly, drafts aren't notable or non-notable. Topics are. Non-notable topics do not become notable by editors developing a draft. —Alalch E.17:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
I request a review of the recent AfD closure (“delete”) of theLawrence Udeigwe article. The discussion was closed prematurely without full consideration of new, significant evidence establishing notability underWP:MUSICBIO andWP:GNG.
Disclosure: I am the subject of the article. This request focuses solely on procedural and policy issues, not personal or promotional concerns.
Grounds for review:
1.Late substantive evidence not considered. A “Keep” argument by userUser:Isaajibola (posted 13 October) presented multiple reliable, independent sources includingAll About Jazz (2016, 2018),Punch Nigeria,Daily Times,PM News, andAfrican American News, showing sustained coverage across several years. These clearly meetWP:MUSICBIO andWP:GNG, but the AfD was closed on 14 October—before any editor could assess or respond to this new evidence.
2.Low participation and unclear consensus. The discussion included two Delete votes and multiple Keep arguments (at least one valid Keep before relisting and a detailed Keep by Isaajibola just before closure). Shortly after the latter, editor David Eppstein inserted a “not a vote / canvassing warning” template and related commentary that appeared to pre-emptively discredit new participation. The article was deleted only a few hours later. GivenWP:AFDCLOSING, which advises relisting when new evidence or arguments are presented late in low-participation discussions, this sequence suggests the closure was premature and potentially influenced by procedural irregularities.
3.Questionable conduct and bias. One Delete comment contained a discriminatory remark (“A Nigerian male? That’s even more of a case for deletion.”), violatingWP:NPA andWP:UCoC. Such remarks compromise the integrity of consensus and should not influence closure.
4.Reliable coverage meets WP:MUSICBIO.All About Jazz reviews by professional critic James Nadal provide detailed critical analysis, which qualifies as significant coverage. Combined with major national press coverage (Punch,Daily Times,PM News), this demonstrates sustained, independent attention over nearly a decade.
Requested action: Pleaseoverturn the deletion and restore the article, or alternativelyreopen the AfD for proper reassessment with the new evidence considered.Fractal2024 (talk)14:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of thedeletion review of the page listed in the heading.Please do not modify it.
Hi everyone, I’m resubmitting this deletion review because the earlier one was closed as procedural. I'm a real editor and would like the community to take a fresh look at the AfD close forLawrence Udeigwe.
The AfD was closed only a few hours after new reliable sources were added in a Keep vote byUser:Isaajibola. These included two detailed reviews fromAll About Jazz (2016 and 2018) and national press coverage fromPunch,Daily Times, andPM News. These show sustained, independent coverage of Lawrence Udeigwe’s music career and appear to meetWP:MUSICBIO andWP:GNG. However, the AfD was closed on 14 October, just before any editor could respond to or even evaluate this new evidence.
The discussion had very few participants overall: two clear Delete votes and a few Keep votes. Shortly after the last Keep vote, editor David Eppstein inserted a “not a vote / canvassing warning” template and commentary that seemed to discourage additional participation from more editors. The article was deleted only a few hours later.
One Delete comment also contained a discriminatory remark (“A Nigerian male? That’s even more of a case for deletion.”), which violatesWP:NPA andWP:UCoC. Remarks like this compromise the integrity of the consensus and should not influence closure.
Also, before the close, user 173.79.19.248 posted an accusation againstIsaajibola for alleged undisclosed paid editing, only hours after that user’s detailed Keep argument. There was no evidence presented and no administrative action taken before the close, yet this claim appears to have affected the decision. This represents a procedural irregularity inconsistent withWP:AFDCLOSING andWP:UCoC since it undermined fair consideration of valid evidence.
Given the late submission of significant sources, the limited participation, and the procedural and conduct concerns noted above, I request that the deletion be overturned and the article restored, or alternatively that the AfD be reopened for proper reassessment.
I haven't more than glanced at this yet, and may or may not eventually take a closer look, but there's a now-blocked user that used at least three completely different sigs in this afd. —Cryptic17:14, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Request for Deletion Review – Lawrence Hunt
Background: The article Lawrence Hunt was deleted following concerns about insufficient independent coverage, promotional tone, and possible conflict of interest.
Reason for review: A new, fully rewritten draft has been prepared that addresses all of the issues raised in the original deletion discussion. The updated version:
Draws on multiple reliable, independent sources, including Evening Standard, The Guardian, The Telegraph, FlightGlobal, and UK Parliamentary records, all of which provide significant third-party coverage of Hunt’s career and public role.
Has been rewritten in a neutral, encyclopedic tone with all promotional and self-sourced material removed.
Uses proper citation formatting in line with Wikipedia’s verifiability and sourcing policies.
Request: I respectfully request that the page Lawrence Hunt be undeleted and restored to draft space (User or Draft namespace) so that the new, policy-compliant version can be reviewed for potential reinstatement. This new draft demonstrates clear notability under WP:BIO and meets WP:NPOV and WP:V standards.
Endorse unanimous close, and allow recreation. The inexperienced appellant created the new draft asa wiki-markup formatted PDF file, oddly enough. I didn't review the new sources, but if the appellant has a COI with the subject, this should probably go through AfC anyway.Owen×☎12:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy procedural close as this appeal runs afoul ofWP:DRVPURPOSE which says (emphasis in original):
Deletion review shouldnot be used…to point outother pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits)
Vacate BADNAC No way that shows a clear enough consensus for a NAC--I'd argue it hadn't reached consensus at all, so either an admin reclose or relist would both be fine.Jclemens (talk)05:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vanderwaalforces has over 50,000 edits, and has been closing discussion for years. I don't think it's fair to argue an incorrect conclusion was reached due to inexperience with editing or closing. Nor do I think someone is better at closing just because they're an admin. I'm an admin who rarely uses admin tools, and I have much less experience closing discussions. --Beland (talk)03:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an invalid argument. TFD does not require NACs to operate a certain way. Consensus to reach X is allowed for any non-admin closer.Izno (talk)05:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I'm not used to nuances of here a NAC, there a NAC. I don't do TFD at all, but my default assumption is that a non-obvious close needs an admin, and this one clearly appears as such to me.Jclemens (talk)06:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a point of education then :^): At TFD, it's fine to say the close was bad. It's not fine to say it was because they were not an admin.Izno (talk)23:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sold on the idea that a NAC is fine at one venue, bad in another. That's special pleading. I do note that my immediately prior edit was a NAC here at DRV... but that's because there was zero disagreement between established editors and doing so is well within the page precedent.Jclemens (talk)01:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not special pleading though. TFD is set up to allow anyone to close. That's ignoring that "BADNAC" is an essay, despite its referrers trying to apply it elsewhere (for any of several possible reasons). Ignoring that, of course, none of the reasons laid out in the actual section on BADNAC apply in this specific instance to the specific NAC: The topic is not contentious, VF has plenty of experience editing Wikipedia, this is TFD where non-admins can do things, and they were uninvolved in the discussion.
WP:NACD does exist: VF indicated they're not an admin, they don't appear to have violated ADMINACCT/UNINVOLVED, and it's TFD as above. And a few other bullets mostly echoing BADNAC's list.
But from NACD,Close calls [...] are better left to admins. which is reasonably relevant. But it'sbetter left to admins and notverboten for non-admins. Among the criteria, I don't find this collection of facts strongly an argument for atoss on this dimension.Izno (talk)02:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I don’t agree that this is a badnac. Some XFDs have to operate in an environment with nacs because there are simply no admins interested in that area who understand it well enough to interpret those arguments. That said it, despite being open two months, I wouldn’t like to have to find a consensus there - but see my previous comment. The argument that we are removing a redundancy has some attraction to me though so I’m firmly in the meh camp.SpartazHumbug!10:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't excuse an incorrect suggestion that this was a BADNAC. It may be BAD, but that it was an NAC is irrelevant at TFD.Izno (talk)05:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is also true; the issue here isn't that the closer doesn't have enough experience to close contentious discussions, it's just that they made a close which (IMO) doesn't reflect the consensus the discussion came to.* Pppery *it has begun...19:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the outcome, though it would have probably been better to be left to an administrator. Policy-based votes show a rough consensus to replace, considering the main “keep” argument is that it would take a considerable effort to replace the thousands of instances across Wikipedia. The closer correctly gave that argument less weight asthere is no deadline to complete this task.FrankAnchor14:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, or re-open There was never really an explanation of the technical merit of merging. Put the other way, what technical debt or problem is incurred leaving it in place as a shortcut? I wouldn't readily dismiss the argument that a substantial number of edits are required on a merge either; that's not determinative, but it's a relevant consideration.Local Variable (talk)04:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know exactly how to !vote on this request to vacate a Bad non-administrative closing.Don't vacate the closing? I do know I want this "Authority control (arts)" wrapper, or template, or whatever the heck it is, to be deleted. The consensus was to delete this, the result languished for months, if not years. I can't even find the original request for deletion, but nobody uses this template except the template's creator, who, after applying the template without consensus, is now claiming that it would be too much work to delete and has started this discussion up yet again. In the words ofJames Brown "Please, please, please..." --WomenArtistUpdates (talk)01:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure deletion of the template follows from deleting the fork of the module. Deleting the forked module is easy, deleting the template in question necessitates a huge number of changes in articles.Local Variable (talk)05:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the template had been deleted after that discussion, a DRV would have rapidly overturned it. You can't nominate a no longer used module for deletion, and then hijack that discussion to delete an in-use template which isn't even tagged for deletion and for which the reasons for deletion of the module don't apply (and even less so when the people arguing for such stealth deletion are the same ones who argued for its deletion in the previous TfD which ended in keep). Hence my fear that once they get rid of the wrapper, they will then remove the functionality as that wouldn't require a more public TfD but could just be done with a template talk page discussion among very few people. I still don't get the reason why those people don't want this to exist and believe that it is sufficient to have e.g. 18 relevant Authority Control links atVincent van Gogh, but want instead to show 49 such links, all with the same info but in different languages ([2][3][4]). All of these and many more are available from Wikidata, why all of them need to be visible on an enwiki article is never made clear (apparently "for librarians" as if they can't and don't use Wikidata when necessary).Fram (talk)10:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Except in unusual circumstances which don't apply here, every deletion discussion requires each page it would apply to do be separately tagged and listed in the header. And if I had seen it at a time when the consensus wasn't obvious I would also have supported deleting the module - it's fine, and probably a good idea for the same backend code to be used.* Pppery *it has begun...19:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the template's creator, who, after applying the template without consensus, is now claiming that it would be too much work to delete and has started this discussion up yet again." I didn't start this DRV, and didn't claim that it would be "too much work" to delete.
Nor did I claim it was too much work to delete - if there were a strong reason to delete I would have been fine with it. My !vote there, expanded, is that by doing this you would have run a bot to make 16,000 edits, and what you would be accomplishing by doing that? Nothing but making things look slightly tidier. (I don't buy Fram's fear that the entire functionality will be neutered in a later module update).* Pppery *it has begun...19:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me the facts are that this thing was created for no reason except one person found the regular authority control template to be too cluttered on the desktop version. The art specific template serves no useful function, it just satisfies one (1) person's aesthetics. The template was deployed by a bot making replacements before any meaningful discussion took place. This has now evolved into a years long technical debate that will keep reappearing with someone new asking "why does this even exist?" every once in a while. It doesn't save any space. It doesn't make the information any clearer one way of the other. For every Vincent van Gogh example there can be another one produced to show why all the data IS interesting.
Like many things, it was created by one person, but then debated by the wider community at the TfD I linked to above, and that closed as keep. So the "one person" argument no longer applies. Feel free to list your counterexamples though.Fram (talk)20:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, bad close. I have no idea what the "stronger policy-based arguments" are that the close is based on. Which policy?Fram (talk)07:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find a need to address this comment, especially since it is a question. One ofWP:TFD#REASONS is that "the template is redundant to a better-designed template", I'm sorry but imagine if the creation of this template was done now in 2025, I wonder who would use it instead of just using the normal template with a|show=arts parameter. FWIW, imagine someone creating a template called "Reflist (indent)" when editors could just simply say "Reflist|indent=yes". So, yeah, I found the argument of 16k bot edits to articles being a problem to be of less weight compared to the argument about complexity and, as I stated on my talk, avoid confusion for editors and ensures that future changes only need to be made in one place. I am sorry if this was a BADNAC, and I stand to be corrected.Vanderwaalforces (talk)10:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the template is redundant to a better-designed template": that's a possible reason why a template may be nominated for deletion, not a policy reason that it has to be deleted. Otherwise why would we even have the discussion? Every wrapper template is redundant, feel free to propose a speedy deletion to get rid of all of them. Here it feels like a supervote.Fram (talk)10:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not a super vote, it is exactly what I avoid when closing discussions. My explanations are branches of my close, not to try to become INVOLVED in the discussion process. Thank you.Vanderwaalforces (talk)10:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eyeballing this, I'd put it inno consensus orrelist territory. "I don't want a bot to replace 16k uses" is not a terribly strong rationale at TFD, which does that all the time. "This is extra complexity" isn't a terribly strong rationale the other direction (for this case at least). Having two separate templates use the same module under the hood means there's functionally no code duplication. And that's the entire lot of the set here. There is a good argument for deletion here which is that having the separate template is "redundant to a better-designed template." (one supports parameters, one does not), but this wasn't made or weighed explicitly.Izno (talk)23:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misread of the point I tried to make that could have been made; instead, it was just "template A works with no parameters, template B works with 1 parameter" to achieve identical functionality, and we typically tend to prefer templates with more functionality per template than less. But as I said, a discussion point for the TFD to have decided (or decide).Izno (talk)05:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree with the closer that supporters of deleting the template have the stronger policy-based arguments, despite the number of !votes in the discussion. Editors arguing to keep the template suggested that a change would be cosmetic and there are 16k changes needed. These arguments are usually not strong arguments to make in a deletion discussion. In contrast, editors supporting replacing the template pointed to depreciating redundant wrappers. --Enos733 (talk)21:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (uninvolved) - PerWP:NOTAVOTE. I think that the closer made the right call, as there was a valid argument for modernization of the template in favor, and some weak arguments against that were countered by the final comment in which assistance with a bot to make the changes was offered, leaving seemingly little downside to modifying the template. Why not allowing a bot to make the changes would be bad to the point of overriding the benefits of modernization of the template was not fully expounded upon.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)07:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The closer said...deprecating redundant wrappers to reduce maintenance complexity. ... what maintenance complexity? No one in the discussion made a direct reference to maintenance or maintenance complexity. It isn't clear what this maintenance complexity might be from the discussion or in general. The template source code is{{#invoke:Authority control | authorityControl | show=arts }}. The template reached a stage where there's nothing to maintain. The close resembles a supervote. There was not a consensus for the challenged outcome.—Alalch E.21:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I missed your comment when reading the discussion in order to comment in this DRV. Would it be fair for me to say that the complexity you refer to is the situation of an editor being unsure about which template to pick, and not a "maintenance complexity" as in a need to synchronize the two templates if one changes, etc.? —Alalch E.18:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E.: Broadly yes, the complexity is mostly on the user side rather than the maintenance side, since this template is basically a redirect to the Lua template with a manually defined parameter. However, there is also documentation maintenance complexity here sinceTemplate:Authority control and the module supports more parameters that aren't currently documented (but do work) viaTemplate:Authority control (arts), such as the 'suppress' parameter, and this template blocks the choice of multiple whitelists, which also isn't currently documented. Thanks.Mike Peel (talk)19:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. NACs are allowed because they help. When an NAC causes more trouble, it was not helpful. In hindsight, the close is an obviously BADNAC. The close was a close call. It could have easily been called “no consensus”. The closer should convert their closing rationale to a !vote.SmokeyJoe (talk)10:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This user does close things from time to time, but I would have closed it as replace - the votes to keep were "it's too much of a pain to change" which isn't really policy based.SportingFlyerT·C22:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was not originally part of the deletion discussion, but added late into the discussion. Open to recreation instead with different contents. This was an dab page to two pages that both redirected toVinland. A battle in Vinland is already specified at these points in the Vinland article. The existence of these sentences where never brought up in the deletion discussion.
Saga of the greenlanders:"The explorers were then attacked in force, but managed to survive with only minor casualties by retreating to a well-chosen defensive position, a short distance from their base. One of the local people picked up an iron axe, tried it, and threw it away."This is also mentioned in chapter 6 of Saga of the greenlanders,https://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/graens.htm , in Icelandic. I was also able to find another battle in chapter 4, although that one was started with an ambush by the explorers.
Saga of Erik the Red:"One day, the local traders were frightened by the sudden arrival of the Greenlanders' bull, and they stayed away for three weeks. They then attacked in force, but the explorers managed to survive with only minor casualties, by retreating inland to a defensive position, a short distance from their camp."This is also mentioned in chapter 11 of Saga of Erik the Red,https://www.snerpa.is/net/isl/eirik.htm , in Icelandic
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
