Wikipedia:Deletion review

This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

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

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

Purpose

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

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

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

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

1. 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.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 February 11}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 February 11}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 February 11|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Active discussions

9 February 2025

Aer Lingus Flight 328

Aer Lingus Flight 328 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In spite of the fact there were more delete than keep !votes in this discussion, sometimes we just get things wrong. While I understand why this was nominated for deletion - the article at the time of nomination had three sources and was a recreation of a previously deleted article - the rationale for deletion was fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:LASTING, and I believe all of these reasons were clearly refuted by the introduction of additional sources which shows that it not only met GNG (significant international coverage), but that coverage was continuing (was in the news for months, including articles in April 1986, follow up stories two years later, and mentions decades later) and that it had lasting impacts (change to airframe design and airline safety structure). The discussion also broke towards keeping, and the delete !voters after either did not assess the sources or misapplied WP:NOTNEWS. I'm asking for this to be overturned to no consensus or possibly even a keep. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse. Even after Aviationwikiflight made the main argument to keep based on continuing coverage, opinions were split between Keep and Delete. The discussion as a whole shows a reasonably clear consensus to not retain this as a separate article so redirect as an ATD is a better close than "No Consensus". While aviation incident AfD's can be contentious, my reading has been that the guidelines are pretty deletionist so there is no good reason to favor keeping absent a majority in the discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to Keep Enough of the Delete !votes are factually wrong (GNG is, in fact, met) or misstate policy (that's not what NOTNEWS says) that closing as delete is an insult to the participants who participated in a thoughtful way. SportingFlyer is correct; we got this one wrong. I suspect we'll get the DRV wrong, too, as lately there's been a bias towards "no process problem means no problem" which I expect will be reflected in future commentaries. Also, an NC isn't necessarily better or worse than a redirect/merge. If there's really no consensus to delete, then enforcing a merge or redirect isn't necessary or appropriate. ATDs are not Alternatives to No Consensus. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to Relist - On the one hand, the idea that a single Keep vote and the addition of sources justifies a conclusion to Keep is very much a stretch. On the other hand, the addition of sources that were not considered by the early Delete votes is sufficient reason for a Relist of an AFD that was not previously relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Robert McClenon: The AFD was relisted twice. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 08:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed, and while the initial trajectory suggested newer people were swayed, the post-relist !votes seemed to ignore that part of the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  I am not sure who or what to be annoyed at. I see that the AFD was relisted twice. I don't think that I should have to read the history of the AFD to see the relists, because I think that the AFD should contain notes about the relists. Striking Relist and reconsidering. I don't think that a single Keep establishes consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Annoyed at myself for being confused by a Reflist in the middle of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Overturn to Relist - there were several additional references added to the article and quite a few clarifying edits, too, which were not reflected in changes/reappraisal from the earlier participants. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus. I don't see any consensus to delete and/or redirect, and relisting the discussion for a third time will not change that. The delete/redirect !votes citing WP:NOTNEWS were successfully refuted based on WP:SUSTAINED coverage presented by Aviationwikiflight and SportingFlyer. Likewise, those two argued that these sources passed WP:GNG and I do not see those arguments being successfully refuted. Frank Anchor 14:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note from closer: User talk:Asilvering#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aer Lingus Flight 328 (2nd nomination). -- asilvering (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse, though I would consider expanding the closing statement. In a case such as this, in which the target is already a part of a broader list article, arguments to keep need to justify the existence of a standalone article. The arguments to keep focus on the existence of many contemporary sources and showing the existence of sources over a period of time, without showing why the encyclopedic content could not be adequately covered in a list. I would agree that some arguments to delete misapply NOTNEWS - we do not entirely discount news coverage, we apply common sense with respect to expected flurries of news coverage that might create a large number of sources but do not necessarily offer independent content. That said, the keeps are weaker on the whole, and fundamentally do not show why a standalone article is justified. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't remember ever seeing this as a rule. Is there a guideline you can link? SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NOPAGE documents the basic principle, but long-standing practice supports this as well - when we have a little encyclopedic material about a subject, it is often presented as part of a larger topic. This isn't a deletionist principle - I am a firm believer that PERMASTUBS are a critical part of the encyclopedia - but when material can be viably covered in different ways, it is incumbent upon those who want a standalone to demonstrate the need for it (conversely, those proposing redirecting/merging need to justify why it wouldn't create balance problems - but that wasn't an issue here). Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Look, I've participated in thousands of AfDs now. NOPAGE rarely, if ever, comes up. When it does, it's usually implicit, since there's generally a discussion as whether a redirect would be appropriate. That didn't happen here. The two redirect !voters didn't participate after sources were found. As an experienced AfD participant, I certainly didn't know I was facing the additional bar of showing that this almost 500-word (and expandable) article would not be better off covered as two sentences in another article, as no one had specifically argued for that, instead just mentioning a redirect might be an AtD. As a voter I was simply trying to demonstrate why it should be kept. So now we're in a situation where people are admitting GNG was met and that NOTNEWS was mis-applied, but are still nevertheless endorsing the close and keeping a completely valid article out of mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 21:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Arguing for redirection or merging is arguing against a standalone article. No specific reference to NOPAGE is required. I linked that guideline because you seemed to believe that finding a couple of sources was enough. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  First, you specifically said In a case such as this, in which the target is already a part of a broader list article, arguments to keep need to justify the existence of a stand-alone article. That is not part of WP:NOPAGE. Second, I never said "finding a couple sources is enough." There are many sources available here, and typically passing WP:GNG is enough for a stand-alone article unless there's some sort of good reason not to have one. It's not an additional barrier for those advocating for a stand-alone page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse (in that order). I generally endorse the assessment of consensus as there were ~10 !votes to delete and ~5 to keep. While a mere majority does not define consensus, that margin does adequately support the conclusion of the admin. Likewise, though the keeps and deletes each have flaws, the delete arguments overall are more compelling. Delete and redirect is an entirely reasonable/appropriate option. If overturned, it should return to relisting. Buffs (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - Oops. I misread the AFD because it had a Reflist in the middle. Completely striking. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• overturn to NC I don't see how the discussion can be said to have reached a consensus. Further, there are enough sources that WP:N is met. The NOTNEWS objections feel a bit weak in the face of coverage spanning more than a year. So keeping the article isn't offensive to our standards. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I do think that the NOTNEWS objections feel weak, as sources describing the crash decades later were presented in the discussion. However, editors can have disagreements about the application of policies and guidelines. So, while Jclemens is correct that there is a bias in Deletion Review towards "no process problem means no problem," it should be a high bar to overturn a close (to keep) when the vast majority of editors recommended deletion of the article based on their understanding of our policies/guidelines. And, the editors after the second relist came to conclusion that the article should not remain in main space after SportingFlyer and Aviationwikiflight made the case that the article should be kept. This means that the last editors to comment were not persuaded to keep the article. So, I end up supporting the close, despite how I might have !voted. Based on the discussion, I cannot see a justifiable case to keep the article, and while a no consensus close may be justifiable, the most justifiable close is what was made - a redirect to a page where the incident is described. --Enos733 (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse. I agree with Jclemens, SportingFlyer and Vanamonde93 that several of the Delete !votes misapplied NOTNEWS, which is a common problem with several of the WP:NOT policy sections. I also accept that the claim of meeting GNG was not adequately refuted. But as Vanamonde93 points out, the Keep arguments failed to demonstrate how the proposed target of the redirect, which already had a description of the event, fails to cover the encyclopedic content. WP:NOPAGE instructs us that some notable content can fit well as an entry in a list or as a section in another article. In their closing comment, Asilvering explicitly left the door wide open to merging more content into the target, and to discussing a possible split in the future. Even if we completely discard the NOTNEWS arguments, I still see a rough consensus not to keep the standalone article, and no compelling argument that the topic requires more than a list entry. This wasn't an easy AfD to close, and I think asilvering nailed it. Owen× ☎ 21:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think the topic of being covered at the proposed merge target is an excellent point for a merge discussion, and properly brought up here.

  This isn't a merge discussion.

  Until and unless WP:PEREN#Rename AFD is overturned (which I favor) arguments about whether an article should be kept or not are off-topic. The proper (and only) decision an AfD should be making is "Is this article compliant with our inclusion criteria?" If it is, great, suggestions such as yours belong in a separate merge discussion. This is not me being POINTy about the rejection of a proposal I endorse, mind you, just attempting to consistently apply the community's will: If this isn't Articles for Discussion, then once the decision is made that deletion isn't appropriate, further nuanced discussion supporting such an outcome is against the will of the community. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  AfD is for challenges to notability. Sometimes those challenges are entirely rebutted, and an article is kept: sometimes, they are partially rebutted, and a merger is a valid outcome. A merge does not presuppose that notability is met. In any case, I don't see how an attempt to explain the failure of a proposal at PEREN carries sufficient weight to obviate merge discussions at AfD, and when consensus for a merge exists, denying that possibility is contrary to our ethos. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's relevant to the argument made by OwenX. His claim is that "...the Keep arguments failed to demonstrate how the proposed target of the redirect ... fails to cover the encyclopedic content." That isn't the bar for AfD and expecting the keep !voters to address that is moving the goalposts. Redirect is an outcome we consider if notability isn't there as an Alternative to Deletion. AfD isn't the place to reach a merge/redirect outcome for organizational reasons--that option has been explicitly rejected by the community. OwenX appears to be endorsing the redirect for organizational reasons. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's not supported by common practice. When notability isn't in doubt, a merge request is appropriate, but there is no policy precluding mergers at AfD (and by extension, redirects when content exists at the target), and it would need consensus to prohibit such. Out of curiosity I skimmed my AfD closes and contributions, and found that in both cases approximately 5% of AfDs are closed "merge", which is 2-4 discussions per day. I've made nearly 100 merge closes myself, and I don't believe a single one has been overturned at DRV. If the community doesn't support merges at AfD, we're doing a bad job of showing it. While there is an interesting philosophical distinction between merging a non-notable subject as an alternative to deletion, and merging a notable subject for organizational reasons, in practice the distinction doesn't come up at AfD. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

8 February 2025

Paolo_Rossi_(footballer,_born_1982) – Moot. AfD reopened Star Mississippi 22:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paolo_Rossi_(footballer,_born_1982) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This discussion was closed by a non-administrator as "no consensus", with zero further explanation. However, as the !vote counts superficially are close (5 delete, 2 weak keeps, 2 keeps, but with several keeps based conclusively on non-RS), and because deletion would have been a reasonable outcome, I believe this should have been evaluated by an admin, per our deletion guideline Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. The recent global consensus of WP:SPORTSCRIT requires a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in all sportsperson articles, in addition to the subject meeting GNG, but the only source in the AfD argued as even approaching SIGCOV was later shown to be AI-generated. Other sources claimed to be evidence of notability were primary stats pages, the subject's own league website, blogs, and coverage that the keep !voters agreed was merely passing mentions, which all objectively fail GNG. Therefore, the three !votes of editors claiming SIGCOV based on these sources should have been appropriately down-weighted, as should have arguments asserting notability based on deprecated NFOOTY criteria and/or that did not identify a SPORTSCRIT-meeting source. Asking the original closer to reconsider was unproductive (Hi there, that wasn’t a controversial discussion that required an admin to close. Try deletion review as my close was correct.). I am asking that this AfD be reopened and relisted/closed by an admin, as deletion should have been considered and at the very least there should have been a more detailed explanation for the close. Even if the outcome ends up being NC, I think it is inappropriate for NACs to make such closes. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 February 2025

Template:Drake series (closed)

Template:Drake series – Not a matter for DRV as noted below. Star Mississippi 15:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Drake series (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Template:Drake (musician) already existed; why do we have this template in the first place? Plus, it takes much space in articles. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC) Procedural close as wrong venue. The appellant is not contesting the deletion discussion, but rather the recreation of a template that was previously deleted at the linked discussion. This can potentially be speedy deleted via WP:G4, for which I tagged it. I am not an admin so I can not assess whether this version and the deleted version are sufficiently identical to each other. If this is not eligible for G4, then a second TFD can be opened. Frank Anchor 15:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Debangshu Bhattacharya

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

See below, it was breaking the template. Procedural on behalf of Konko Maji Star Mississippi 21:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC) -->

• Nomination request:
• Reason for review:

I respectfully request a reconsideration of the deletion of the Debangshu Bhattacharya article. Bhattacharya meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for politicians (WP:NPOL) as he has had a significant impact on West Bengal politics beyond just contesting the 2024 Lok Sabha elections from Tamluk. He is the State President of the AITC IT & Social Media Cell and is widely recognized for coining the slogan "Khela Hobe", which became a major political anthem during the 2021 West Bengal Assembly elections. His contributions to political discourse, digital campaign strategies, and youth mobilization have been extensively covered by national and regional media. Additionally, I have gathered independent, reliable sources that establish his notability beyond election-related coverage.

I request a review to determine if the deletion was appropriate or if the article should be restored and improved with proper citations.

New reliable sources:

• "TMC picks IT cell head to take on ex-judge Abhijit Gangopadhyay in Tamluk Lok Sabha" – The Times of India Discusses Bhattacharya’s political journey, his influence in West Bengal elections, and his impact on digital political movements.
• "Tamluk Lok Sabha Election Results 2024: TMC’s Debangshu Bhattacharya vs BJP’s Abhijit Gangopadhyay" – The Times of India Covers Bhattacharya’s electoral performance and his role in the political contest against key opposition figures.
• "Debangshu Bhattacharya News and Political Impact" – Anandabazar Patrika Provides continuous coverage of Bhattacharya’s political activities, public statements, and influence within the TMC.

I believe that these sources demonstrate his political notability and meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:NPOL, WP:GNG). I request the article’s reconsideration and potential restoration with proper sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konko Maji (talk • contribs)

• Filer note, their original request if attribution needed. With the bullets, I had some issues with the template as well. Anyone is welcome to clean up further. I am neutral. Star Mississippi 21:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse this isn't a second AfD - it's reviewing whether the closer got the consensus correct, and they did. Furthermore there does not appear to be a mistake made by those deleting, NPOL is for elected officials only. The redirect may need to be deleted as well as he is not mentioned on the page with the redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse the closure to the extent that this is an appeal of the closure by Asilvering as Delete. This appears to be partly AFD Round 2 and partly a request to add new sources. The title has not been salted, and the appellant may create a draft and submit it for review. The reviewer would be well advised to request that the deleted article be provided to them in user space or email so that they can compare the draft against the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• Previous closer here, but with "AFD closer hat" off and "WP:AFC reviewer hat" on: these sources don't help the case for notability. You can try recreating the article directly or making a draft and putting it through AFC, but I don't think that will end anywhere other than deletion. Sorry. -- asilvering (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

6 February 2025

Mehdi Hasan Khan

Mehdi Hasan Khan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted (actually redirected) in 2 October 2024 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehdi Hasan Khan) because it was WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:BLP1E. But in 2025 the subject got Ekushey Padak, the second highest civilian award in Bangladesh (see this news). As Ekushey Padak helped to meet the subject WP:ANYBIO (1 and 2), I request to restore the article. Mehedi Abedin 14:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You're ignoring the BLPRequestDelete part of the argument. Getting the award also unfortunately did not help in getting more coverage to meet Notability's goals. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse and protect redirect. Subject does not want an article and there is no encyclopedic need for one. Star Mississippi 15:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Noting that I have temporarily protected the redirect because the edits should not be happening until this DRV is resolved (in either direction). IF another admin feels that was the wrong action, feel free to revert without checking with me. Star Mississippi 17:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse and protect per above. Clear case of BLPREQUESTDELETE on a relatively unknown person. Frank Anchor 15:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse and protect per above, there is a clear and valid reason not to restore this. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Hemlata Mahishwar

Hemlata Mahishwar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Keep votes are not policy based. AndySailz (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Speedy endorse; no acceptable rationale for a deletion review has been offered per WP:DRVPURPOSE. (On the merits, the appellant is wrong; "keep" !voters cited NACADEMIC, NAUTHOR and other guidelines they argued the subject met. A no consensus close would have been within discretion, but that would have the same outcome as keep; deletion would not have been within discretion.) Of note, the appellant did not seek to discuss with the closer before opening this review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  As an uninvolved person, I'm skeptical. The only thing quoted from NProf/NAcademic was misquoting of the "Average Professor Test" as "is this researcher better than average?" instead of "does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?" while the guideline lists clear criteria to determine that, all of which Mahishwar fail.
  However, I'm not gonna !vote overturn because the only addressing of the NAuthor argument was @Qflib's claim that reviews must be in academia, which is not mentioned in said guideline and would be contrary to Notability's purpose of ensuring neutral coverage from all reliable sources. I also don't see why Forward Press is not a reliable source. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not saying I would have agreed with the "keep" !voters had I been a participant -- just that they did offer policy-based rationales contra the appellant's statement. We're not here to relitigate the discussion, just to evaluate the close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  For the record, I apologize for being impreccise. I only meant to point out that the reviews must be independent of the author and publisher. Certainly newspaper reviews from major outlets can satisfy this criterion. Qflib (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I wish only to comment that I do not think this was a good choice for a non-admin close, even by an experienced editor like Vanderwaalforces, as a discussion with policy-based arguments on both sides. I do think that keep or perhaps no consensus were the most likely outcomes, perhaps after a relist. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse I agree there is not an acceptable rationale for deletion review. I also agree that this was probably not the best discussion to close as a non-admin, since the arguments for and against deletion were strong and numerous, especially as one comment did not bold their delete rationale. --Enos733 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• @AndySaliz Please note that subsections will not give you notifications. To receive updates on edits to pages, click on the star on the top of the page to add it to your Special:Watchlist. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Ugh, bad ping. @AndySailz Aaron Liu (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse as a valid assessment of rough consensus by the closer. It is ironic that the nominator-appellant replied to all of the Keep statements that they were vague waves, but their statement that the Keeps were not policy-based is a vague wave. The nominator was cautioned in the AFD about bludgeoning the AFD, and that caution should continue to apply in DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse, reluctantly - I'm generally against non-admin closes, and I don't think those who wanted to keep this did a good enough job of laying out that argument, whereas those who even sort of !voted delete did a better job of engaging with the sources (a spot check of the BBC article shows she's just described as a professor and quoted.) However, there's nothing really to overturn here, and I can't see an admin making any other decision here. I would advise those wanting her to be kept to improve the article further and those advocating for delete to wait a few months and try again if that doesn't happen. SportingFlyer T·C 18:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

5 February 2025

2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash

2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm requesting that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash be relisted. On the surface, four keeps and one delete might seem like a straightforward keep, however looking at discussion and the strength of the arguments, in my opinion, I don't think a keep closure was warranted. The keep arguments mostly felt weak, with some only commenting "per X" or "meets WP:GNG" with the location of the accident (Sudan) being used as an excuse to exempt the event from notability guidelines, and mostly relied on non-P&G arguments to justify keeping the article. The sole delete basically refuted most of these arguments. The discussion could've benefited from a relist to allow further discussion on whether the sourcing was adequate, and whether or not WP:GNG and WP:N(E) were met. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse the close of Keep after one relist as a valid exercise of judgment by the closer. A second Relist would have also been a valid exercise of judgment, but we, the reviewers at DRV are not each closing the discussion, but are assessing whether the closer's judgment was valid. One of the Keep !voters did cite policies and guidelines. The appellant disagrees with that interpretation of policies and guidelines, but the closer agreed. The appellant is not so much asking for AFD Round 2 as asking each deletion reviewer to perform their own close. We are not each closing the discussion, but are reviewing the close, which was a valid exercise of judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Relist. While I wouldn't go as far as calling this a BADNAC, I do note that one of the Keeps has already been indef blocked at the time of closing, and the weight of the "meets WP:GNG for me" !vote is questionnable. And while WP:BIAS encourages us to reduce the amount of SIGCOV we require, I don't believe it allows us to reduce it to zero. This leaves us with two solid, P&G-based Deletes, and two or three Keeps of arguable strength. Not quite the uncontroversial situation we normally associate with a NAC, but also not to the point of an overturn. Owen× ☎ 19:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse While it might be plausible to close as "no consensus," it is well within a closer's discretion to close as keep. SportingFlyer describes the sourcing in the article and other editors agreed specifically with the analysis. "Meets WP:GNG" is sufficient in a deletion discussion, especially after other editors have commented extensively on the sourcing. The only pause is that the last comment was to delete the article, with the comment pointing broadly to NEVENT and suggesting there is no secondary sources. That said, our community commonly treats news articles as secondary sources, not primary sources, so I don't think that comment carries much weight under our policies and guidelines.--Enos733 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
• Weak endorse. There was no prospect of consensus to delete. The sole delete was a rebuttal, not a refutation. Sources should be secondary sources, that’s soft, and before noting “exceptions may apply”. Aircraft destroyed, with deaths, that should be covered. The AfD did not address why it couldn’t be merged anywhere. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  What policy or guideline based argument do you have for arguing something "should" be kept when it passes none of the notability guidelines? GNG requires secondary sources, and NEVENT is not met here. That something has fatalities does not make it notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:N and the WP:GNG are only WP:Guidelines. They are predictors of what usually happens at AfD. AfD is a process for finding community consensus and it is not bound by the notability guidelines.

  Your question about my use of should appears to be your misreading. Normally not passing notability guidelines means deletions, but not always.

  This crash is notable. Sources were secondary, even if they weren’t ongoing. The question of whether source coverage is ongoing is important, but in this case, the end of the investigation was conclusive.

  It is well enough sourced. The AfD failed to demonstrate WP:BEFORE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  This would imply that recent global consensuses on guidelines do not need to be observed if "in practice" they are sometimes ignored by a small number of !voters at AfD. This goes against LOCALCON.
  WP:N et al are not only predictors of AfD outcomes; they also reflect the standards used for AfC, NPP, and redirection. Deletion policy also explicitly cites failure to meet notability guidelines as a reason for deletion, and WP:AFD says AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies, so I don't see how they aren't "bound" by the guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  LOCALCON is not applicable to AfD. If you don’t like an AfD “delete” you can seek recreation via AfC. If you don’t like an AfD “keep”, see WP:RENOM.

  The article has sources, and some secondary source content, and it was a commercial passenger plane, and it crashed, killed people’s and was written off. That sounds like something that gets covered. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  AfD, is, as JoelleJay says, about whether an articles meets our notability guidelines and other policies, so of course it is bound by those rules. If we're going to ignore all rules and just keep it because we feel like it, why bother with AfD at all? Why not keep everything? What makes this article worth keeping? Nothing, it passes none of our guidelines.

  No, it's not secondary. Only some kinds of news reporting are secondary. A secondary source is one that reflects or analyzes - which obviously cannot be done the day of. The idea that we should keep articles on events that made the news for a period of only days is ludicrous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  You are not quite completely correct about secondary sources. A secondary source can be written in the day, depending on what exactly you are using the source for.

  The first reference is a reliable independent secondary source. Although first written on the day, it was updated as late as 2 1/2 years later with the results of the crash report. Your “delete” !vote was not as strong as you think.

  Did you consider and dismiss all “merge” possibilities? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  That’s a “Weak endorse” vs “no consensus” or “relist”, which at the time of close were alternatives. However, “delete” was not a possible close. I have sympathy for User:PARAKANYAA coming in late with a detailed !vote that was effectively ignored. I oppose “relist” despite that because it is a very old, completely inoffensive article and so there is no reason to rush. A few months for people to have a few breaths before coming back fresh is always better in cases like this. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Endorse, noting that I would have also endorsed a close of “no consensus.” There was clearly not consensus to delete and nothing indicated that consensus to delete could form if the discussion was relisted for another week. SportingFlyer asserts the coverage in the article meets GNG, and this claim is not successfully refuted despite Aviationwikiflight grasping at straws in an attempt to discredit these sources. The other delete vote falsely claimed the sources were primary, so that vote was correctly given less weight by the closer. Frank Anchor 03:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Endorse and really--bringing a close against your own nomination here where your argumentation fails to persuade essentially everyone is poor form. I don't even see 'no consensus' as a reasonable close, given the preponderance of keep opinion and strength of argumentation. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Relist. There were two valid delete !votes and 3 valid keep !votes, with only one of the keeps going into any detail on the sources (and they failed to demonstrate the required sustained coverage). The fact that all identified coverage was in the week that it occurred, 14 years ago, is an absolute rebuttal to any claim the topic meets NEVENT and NOTNEWS and this should have been weighted much more heavily. JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Relist (as the one delete vote). This obviously does not meet GNG because sourcing is from the day it happened and then it was never mentioned again. News articles can be secondary if they reflect on the original events which they obviously can't be if it's in the same week and they offer 0 analysis. The sourcing was also not in depth. Failing GNG, this does not pass a single aspect of NEVENT, and there was one vote that asserted that primary sources were secondary (they were not) and then two other votes basing theirs off that incorrect argument. Otherwise, literally everything that has ever made the news for two days that killed some people (every mass shooting, every mass stabbing, every industrial accident, every explosion) would be notable. Which is not the consensus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• (involved) I clearly want this kept and think it's clearly within policy to do so, but I was surprised this was closed by a non-admin, and while I think keep is a valid reading of the discussion I thought this would go no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 18:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. It might have been better closed as “no consensus”. In retrospect, it probably should have been left open longer to see replies to the last “delete” !vote. The NAC-er should see that their close was not net-helpful, and they should be more careful with contested discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Recent discussions

29 January 2025

Existential threat – There is no consensus to endorse the G4 speedy deletion. This means that the page is restored and can be (re)nominated for ordinary deletion if desired. Sandstein 08:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Existential threat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) User:Someone-123-321 nominated this redirect for deletion earlier today but then withdrew it less than an hour later. At the time of withdrawal, there was one "keep" !vote and no "delete" !votes. Subsequently (after the withdrawal), this redirect was deleted per G4. I think this redirect should at least temporarily be restored given that there was opposition to deletion and the discussion only existed for less than an hour. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC) Endorse. The G4 deletion had nothing to do with the RfD cited by the appellant. It was a result of a 2021 RfD, which was well attended and had a clear consensus to delete. Nothing has changed in the four years since that RfD to invalidate the reasoning argued there. I see no valid justification for a temporary restoration, nor any value in such. Temporary until when? Until the term becomes broadly associated with a specific subject we can redirect to? If and when that happens, any editor is welcome to recreate the redirect. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC) To clarify, I think this should be restored and relisted at RfD given there is objection to deletion. Remember, consensus can change. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC) Once again: there were five valid !votes for deleting this redirect when it was discussed at length four years ago. We do not restore a page just because one editor objects to what was a clear consensus. "Consensus can change" is not a free extra kick at the can, when you've presented no valid reason to reconsider the case. So far, all you've done in this DRV is say, "the redirect should be restored because the last RfD for it didn't run for as long as I'd hoped for". The last RfD didn't need to run at all, as the G4 was clear and valid. But by all means, explain to us how the meaning of the term existential threat changed in the last four years to the point of invalidating the 2021 RfD. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC) I have no opinion on the redirect personally. My concern, as Frank Anchor explains below, is that RfDs and other discussions shouldn't be arbitrarily overruled by one admin. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC) The flip side is that you'd have RfDs and other discussions arbitrarily overruled by one editor. Twice in this case: the original 2021 RFD directly, and the 2025 one by its early close. —Cryptic 19:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC) Endorse. The G4 deletion was a correct response, albeit one within a range of administrative options. Serial (speculates here) 16:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC) Overturn. This is a misapplication of G4, which applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion (emphasis mine). At the time of the G4 deletion, the most recent discussion closed as "keep." G4 does not make exceptions for procedural closes/withdrawals. (Perhaps that can be added into the policy to close a loophole). Even absent this reading of policy, speedy deletes must be uncontroversial. With a well-reasoned keep vote in the RFD, it is no longer uncontroversial and a second RFD is now the correct remedy to delete. Frank Anchor 16:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC) The idea that you can make a speedyable recreation ineligible for G4 by nominating it for deletion and then withdrawing it in less than half a hour is incompatible with the very idea of consensus-based deletion discussions. Policy doesn't need to spell this out because any admin with a lick of sense will be able to see this for the gaming of the system that it is. (Not that I think the original RFD was a terribly good one on the merits. How is existential risk ok but this isn't?) —Cryptic 17:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC) [Off topic for DRV, but]: Maybe we need a dab page that points to Existentialism#Angst and dread and similar subjects as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC) I would support the creation of a DAB page. Frank Anchor 19:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC) If there were no other participants I would be inclined to agree, but it was attended to in good faith. Briefly, but attended to. At that point, if someone felt there was an issue with the course of the newer discussion (that contained multiple voices) and that it should be deleted instead of kept, and/or that a broader consensus was not well-reflected from it, re-nominating the page for discussion would quell any remaining doubt. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC) In my defence, i wasn't intentionally trying to game the system. I saw that someone else had a what-seemed-like-a-valid-reason-at-the-time to keep the redirect, and it was made by someone who knows their stuff. It can be most definitely seen as gaming the system however, and that's why I request a block (this is probably the only time in Wikipedia history someone actually admitted to their non-vandalism mistake and requests a block) Also, keep the redirect deleted - it was OBVIOUSLY breaking G4, so my whole RFD was useless and a waste of editor's time. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC) It wasn't gaming the system to nominate the redirect at RFD, nor to withdraw it. It's gaming the system to claim that those actions make the G4 invalid. —Cryptic 23:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC) I think this particular interpretation ignores the context of what actually happened. In order for there to be a genuine conduct issue of someone WP:Gaming the system, there needs to be a "deliberate misuse of process to take advantage of the system". In a vacuum, is it possible for someone to game the system in this way, by nominating and withdrawing a discussion immediately with zero participants? It could very well be possible to do so, yes. But, to do say that's what's going on here would not be assuming good faith among the earnest participants in this discussion. I did not want the discussion to end after an hour. Someone-123 went into the RfD with a mindset to delete, but changed their mind after I responded with a !keep vote, and closed the discussion as keep before anyone else could say anything, and even I think that was a totally good-faith proposal and I don't hold anything against them. They COULD have nominated it for G4, the option was there, but they did not. And because it went to RfD instead, the resulting (short-lived) discussion indicated that the situation may have possibly changed since 4 years ago, rendering G4 not a guarantee, with a very different status of what the article looks like now 4 years later. If someone is gaming the system here, that's a conduct that could very well be pursued, but I'm of the stance that good-faith should be assumed and that there was no deliberate bypassal of Wikipedia's processes to "ensure G4 deletion couldn't be used". IF someone were to game the system in this way, that would definitely be a problem, but that situation is not the case here. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC) As I told the closing admin on their talk page, I felt that initiating a DRV was reasonable based on the explicitly stated purposes of a deletion review (specifically #s 2 and 5). In my view, the speedy deletion was out of process given that a recent RfD was closed as "keep." Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Deleting admin comment: I have no issue if someone wants to restore this and re-RfD it if there's anything to suggest consensus has changed. However, I can't see any circumstances in which consensus would change; that the primary usage of "existential threat" is clearly not as a synonym for "global catastrophic risk" is evident to anyone who's ever opened a newspaper. I also agree with Cryptic that the notion that one can vaccinate a page against speedy deletion by nominating it for deletion and then withdrawing the momination is clearly not in keeping with either the letter or the spirit of policy. ‑ Iridescent 18:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC) I do not believe there was any bad faith or gaming the system involved with the AFD and subsequent withdrawal, particularly with the intervening and well-reasoned "keep" vote from a longtime contributor. I do believe G4 should be modified to make an exception for this exact situation (a quick "new" AFD that is withdrawn or closed procedurally). The keep vote makes a valid case that consensus may have changed and I strongly disagree with OwenX's unsubstantiated claim that "Consensus can change" is not a free extra kick at the can, when you've presented no valid reason to reconsider the case. Frank Anchor 19:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC) Comment: Entering "existential threat" at the Wiki search prompt brings up Global catastrophic risk as the first hit, and Existential crisis as the fourth. We are literally losing nothing by not having this as a redirect or a DAB. Owen× ☎ 19:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC) Endorse I don't see any problem with a G4 after that very short discussion. If someone wants to re-create it and send it back to RfD, that's the proper solution here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC) Overturn, the most recent RfD closed as keep. I didn't expect it to be withdrawn, but the article has indeed changed since the previous RfD (unlike 4 years ago, there is now a helpful hatnote indicating that "existential threat" is an incoming redirect, with a disambiguation page to take people to any other term they are privy to, and the term "existential threat" has never not been something likely to be searched). If the discussion continued for longer perhaps there would've been a more comfortable !keeping consensus, but the only way to know that is to undelete and let the discussion run its course if anyone wants to keep discussing it (I think it's a fine redirect as it was). I find the article nowadays to be a much more fitting location for the redirect with its three hatnotes and bolded subject, than the article as it existed 4 years ago. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC) Vacate the 29 January 2025 RFD either as withdrawn or as a bad non-admin close after less than 24 hours, not a real Keep close, and therefore Endorse the G4 as reflecting the last valid deletion discussion. As per Cryptic, treating the 2029 Keep as a real close would twist the concept of a deletion discussion, since there was no discussion. Either a stub article or a disambiguation page would be a good idea, but that isn't the topic here at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC) If the 29 January 2025 RFD was a bad non-admin close, shouldn't the proper procedure be to reopen the discussion rather than sustain a speedy deletion? Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC) I thought that initially, too, but it looks more like a poorly phrased nominator withdrawal, which is allowed, and would constitute a legitimate non-delete close of a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "There was no discussion", there was a (valid) discussion though. I discussed it with the nominator, that's 2 people, meeting the definition of a discussion. I presented my reasons why I felt G4 speedy-deletion no longer applied, and so far, within that discussion, my proposition has yet to be refuted. Did I WANT to be the only person to say something? Absolutely not, I'm not in control of when the nominator withdraws their thing and doing so really weakened the case for !keeping that could have been made stronger with more !votes. They took it out of the running almost instantly, which could have opened the door for 5 people to swing by and agree with me for a stronger consensus; we cannot possibly know at this point. It seems the only reason that we're here is because the nominator of that discussion closed it early, thereby leaving my rebuttal of G4 as the only !vote. And that fact, I simply can't control. I just said what I thought, which is that "G4 does not apply and the redirect is fine with the changes made to the article", in a valid RfD. And to that, "keep"ing becomes the most recent valid decision. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC) To editor Robert McClenon: I'm sorry, can you point to what part of WP:BADNAC makes this entire discussion suddenly invalid? Deleting admins don't have the prerogative to dub an entire discussion invalid. Cremastra (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC) User:Cremastra - Maybe not, but we are here at DRV, and DRV does have the prerogative to dub a deletion discussion invalid. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC) @Robert McClenon thank you, but that still doesn't answer my question – on what grounds is this a WP:BADNAC? Cremastra (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC) This was a bad non-admin close because it was a bad close, because it was a bad close because it was closed less than 24 hours after it was open. If you say that it was a valid close because it was withdrawn by the nominator, then I will say that closing the discussion as Keep, which implies a consensus to Keep, was wrong because there was not enough discussion for a consensus, and it should have been closed as Withdrawn or (non)Administrative Close. It wasn't a consensus discussion and should not be treated as one, and should be vacated, and we are DRV and can vacate a bad close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC) Endorse per Robert McClenon. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Overturn both speedy and rapid close and send for a full discussion. We should not be spending time debating contested speedies here, not splitting hairs about whether a withdrawn deletion discussion (at least there were two participants...) counts for dodging G4. When in doubt, send it back for another discussion, and if a conduct issue becomes evident, handle that separately without trying to speedy contested things. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Keep the redirect deleted - it was OBVIOUSLY breaking G4, so my whole RFD was useless and a waste of editor's time. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 07:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC) endorse. sounds to me like a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, which sounds to me like the exact wording used to describe g4 consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 11:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC) G4 explicitly does not apply when the reason for deletion no longer applies. Consensus can change. As I said in the discussion, the article is not the same as it was 4 years ago. The only way to demonstrate that consensus has shifted since the first RfD, is by having a follow-up discussion to talk about how and why the situation is different from the last time, which is literally what happened. Everything was done correctly, page was remade and taken to a follow-up RfD, I gave my reasons for why G4 did not apply by how much the article had changed and improved since 2021 (the lead was expanded, 3 hatnotes were added with disambiguation for other articles). I would've loved to have people come by and agree with me but that couldn't possibly happen because, outside of my control, the nominator withdrew their initial nomination right after I disagreed with deletion. Which is fine. They are within their rights to withdraw a discussion early. (Just don't be doing that all the time lol). But people can't be saying the discussion was invalid because the nominator withdrew, when I already gave my reasons for why G4 wouldn't apply, during the course of a valid RfD. By withdrawing the nomination, the nominator is agreeing with my stance of "keeping" (consequently agreeing that the previous deletion is no longer pertinent), and this is how the discussion was closed. As a keep; the most recent valid discussion. If there was an issue with that secondary closure that hinted towards the most recent consensus being "keep" during the very brief moment it was available to talk about, the solution is further discussion, not speedy deletion. Utopes (talk / cont) 17:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Comment - I'm not sure if the procedure was correct or not because I'm not sure I'm understanding the argument. However it would surely be sensible to have a DAB given that there could be at least two different topics being sought when using the term. JMWt (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC) Overturn bad NAC early close. Overturn G4. It’s arguable enough to have a weeks RfD discussion every four years. Let the RfD proceed for another seven days. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC) Disallow the RfD withdrawal on the basis that someone thinks it should be deleted, evident in the G4 deletion, even if the timeline doesn’t match. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC) If someone were to boldly write a DAB page, or a WP:CONCEPTDAB, this DRV would be moot. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC) Overturn. (1) The initial close was inadvisable and hasty, and the RfD should be reopened to allow further discussion. (2) This is a misapplication of G4. That criterion is based on the most recent XfD discussion, which was withdrawn as "keep". (I am interpreting the early closure as a withdrawal). In the RfD, Utopes argued against deletion and the nominator withdrew it, thus effectively endorsing Utopes' viewpoint. The wisdom of the close may be questioned, but it a discussion is a discussion and it should have been counted as such. (3) The role of the G4 deleting admin should not be to evaluate whether a discussion is "worthy" or not to count; if there was a discussion with consensus to keep as there was here, G4 does not apply. As Frank Anchor says, the deletion is no longer uncontroversial, since two editors oppose it. WP:SD tells us that speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. This redirect had quite a good chance of surviving the discussion. On this line, I reject Robert McClenon's claim that the discussion is somehow "invalid" just because it was withdrawn. Withdrawing is an acceptable type of early closure. (4) G4 doubly doesn't apply because it excludes pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. Examining the 2021 discussion, the reason for deletion was the term's ambiguity. Consensus can change. In the 2025 discussion, we see the argument that the current target actually is satisfactory, based on the fact that the term is mentioned in the lead. As Utopes points out, the circumstances at the target article have changed. Redirects aren't like articles and independent from everything else; they're navigational tools, and their usefulness depends on other articles, hatnotes and all. Hatnotes are extremely valuable tools for reducing ambiguity. Cremastra (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC) The problem I have with your third point is that editors could use an early withdrawal of a deletion discussion to game the system and prevent a G4 close. Perhaps we may want some language in our deletion instructions to say that if an article, redirect, or category was previously deleted, the discussion must go a full week and cannot be withdrawn. - Enos733 (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC) You're right, but eesh, a week is too long. Besides, this is merely the possibility of someone gaming the system, and there's no evidence of that here – I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Cremastra (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC) Overturn early close. This is not a bad NAC, as the close came from the nominator. As I mentioned above, if an article/category/redirect was previously closed as delete, I believe the discussion should continue for a full week. That said, we should create a DAB page and determine if we should rewrite under what circumstances a deletion discussion should be closed WP:NOTBURO. --Enos733 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC) We need to fix our guidelines and policies Folks, we need a reasonable way for people to discuss deleted redirects. As far as I can tell, once it's deleted at RfD, people just speedy it. But yeah, it's been 4 years, send to RfD for a new discussion. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month

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