Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oboeboy (talk | contribs) at 16:17, 17 February 2009 (→Active discussions ). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision .Revision as of 16:17, 17 February 2009 by Oboeboy (talk | contribs) (→Active discussions )
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.
Skip to current nominations
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

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

If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
 
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 March 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 is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 March 27}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 March 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:

  • 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".


Televsion (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

This redirect was deleted, because it was considered an "implausible typo". Initially, I renominated it, but that received some pushback, with others suggesting that I post here instead. That's why I'm sharing it here. Now, I'd like to present my arguments for why it is not an "implausible typo". A Google search for "televsion" returns several pages of results, including some articles that even contain this typo in their headlines:

Even several Wikipedia redirects have this typo in their title (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ). Therefore, I believe the redirect is not an "implausible typo" and should be recreated. Xoontor (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Comment. Linking the second RFD that ended in a G4 speedy deletion. -- Patar knight - chat /contributions 05:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to keep I see too much emphasis on counts, and not enough on strength of argument. The appellant here did an excellent job of rebutting the 'implausible typo' nomination. On the face of it, dropping one letter from the middle of a word is an extremely plausible typo, but the nom has then shown how it is used elsewhere, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. That's not an impermissible OSE argument--it speaks to the plausibility of the typo. Once again G4 of redirects is problematic because redirects by their very nature cannot materially differ from the deleted version. RfD needs some policy attention, I suspect. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I see others saying overturn to keep is a bridge too far. I don't think it is, because the IP address' argument--all single character omissions are plausible typos--is sufficiently WP:SKYISBLUE correct and unrebutted (repeating a rejected premise without explanation after it's been critiqued is not a rebuttal) that the rough consensus was clear regardless of the numerical balance: six people saying an obviously wrong thing aren't the same as six people taking one side of an arguable issue. I'm AGF'ing here that no one commenting here actually thinks that a one character omission is an implausible typo. Right? Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Oh, also: Which of WP:R#DELETE applied to this redirect? Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    That is a lovely sentiment, Jclemens, and one that is supported by policy. The sad reality, though, is that if you try to close an XfD by discarding the overwhelming majority view, based on its incompatibility with P&G, it will invariably get pulled to DRV, where it will usually be overturned, with accusations of "supervote". Many here, including a few admins, see WP:NOTVOTE and WP:DISCARD primarily as a tiebreaker, not as a substitute for nose-counting. Many DRV regulars consider the closing admin's role not as an adjudicator, but as a glorified pollster. Owen×ばつ ☎ 13:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I agree with your observations and concerns. This forum is and must necessarily remain a forum that asks both "Was the process followed?" but more importantly "Did this yield the correct result?" Both can be kept in tension, but the sin of bureaucracy is to prioritize the first; IAR prioritizes the second. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Implausibility is the bar to speedy deletion. For a redirect of a misspelling or particularly a typo to be kept at RFD, the bar is that it's a common one. That plainly wasn't shown at the controlling RFD, so there's no basis to overturn it directly to keep. Reopening it, maybe, on the basis of the poorly-edited headlines mentioned above (but not because of any of the other redirects, which are implausible and could be speedied if they were created recently enough). —Cryptic 07:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    If it exists "in the wild" it's clearly not implausible. Procedure is irrelevant if it produces, and reinforces wrong results; that's why IAR is a pillar. Jclemens (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Relist the first RfD: nothing procedurally wrong with the closure, but these new sources/arguments do deserve to be considered. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Meh. The appellant successfully lifted the burden of proof about the plausibility of this typo. This means the participants at the RfD were factually wrong, and its result was therefore incorrect, through no fault of the closer. That said, when you enter "Televsion" into the search box, the wiki search engine responds with, Did you mean: television , making a redirect redundant. Redirects are cheap, but so is doing nothing. I'll be happy with whatever result is reached here, as long as it doesn't involve wasting more of RfD's time. Owen×ばつ ☎ 10:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn G4 as the appellant provided sufficient evidence that the typo is not "implausible" which was not discussed in the first RFD, therefore the reason for the deletion no longer applies. The (削除) AFD (削除ここまで) RFD closer correctly assessed consensus based on information available at the time of the first (削除) AFD (削除ここまで) RFD so I will not go as far as supporting an "overturn to keep" for the first RFD. I would also support a relist of either RFD as my second choice. Frank Anchor 13:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC) (Note, underlined text added later to clarify my reasoning. Frank Anchor 14:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC))[reply ]
  • Relist because the examples provided by the nominator should be considered as evidence of plausibility. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Allow Recreation or Relist The close was not wrong, per se based on the comments in the discussion. That said Xoontor has amply demonstrated the reasons for a redirect. As I fully expect that if relisted, the discussion will be closed as keep and we would just have process for the sake of process. --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • This is ridiculous. Endorse and Don't allow recreation. We've already wasted too much time tolerating this campaign to recreate a redirect people have made it clear we don't want. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Based on six users in this DRV supporting either a relist or re-creation, this is the exact opposite of a redirect people have made it clear we don't want. Frank Anchor 18:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse and WP:SALT The RFD has clear consensus and before nominating, I had considered that some sources misspelling this existed. So the re-creation to RFD it again hasn't brought any "new information". Joseph 2302 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Just as a comment, having redirects of this sort can sometimes lead to impediment in search, as Special:Search/televsion currently shows all the existing redirects with this typo (in particular, not the "Television" article itself since this redirect currently does not exist) and therefore does not attempt to correct the typo and show any other relevant search results for "television". For example, Special:Search/German televsion will currently only give a single search result of Commercial broadcasting (with the redirect "Commercial Televsion" and the article containing "Germany" in the authority control section) rather than directing a reader to German television with the automated typo correction. (This is similar to the current situation that we have for Special:Search/langauge, where it is arguably worse since most searches for "{major language name} langauge" will "fail" as the Language article mentions a lot of the major languages.) 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn There's enough proof presented in this DRV that it's clearly not an implausible typo, so just recreate it and let's move on with life. SportingFlyer T ·C 11:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Grand_City_Properties (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

Deletion appeal Hightex (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC) --> Hi, I run across the deletion discussion and I wanted to salvage this page, following a research I planned to conduct during the weekend and the subsequent days, unfortunately I didn't get the chance to salvage the WP on time before it got deleted. Last week two articles were published from reliable source (FT) with additional information about the company, contributing to it notability. I'm prepared to improve the article by ensuring compliance to Wikipedia editing policies. Appreciate your favourable reply.--Hightex (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  • What is your connection, and how did you stumble on this subject? Star Mississippi 14:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse or Speedy Close - The appellant doesn't state any issue or concern about the close (and there isn't any, because the close was correct). The title has not been salted, although one of the AFD participants recommended salting, so the appellant can create a new draft including the new reliable sources. Since the deleted article was characterized as spam, the appellant should start over rather than requesting a refund. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment - This seems to be a Mistaken Use of DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Hi everyone, and thanks for your comments. I came across this topic as I'm watching cheap stocks (not penny stocks), specifically in Germany, considering the DAX / MDAX rally in the past months. I submitted this deletion review as I was advised by Explicit, I assumed its the correct procedure. I apologize in advance, I'm not a Wikipedia savvy, even submitting this review took me a few attempts. I'm unsure why the original article was characterized as spam. As previously stated, I'm prepared to improve it. Editing an existing article would be far more efficient than starting anew. Hightex (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse and speedy close as a meritless appeal. It may also be a good idea for a CU to take a quick look at a possible link between the banned Hilit.schenkel, the admitted COI Danielwish, and the appellant. Owen×ばつ ☎ 17:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse. People should not tell clueless newbies that they can take their hopeless appeal to DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Unless I'm reading @Explicit's comment wrong, it was less "you should go to DRV" and more "You can't edit war. If you insist you're right, this is your venue" to proceed. Star Mississippi 12:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Davide Lo Surdo (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

Hello, i created a draft of the page "Davide Lo Surdo". You can see the draft here. I ask you to check out the new draft with new informations (new articles and recognitions) and reconsider this page for the publication since now it meets the notability criteria (museums exhibitions, bronze statue, Rolling Stone Brasil article signed, independent sources signed, etc). Johnmarrys (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Comment - This appeal is properly at DRV because the title is salted with a notation that DRV or equivalent is required prior to re-creation. Will someone who can see the deleted article please verify whether the sources in the draft are significantly better than in the deleted draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    User:Robert McClenon, it is not true that drafts should come to DRV if the article title is SALTed.
    First, an AfC reviewer needs to want to approve it. Then, they can request desalting at WP:RfUP, at WT:AFC, by asking User:Primefac, or the SALTing admin, methods that are much faster than a week+ at DRV. It’s not as if it is frequent that an AfC reviewer wants to approve a SALTed article_title draft. Hopeless cases and inept newcomers should not be sent to DRV to waste time at DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    User:SmokeyJoe - The log entry by the salting admin says: subject to frequent promotion; should only be re-created after a deletion review or similar discussion. That is why we are at deletion review. I was contrasting this request with Misguided Use of DRV where the appellant wants to create a draft of a deleted article and the title was not salted. Maybe the salting admin made a mistake, but the appellant read the log correctly and is acting as instructed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    At the time, I thought that an article about this person should only be created if he became much more notable in Wikipedia terms (i.e. had a few independent articles written about him in sources that Wikipedia usually considers reliable, especially for music. I thought DRV would be the best way of determining that. Graham87 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment - The title is salted not only in article space but in draft space. I think that the salting in draft space was misguided. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Graham87, are you able to comment on the salting and provide more context on this topic? Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Yes, this article has been subject to many many cross-wiki attempts by this user (and others, including IP's) to add it over the last few years, all of which have either failed or are currently under discussion. See for example not just the one in English but the deletion debates in Spanish, German, the ongoing discussion in Dutch (to which I've provided a pointer here), etc. I took the highly unusual step of protecting both the article and the draft page because of (a) the level of persistence in promoting this person and (b)) I didn't want an articles for creation reviewer unfamiliar with this situation to add the article into the main namespace without strong consultation beforehand. Re one of the supposed museum exhibitions: a Bangladeshi news source shouldn't be the only available proof that something's exhibited in an American museum. Graham87 (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I checked with the Sigal Music Museum and it was indeed a small part of the exhibition noted in the userspace draft (though that doesn't confer notability). Graham87 (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    In my opinion you were WP:INVOLVED and should not have salted. Which is very moot now, because this DRV will either remove the salting or clear any taint caused by it being done by you. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Fair enough, as I was the AFD nom and primary advocate for the article's deletion here. I'd be OK with whatever happens here now re the salting. Graham87 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment - Ok, perfect. At this point, since the answer of this discussion is clear, i think we can also close the discussion.

Johnmarrys (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Boriswave (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

There is now ample evidence of the widespread use of the term "Boriswave" to describe the unusually high levels of post-Brexit migration to the United Kingdom, including in reputable external sources such as these articles 1 2 3 4 5 6. This is just a small selection, there are many more articles which can be found. Notably, two of these are from a centre-left outlet/author, demonstrating widespread use of the term across the political spectrum.

The outcome of the original discussion was a redirect to Immigration to the United Kingdom this does not sufficient cover this phenoma in my opinion, and there is precedent for having separate articles for particularly abnormal economic or political events, such as 2021–present United Kingdom cost-of-living crisis. Elshad (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Endorse. The popularity of the term or the frequency of its use in reputable sources are irrelevant here, and were never disputed. The Redirect outcome was a result of a consensus that the article was a redundant content fork of the target. Nothing stops the appellant or any editor from expanding the relevant section at the target, within the limits of WP:UNDUE. If the section becomes large enough, and independent notability supports it, we can always spin it off back into a standalone article. Owen×ばつ ☎ 12:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to merge Not a big nitpick here, but when there's clearly RS'ed content identified--and there is--that should be represented at the target article, that's a merge. When the discussion hasn't clearly identified such and/or the content considered for merging is only primary sourced and would need to be appropriately evaluated for balance, a redirect would indeed be the more appropriate outcome. But yes, a derogatory or sarcastic term for a phenomenon should generally be redirected to the section of the appropriate article covering it. G10 applying would be the obvious exception. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse per OwenX. If there is salvageable unique content in the article history, then it is perfectly possible for an editor to extract and transfer it to the target. It is also possible for the redirect to be retargeted, or the article to be spun back out again if sourcing gets better. All of these are normal editorial actions. Overturning to merge would result in the article being dumped in a one-year backlog at Category:Articles to be merged with no clear benefit. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Closer's comment: In my view, redirection was the more appropriate WP:ATD rather than a merger for the reasons evoked by OwenX and Stifle. The contents of Boriswave and Modern immigration to the United Kingdom#Brexit and COVID overlap significantly in content and scope, which means that a copy-paste merger would not be possible; rather, quite some work would be needed to identify any useful content from Boriswave and to integrate it organically into the target article. Until somebody takes on this task, it is better to hide the Boriswave content behind a redirect to avoid a continued WP:CFORK situation. Sandstein 10:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]


Emil Kalous (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

I hate to do this because I respect the closing admins and their time, but I am hung up because the AfD was originally closed as no consensus, then User:JoelleJay requested that closure to be undone and relisted, which I actually appreciated because I always prefer when more editors can be involved. (Note that I participated in the AfD as well)

The issue was that since the relist, only new views in favor of keeping the article were expressed. Yet after the relist, the AfD was closed as redirect. This close was controversial and brought up to the closer as seen in this thread discussing it: User_talk:Star_Mississippi#c-BeanieFan11-20250315181600-OwenX-20250315162500.

Although I want to emphasize again that I actually have a lot of respect for User:OwenX and their contributions, I think some key points were not addressed in the closing statement, such as the fact that WP:NATH was argued to be met (two other subject-specific notability guidelines were mentioned in the closing comment but not NATH), and the fact that since the "no consensus" relist, only keep views were expressed and some new information was revealed about a source that made it more suitable for inclusion.

In general, I just don't see how a 'no consensus' decision can turn into a "OK, let's relist for more opinions" (sounds good so far), then the only new opinion comes in to keep, then the new closing decision is to redirect. I think the AfD reflects no consensus, at least.

Lastly I'll say I appreciate the humor in the comment, "Please keep that in mind when they drag me to DRV... ;)", but I don't view it as being "dragged" here, we have a process that exists for a reason and we can still respect each others' contributions throughout that even if we're on different sides of it. I hope you understand. --Habst (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Note that closer was also addressed here: User talk:OwenX#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kalous. --Habst (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment as closer: in the appellant's claim, since the relist, only new views in favor of keeping the article were expressed, "views" is a bit misleading. There was exactly one new view -- a weak keep from SportingFlyer, who was honest enough to admit that the source he cited was marginal at best. This was then addressed by JoelleJay, who demonstrated why the source is neither reliable nor provides SIGCOV, basically leaving us exactly where we were before that final relist. Owen×ばつ ☎ 15:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Thanks, from my perspective there was only one new view since the no consensus, and it was in favor of keeping the article, where there were no new views to delete or even to redirect. There was also a counter to JoelleJay's response demonstrating why the source actually is reliable thanks to new coverage from Deník , and that was never rebutted in the AfD, so I think we weren't back to where we were on that. --Habst (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I had left a comment to the closing admin (that it seems he didn't respond to) that summed up my thoughts (1). Here it is, a little rephrased: The discussion was determined to have "no consensus" when Star Mississippi closed it – and in the period following the relist, the only further vote was a !keep. How on earth does it go from no consensus to then being "redirect" when more people support doing the opposite after the relist!? OwenX said in the close that we're "left with GNG" because NOLY tell[s] us that an individual merely participating in the Olympics does not imply a likelihood of existence of sourcing supporting notability. That means that we cannot even accept the minority view that the subject's participation in the 1924 event likely resulted in SIGCOV – but he's forgetting that equally important as NOLY is NATH, which the subject met as demonstrated by Habst at the discussion. Several sources besides the mentions shown by JoelleJay were presented, including the one arguably SIGCOV piece that although JoelleJay claimed was unreliable and of limited depth, Habst countered by noting that It's actually closer to a news site than a blog because it includes editorial review (with evidence provided) ... [and] [t]heir article on Kalous goes far beyond the two paragraphs listed, for example who he was led by, his journey to the Olympics, his teammates, etc. No rebuttal was made to this argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • ARGH from closer 1, said with respect and the utmost appreciation for the input from all who have commented here, at my Talk and at the AfD. Because everyone is making points in complete good faith and with their reading of policy, which makes it harder. ~ 2.5 years after the 2022 change to NSPORTS and every well-attended athlete AfD has turned into a(nother) referendum on those changes, especially when it's athletes from non English majority countries who competed pre internet era and in some cases, where the newspaper archives are not easily accessible online. (NB: While I was happy to relist as more eyes are never a bad thing, I still believe my N/C was the correct read because there is no consensus around policy. I also fully support OwenX's decision to close it as a redirect as that's a valid ATD). There was consensus to change the pre 2022 guidelines, yes, but there are still valid opinions that disagree with 2025 guidelines as well. Since there has been an interest in bringing some Lugnuts stubs to AfD, as is well within nom's rights, I think there needs to be a broader discussion on these athletes because we can't keep doing it AfD by AfD. Star Mississippi 20:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment I don't see a consensus here, either on our post-RFC guidelines or in their applicability to this individual article. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • It's interesting - I'm involved here, but I started another DRV recently to overturn a no consensus on a previous Olympic athlete to a redirect, and this should hopefully overturn a redirect to a no consensus result. The rule is designed to prevent stub athlete articles which are sourced only to databases. While this article was when it was PRODded, de-PRODded, and AfD'd, Emil was HEYed into a stub utilising non-database sourcing. Since SIGCOV can vary by time and place, the fact there's a genuine disagreement over whether it applies shouldn't lead to the article's redirection. SportingFlyer T ·C 06:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to NC (involved, voted redirect). While I !voted to redirect and stand by my opinion, I do not see a consensus in the AFD that the article should not be standalone article. I see a few delete/redirect votes based on P&G, and also see a few keep votes bring up references that were not adequately refuted. Frank Anchor 11:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Which references? JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I see the book brought up by Beaniefan and the article on Hradecký athletes brought up by SportingFlyer. JoelleJay attempted to discredit the latter by falsely claiming it was a blog but Habst provided evidence of it actually being a news site (evidence which went unrefuted). Habst also showed SIGCOV from the book which JoelleJay attempted to refute with a wall of text. However no other user agreed with Joelle’s analysis and the only !vote posted after this exchange was a keep (albeit a weak one). I don’t think it’s quite enough for a standalone article but clearly there was not consensus supporting this view. Frank Anchor 12:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment For me, this AFD neatly demonstrates two characteristics. (1) The personalities of who participates in a discussion generally matters more than the topic of the article. (2) Often, notability guidelines, which are intended to reflect community consensus at deletion discussions over a period of time (descriptive, not normative), seriously fail to achieve this. Guidelines are usually changed on the basis of something like "far too many articles about xxx are being kept/deleted at AFD and we need to do something to correct this". WT:N then discusses changes on the basis of what people think ought to be done to correct future discussions. Scarcely any analysis is performed as to how AFD discussions have gone in the (recent) past. At subsequent AFDs, strident, experienced participants then carefully and in fine detail parse the text of the guideline as if it were relevant and canonical. Thincat (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to no consensus because the discussion led to no consensus, not even a rough one. Thincat (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to N/C. I'm sympathetic to Owen's close, which I think reflected the strength of the arguments, but there was really no consensus here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn the second close back to No Consensus. The closer's statement reads like a supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment - The difference between this DRV and the previous one is the nationality of the long-distance runner and length of the long distances. The originator of the stub is the same, and the confounding rules change is the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to no consensus, as it reflects the results of the discussion. No compelling rationale to overrule that was presented. gidonb (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse (involved). I don't think it is a surprise that I agree with Owen's assessment.
  1. We had two recent clear global consensuses establishing that merely participating in the Olympics does not meet NSPORT and so does not warrant any presumption that the subject meets GNG, and requiring all sportsperson articles, even ones that do meet a sport-specific subcriterion like NATH, cite a source containing SIGCOV (in addition to the subject meeting GNG). This subject doesn't meet any subcriteria.
  2. Initial keep !votes were based either on the explicitly deprecated presumption that the subject would have garnered GNG coverage based only on his sports participation, or on sources that were demonstrably not RS (amateur SPS).
  3. At least some keep !votes hinged on the assumption that no one had yet tried to search archived Czech newspapers, and therefore we can't know for certain that there isn't coverage there. This position is also not in line with our guideline requiring a source of SIGCOV before we can even apply any presumptions of further SIGCOV accorded by meeting a sport-specific criterion (which the subject does not).
  4. This is not a case of the nominator just being unfamiliar with the subject matter and/or non-English language of the subject. @FromCzech is a longtime sports editor native to the subject's home country; if there is anyone on Wikipedia who could access and parse Czech sources it would be them.
  5. Even the linked SPS, by people who not only speak his language but run a blog about sports history in his hometown and have physical access to local newspaper archives, specifically bemoan the fact that no biographical details on him can be found.
  6. Through my privileged Charles University access I searched all digitized Czech newspapers for 10+ permutations and declensions of the subject's names and keywords, including searching all instances of just the name "Kalous" in newspapers between 1918 and 1925, and could not find a single piece of non-trivial IRS coverage.
Seriously: what more should it take to demonstrate that a standalone article is not suitable for a subject whose sourcing does not meet a recent strong global consensus requirement (SPORTSCRIT #5), and in fact even if he did meet SC#5 would still fail NSPORT due to not meeting any of the sport-specific criteria that let you use SC#5 to merely presume additional GNG coverage exists? Can admins just not use their judgment in interpreting the weight of "weak" !votes (especially seemingly-conditional ones that have been rebutted!) or !votes that are objectively antagonistic to our PAGs? JoelleJay (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
On Wikipedia, the idea of subject-specific notability guidelines have been deprecated over time as should be the case, because we should have a consistent standard to assess articles by regardless of subject. A new subject-specific guideline was added with the NSPORTS2022 decision (which applies a different standard to one subject area), but that doesn't change the broader picture of deprecating these carveouts including NSPORTS2022 and NSPORT in general. Using the neutral guidelines, I think a few of your points could be contested.
The community trend over the last few years is more in favor of subject-neutral guidelines like NEXIST, which don't rely on making a carveout and I think were correctly applied in the Kalous case. I think there were no self-published sources linked in the Kalous AfD, the Sport Pod Bílou Věží reference is not a blog and has editorial review as covered by RS and that was never challenged. I think the idea that "no biographical details on him can be found" is a translation error, I read the sentence as saying that details about him can be found in many periodicals from the era and I think depending on the translation engine you use you could get a read having the opposite meaning.
I'll also say that NATH was still met due to the top-3 finish at the marathon in Prague, meaning if SC#5 is fulfilled as it is by the Sport Pod Bílou Věží GNG-contributing piece, NSPORT in general is met (I don't think this is a particularly important point because GNG is met anyways through NEXIST, but just for the record).
The issue with relying on subject-specific guidelines as the delete !voters did in this case is that it's contra to the community consensus trend against these, so it's better to try to make your case using only subject-neutral guidelines. Regardless, there was clearly a contrast here which is why I think no consensus best reflects the AfD discussion. --Habst (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I'd endorse the closure as within reasonable discretion given the quality of the !votes and DRV's usual attitude to SNGs, and I'd register my concern at the amount of volunteer time we're expending on each of these biography stubs that Lugnuts created at a rate of three or four per minute. It's impractical to do this. We need to address them all together.—S Marshall T/C 09:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • I agree with S Marshall and endorse the closure. This is all a waste of our time. Sandstein 15:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse - Per S Marshall and also per JoelleJay, whose frustration is evident. What we have is preloaded from elsewhere, because we do not have the secondary sources to write our own article on this person, and the AfD demonstrates that. Lots of AfDs would close as no consensus based on the number of keep !votes, but it is entirely within the closer discretion to weigh their arguments agains policy and find them wanting. Agree with S Marshall that Lugstubs should be addressed together. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Uzi Vishne (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

This was a pretty clear delete; the only dissenter was a user claiming to be the subject of the article, who dumped a list of his own publications cited in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It was seemingly closed randomly by an anonymous user linked to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Various_anon_IPs_closing_AfDs_in_breach_of_WP:NACIP. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Masini Situ-Kumbanga (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

I believe the closer mis-read both policy and consensus for this article. Consensus was 6–2 by pure head count to not keep this as a standalone page (maybe a weak 6–3 if we include the participant who didn't !vote). All 6 deleters/redirecters quoted WP:SPORTCRIT directly or indirectly, a valid policy which this article clearly does not meet, as a reason for not keeping, while the keep !voters cited NATH (which was challenged) or BEFORE (without presenting any easily found sources). This should be overturned to a redirect. I have discussed this with the closer. SportingFlyer T ·C 12:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

"This should be overturned to a redirect." But at the AfD, you said "I am going to go a step further and say delete due to a complete lack of verification." Which is it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I'm allowed to advocate for the consensus position at the AfD even if that was not the position I !voted for. SportingFlyer T ·C 12:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I also note this was redirected by another user shortly after the close, which was brought to my attention after I opened this. SportingFlyer T ·C 12:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Leave as a redirect. I agree with JoelleJay's assessment of the two Keeps. "Surely sources must exist" has never been a convincing argument, especially for a BLP. This view is supported by WP:NEXIST, but often ignored. I do find Fortuna imperatrix mundi overturning Ritchie333's close to be a form of wheel-war that we shouldn't be encouraging, but reverting it as a rebuke would just be an act of WP:SPITE. Owen×ばつ ☎ 13:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Thanks for the promotion, hopefully I will justify your faith in me  :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to redirect - As the nom says, there is a consensus when considering all the !votes and policy arguments that the article shouldn't remain, with only the detail of whether to redirect or delete leading to a three-way split. As such, taking the "less radical" option of redirect seems to reflect the community consensus. In fact though, despite the "no consensus" outcome, the closer in fact gave permission for and later endorsed a merge-and-redirect outcome so we've ended up where we should have, but the close doesn't reflect that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I think this is one of those situations where WP:IAR applies, there wasn’t a consensus to delete the article, but equally there wasn’t a consensus to keep it, so the default behaviour of a NC isn’t optimal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I would have thought there was quite a clear consensus to delete the article in some form though... "redirect" and "delete" are both forms of deletion in my book, with the difference being mainly whether the page history is preserved and whether it's felt another page could provide sufficient useful coverage for readers of the topic in question. In this discussion, the "redirect" and "delete" votes outnumbered the "keeps" by 5:2 and in both variants they cited guidelines which seem to fairly clearly indicate that our rules don't support inclusion of the article in the form it was in at the time (and some analysis was also done to see if any other sources could be unearthed). As someone who has worked extensively in the African space I am well aware that some individuals are very notable in a particular country with strong local media support but have very little coverage online or in global sources, so I don't like seeing pages like this go. But overall I'm not sure an IAR was required here and I do think the "delete" and "redirect" supporters made a strong enough case that the outcome should have been "redirect", maintaining history and without prejudice to recreation if more sources turn up. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    "redirect" and "delete" are both forms of deletion in my book Interesting, they aren't in mine (or, I would say, policy cf: WP:ATD-R - ALTERNATIVES to deletion - redirection), principally because any editor can undo a redirect, or conversely any editor can turn an article into a redirect. But they can't delete or undelete articles. When somebody argues to delete an article at AfD, I assume they would prefer a resulting redirect to also be deleted. Ironically enough, the principal reason I didn't close as "redirect / merge" is because of the comments by SportingFlyer, who I assumed would object to such a close for those reasons.
    Also I considered the expansion and improvement here as backing up evidence for the "keep" !votes, so they weren't simply "Keep, must be sources" (which carry less weight). Those advocating redirection or deletion are welcome to refute that these are sufficient sources, but I don't think the views to keep carried no weight at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Two problems there - first, when I !voted, the sources in the article didn't match the athlete's name, so we hadn't actually verified this person actually existed. Second, the improvement did not use sources that passed GNG or SPORTCRIT, which everyone seemed to note - we don't base sports articles on database sites any more. SportingFlyer T ·C 22:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    A comment about Amakuru's wording: As Ritchie333 wrote, "deletion" has a particular meaning here. I prefer to think about the similarities between redirect and delete as no stand-alone article and zero content retained, as broken down by the table at WP:Guide to deletion#Outcome summary. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Ritchie333, I agree that there was no consensus for an outright deletion. But this isn't first-past-the-post voting. Think of it more as an instant-runoff/ranked-choice situation. Given that the outcome isn't Delete, what would be the remaining preference by participants? I think you'll agree that a Redirect outcome would be preferred by far more of the participants in that AfD than a N/C outcome. No need to invoke IAR here. This is pretty much what ATD already suggests we do in such situations. When there's a clear consensus against retaining a page, it is up to the closer to pick between Delete, Redirect, Merge or Draft in a way that best reflects consensus. Your closing statement suggests you saw all that, but hesitated on pulling the trigger. Owen×ばつ ☎ 15:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Simply put, I think the participants in an AfD have a much better idea of what's what in an article and what to do with it than some random admin who's just turned up to to assess everyone's views. Indeed, I have written "A discussion on whether or not to merge this article can be done by ordinary editing outside of the scope of this AfD" on numerous discussions over the years. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Are you telling me that you genuinely didn't know if the Deletes on that AfD would have preferred a Redirect outcome or a N/C? Or is your approach such that by !voting Delete, a participant has essentially given up their weight on the side of Redirect? Because that is not what WP:ATD says. If you feel that as a "random admin" you are unable to assess consensus in such a case, why not just leave it for another admin to close? That's what I do for some AfDs involving WP:GEOLAND, where I feel other admins would be better equipped to weigh arguments. Owen×ばつ ☎ 15:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    No, I'm just saying I like to suggest things to editors so they can do them themselves, rather than doing it for them directly. It's a nicer management style, in my view. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to redirect (involved, voted redirect). I see clear consensus to not keep the page as a standalone article, with two keep !votes that were not based in P&G and six non-keep !votes based on stronger reasoning, split between redirect (four) and delete (two including the nom). The ATD should always be selected over deletion unless a compelling case can be made against the ATD, which was not done in this AFD. Frank Anchor 14:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Even as someone who would've really liked to see this kept (in my estimate, there's a 90% chance he's notable), I don't see how this wasn't a consensus to redirect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • While I probably would have closed that as redirect, I'm not sure what the outcome of this DRV is. There is a redirect in place. Does it require a re-close to reflect that editorial decision? I personally don't think so, but not sure what I'm missing here. Star Mississippi 16:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I personally believe a formal change of the result is in needed, otherwise someone could revert the redirect (without improving the article) and point to the NC result as a reason to restore the page. Frank Anchor 21:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Thanks @Frank Anchor, makes total sense (as usual with your input). Star Mississippi 23:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Someone can already undo the redirect; all they have to do is add sufficient sourcing that they can say in good faith the AfD result no longer applied. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
When I opened the DRV, I wasn't aware of the redirect because I didn't follow the link to the article. I completely agree with Frank Anchor's assessment. SportingFlyer T ·C 21:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • (削除) Endorse (削除ここまで) "no consensus", and strongly support the closer’s direction to address the possibility of "merge". This must be done in a next WP:RENOM. However, the question is currently moot with a bold redirect done. No deletion has occurred, the AfD close was correct, this topic has no business at DRV. Resolve dispute at the talk page of the redirect target. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
On further review, it should have been a "redirect" close. No one, before the closer, wrote "merge". Consensus was for a simple redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk)
  • I think this is a very strange close, redirect seems the obvious outcome to me. I didn't close it that way when I saw it earlier only because at the time I wasn't up to evaluating the "are these even the same person" issue SportingFlyer brought up. -- asilvering (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse the close of No Consensus as a valid conclusion by the closer. We at DRV do not need to be concerned about the subsequent redirection, which leaves the article, about which there was no consensus, in the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to Redirect. (Huh, I actually participated in this one! Involved, !voted redirect.) I (obviously) believe that my !vote rebutted all three Keep !votes on policy grounds; whether the closer chooses to weigh them less is a matter of discretion, but I feel like that would've been appropriate here. In addition to the points on headcount (I agree that the "delete" !vote should be counted on the "redirect" side), closing as merge when no-one has suggested a merge and when there is no sigcov to verify basically anything about the subject isn't the move. Toadspike [Talk] 08:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • The only other thing I'd like is for the two editors who !voted keep to comment here. Those who !voted redirect and delete are correct that not all of the sources found were relevant to the subject, but some were, and that sourced information didn't need to be deleted from Wikipedia, just merged into a different article. I'm not pinging them because of canvassing concerns Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Why? We're only reviewing the close. SportingFlyer T ·C 10:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to redirect (involved). This was a baffling close. 6 editors cited clear-cut PAGs on why the subject should not have a standalone article, with the last 5 !votes all taking this stance. This would be a clear consensus against any outcome retaining the page even if the keep !votes were valid, but in this case both keeps were based on a tendentious interpretation of NEXIST that has been shot down every time it's been invoked as the sole keep rationale. JoelleJay (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
FedEx Express Flight 3609 (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

I see a consensus to delete.

  1. The merge recommendations were rebutted: Rosbif73 argued against an item at the airport article and redirecting. Rosbif73 also removed the entry, which has not been restored. Esolo5002 noted the removal at the AfD with over three days remaining, but no one responded anywhere.
  2. The delete supporters cited WP:NOTNEWS (shortcut to WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper, policy) and WP:NEVENT (shortcut to WP:Notability (events), guideline). They provided topic-specific rationales along the lines of WP:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents#Airline and airport articles (essay, shortcut WP:AIRCRASH). (No one cited it at the AfD – per its own recommendation – but Rosbif73's removal edit summary linked it.) In contrast, none of the merge supporters explained why a mention would be due.
  3. The delete supporters hold a supermajority.

The closer stated that they "would have no issue with DRV". Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse 1) speculation that it won't have continued coverage is a reverse-CRYSTAL problem. Non-notable events failing SUSTAINED/NEVENT should be deleted for lack of coverage no sooner than six months after the event. 2) ATD was argued against, but not effectively rebutted, and ties go to the non-delete outcome. 3) NOTNEWS does not apply to aircraft incidents; a routine aviation mishap is still not "routine" in the sense used in NOTNEWS. 4) AIRCRASH is an essay and doesn't add anything beyond NOTNEWS. Very well put together DRV appeal, but Flatscan will undoubtedly be singularly unsurprised to find we disagree on how to apply deletion criteria yet again. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Thanks for your numbered points and for the compliment.
    Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    You're consistent and principled and want to implement your best vision for Wikipedia, and should be commended for it, even if I differ on some of the finer points. Having said that, I think we understand each other, and I don't agree with your application in this case. I have no heartburn if nothing turns up and it gets deleted at RfD in six months, but I (and it seems I'm not alone in this, judging by later responses) don't think a presumption that nothing further of significance (i.e., no further RS coverage) will occur is a sufficient basis for deletion under NEVENT. As far as a disconnect between ROUTINE and AIRCRASH... I'm less certain that this is a distinction that makes a difference given the reverse-CRYSTAL presumption of no future notability. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn and delete in line with the clear consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • weak overturn and delete there is a clear supermajority for deletion and while I am broadly sympathetic to selective merges where there is a viable target, there is a clear indication here that the target isn't viable. No beef with the closing admin, I prefer caution when merging or redirection is an option, I just feel that in this case it wasn't the best option. I'm weak because the close was broadly within the closing admin's discretion. I just think that deleting now will save an RFD down the road as the content hasn't stuck in the target Spartaz Humbug! 11:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I just think that deleting now will save an RFD down the road as the content hasn't stuck in the target is not a valid reason to not redirect/merge. It is CRYSTAL-basaed speculation. Also, I do not see a clear indication here that the target isn't viable. I only see one argument made against a redirect, which is equally speculative. Frank Anchor 12:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
you are welcome to have a different viewpoint. Spartaz Humbug! 13:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse. There was enough support for a merge to make it a valid ATD. Whether the content is kept at the target or not is an editorial question outside the scope of the AfD. The bar for retaining a redirect is much lower than that for retaining an article. not worth creating a future RfD candidate is not a valid reason to oppose a Merge/Redirect outcome at AfD. If the appellant wishes to have the redirect deleted, they should open an RfD, rather than try to overturn a legitimate outcome at AfD. Owen×ばつ ☎ 12:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I'm going to disagree with that last bit. In six months, sure, go to RfD as redirect may by then be unused/unneeded, but I think Flatscan has selected the correct venue to promptly challenge the AfD outcome as redirect. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    My quote wasn't from Flatscan's appeal here, but from Rosbif73's Delete !vote at the AfD. I fully agree with you that this is the right forum to challenge the AfD result. But the opposition to the proposed Redirect at the AfD was without merit, and the closer correctly discounted it. Owen×ばつ ☎ 09:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse - After merge was suggested as an ATD, there was roughly an even split between delete and merge/redirect votes. Merge was clearly not sufficiently refuted, as the only argument made against merging, it is so run-of-the-mill that it won't remain on the airport page for long, so not worth creating a future RfD candidate. is CRYSTAL-based speculation. Frank Anchor 12:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Closer note just echoing what Flatscan said, that I have no issue with this community review. I really didn't see another way to close it once I'd reviewed at their request, and more eyes are never a bad thing. Star Mississippi 13:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. There was a numerical consensus to delete. There are two differences between deletion and redirection. The first is that a reader who enters the title gets a page rather than search results, which is more user-friendly. The second is that history is preserved for future editing. Both of these are reasons why a closing admin may use common sense to redirect as an alternative to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse there's a viable ATD at the moment - for how long is unclear as whether or not it remains on the Newark airport home page is a genuine question, but the closer didn't err by picking the ATD. SportingFlyer T ·C 04:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse No "delete" !voter presented an argument why a redirection should not happen besides Rosbif73, but their argument is a poor one based on WP:CRYSTAL speculation that certain edits will take place at the target page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse (redirect, history available). None of the "redirect" !votes articulated a reason to delete and not redirect, in the face of obvious applicability of WP:ATD-R.
The failure to raise the option of "delete" can be blamed on the AfD nominator, but it is not necessary or even justified to accost the "delete" !voters for the nominator’s WP:BEFORE failure, we know what they mean. The closer was right, and Flatscan needs to recalibrate how they read consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
But, on checking deeper, EditorGirlAL07 was correct at the time of her !vote, and remained correct through to the close, but the facts changed afterwards, when Rosbif73 removed the incident from the redirect target page. As the mention was removed afterwards, and has remained removed, the redirect should now be deleted. This is not Star_Mississippi’s fault. The facts changed afterwards. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Thanks for taking a closer look. Restating (1) of my original filing, Rosbif73 removed the entry with five days left, and Esolo5002 noted the removal at the AfD over three days before the close. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
You’re right. The mention was reverted, and the removal was noted in the AfD, before the close. A perfect closer would have noticed this, and ATD-R doesn’t apply.
We can delete the redirect here, or have it deleted at RfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
My personal opinion as an editor, not as closer or otherwise defending my close, I don't think based on this discussion that RfD right now is a slam dunk delete. Down the road when this is even less of a blip on the radar, sure. Star Mississippi 13:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse redirect as an ATD. While a majority favored deletion, no compelling reason not to PRESERVE was presented. Had the closer opted for a merge rather than deletion, there might have been a case. However, they chose to redirect, respecting the preference to remove this article from Wikipedia while preserving its history and ensuring accessibility through reasonable search terms. Beyond an endorsement, Mississippi deserves recognition for a job well done! gidonb (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ko-fi (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

Are the current sources enough for notability? I searched for sources focusing on the subject directly but I don't know if they are reliable. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Can you please clarify what you are requesting here? Is it:
    1. To have Draft:Ko-fi, which was deleted in January as an abandoned draft, undeleted?
    2. To ask us to assess whether some sources, which you haven't cited or linked, are sufficient for notability?
    3. To review whether the AFD discussion from 2019 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ko-fi was correctly closed?
    4. Something else?
Stifle (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
1. Considering withdrawing the nomination to restore and continue with the draft as many sources are expected to be reliable. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
I see that the Draft:Ko-fi has been deleted twice as an abandoned draft, and submitted and declined four times for lack of reliable sources.
The sources in the article at its last deletion were: [27] [28] and [29], as well as a link to Ko-fi's X page.
Before we go through a fifth round of this, I invite you to share the sources that you propose to add to the draft, so they can be assessed. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Ahri Boy (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse, since the only question that is properly formulated is whether the close was correct. Without a draft, it is premature to consider whether a URL Dump warrants unsalting. Submit a drart for review, and if a reviewer thinks that it should be accepted, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
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
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal .
For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard .
General community
topics
Contents and grading
WikiProjects
and collaborations
Awards and feedback
Maintenance tasks
Administrators
and noticeboards
Content dispute
resolution
Other noticeboards
and assistance
Deletion
discussions
Elections and voting
Directories, indexes,
and summaries
Televsion (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

This redirect was deleted, because it was considered an "implausible typo". Initially, I renominated it, but that received some pushback, with others suggesting that I post here instead. That's why I'm sharing it here. Now, I'd like to present my arguments for why it is not an "implausible typo". A Google search for "televsion" returns several pages of results, including some articles that even contain this typo in their headlines:

Even several Wikipedia redirects have this typo in their title (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ). Therefore, I believe the redirect is not an "implausible typo" and should be recreated. Xoontor (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Comment. Linking the second RFD that ended in a G4 speedy deletion. -- Patar knight - chat /contributions 05:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to keep I see too much emphasis on counts, and not enough on strength of argument. The appellant here did an excellent job of rebutting the 'implausible typo' nomination. On the face of it, dropping one letter from the middle of a word is an extremely plausible typo, but the nom has then shown how it is used elsewhere, both on Wikipedia and elsewhere. That's not an impermissible OSE argument--it speaks to the plausibility of the typo. Once again G4 of redirects is problematic because redirects by their very nature cannot materially differ from the deleted version. RfD needs some policy attention, I suspect. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I see others saying overturn to keep is a bridge too far. I don't think it is, because the IP address' argument--all single character omissions are plausible typos--is sufficiently WP:SKYISBLUE correct and unrebutted (repeating a rejected premise without explanation after it's been critiqued is not a rebuttal) that the rough consensus was clear regardless of the numerical balance: six people saying an obviously wrong thing aren't the same as six people taking one side of an arguable issue. I'm AGF'ing here that no one commenting here actually thinks that a one character omission is an implausible typo. Right? Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Oh, also: Which of WP:R#DELETE applied to this redirect? Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    That is a lovely sentiment, Jclemens, and one that is supported by policy. The sad reality, though, is that if you try to close an XfD by discarding the overwhelming majority view, based on its incompatibility with P&G, it will invariably get pulled to DRV, where it will usually be overturned, with accusations of "supervote". Many here, including a few admins, see WP:NOTVOTE and WP:DISCARD primarily as a tiebreaker, not as a substitute for nose-counting. Many DRV regulars consider the closing admin's role not as an adjudicator, but as a glorified pollster. Owen×ばつ ☎ 13:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I agree with your observations and concerns. This forum is and must necessarily remain a forum that asks both "Was the process followed?" but more importantly "Did this yield the correct result?" Both can be kept in tension, but the sin of bureaucracy is to prioritize the first; IAR prioritizes the second. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Implausibility is the bar to speedy deletion. For a redirect of a misspelling or particularly a typo to be kept at RFD, the bar is that it's a common one. That plainly wasn't shown at the controlling RFD, so there's no basis to overturn it directly to keep. Reopening it, maybe, on the basis of the poorly-edited headlines mentioned above (but not because of any of the other redirects, which are implausible and could be speedied if they were created recently enough). —Cryptic 07:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    If it exists "in the wild" it's clearly not implausible. Procedure is irrelevant if it produces, and reinforces wrong results; that's why IAR is a pillar. Jclemens (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Relist the first RfD: nothing procedurally wrong with the closure, but these new sources/arguments do deserve to be considered. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Meh. The appellant successfully lifted the burden of proof about the plausibility of this typo. This means the participants at the RfD were factually wrong, and its result was therefore incorrect, through no fault of the closer. That said, when you enter "Televsion" into the search box, the wiki search engine responds with, Did you mean: television , making a redirect redundant. Redirects are cheap, but so is doing nothing. I'll be happy with whatever result is reached here, as long as it doesn't involve wasting more of RfD's time. Owen×ばつ ☎ 10:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn G4 as the appellant provided sufficient evidence that the typo is not "implausible" which was not discussed in the first RFD, therefore the reason for the deletion no longer applies. The (削除) AFD (削除ここまで) RFD closer correctly assessed consensus based on information available at the time of the first (削除) AFD (削除ここまで) RFD so I will not go as far as supporting an "overturn to keep" for the first RFD. I would also support a relist of either RFD as my second choice. Frank Anchor 13:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC) (Note, underlined text added later to clarify my reasoning. Frank Anchor 14:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC))[reply ]
  • Relist because the examples provided by the nominator should be considered as evidence of plausibility. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Allow Recreation or Relist The close was not wrong, per se based on the comments in the discussion. That said Xoontor has amply demonstrated the reasons for a redirect. As I fully expect that if relisted, the discussion will be closed as keep and we would just have process for the sake of process. --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • This is ridiculous. Endorse and Don't allow recreation. We've already wasted too much time tolerating this campaign to recreate a redirect people have made it clear we don't want. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Based on six users in this DRV supporting either a relist or re-creation, this is the exact opposite of a redirect people have made it clear we don't want. Frank Anchor 18:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse and WP:SALT The RFD has clear consensus and before nominating, I had considered that some sources misspelling this existed. So the re-creation to RFD it again hasn't brought any "new information". Joseph 2302 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Just as a comment, having redirects of this sort can sometimes lead to impediment in search, as Special:Search/televsion currently shows all the existing redirects with this typo (in particular, not the "Television" article itself since this redirect currently does not exist) and therefore does not attempt to correct the typo and show any other relevant search results for "television". For example, Special:Search/German televsion will currently only give a single search result of Commercial broadcasting (with the redirect "Commercial Televsion" and the article containing "Germany" in the authority control section) rather than directing a reader to German television with the automated typo correction. (This is similar to the current situation that we have for Special:Search/langauge, where it is arguably worse since most searches for "{major language name} langauge" will "fail" as the Language article mentions a lot of the major languages.) 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn There's enough proof presented in this DRV that it's clearly not an implausible typo, so just recreate it and let's move on with life. SportingFlyer T ·C 11:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Grand_City_Properties (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

Deletion appeal Hightex (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC) --> Hi, I run across the deletion discussion and I wanted to salvage this page, following a research I planned to conduct during the weekend and the subsequent days, unfortunately I didn't get the chance to salvage the WP on time before it got deleted. Last week two articles were published from reliable source (FT) with additional information about the company, contributing to it notability. I'm prepared to improve the article by ensuring compliance to Wikipedia editing policies. Appreciate your favourable reply.--Hightex (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  • What is your connection, and how did you stumble on this subject? Star Mississippi 14:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse or Speedy Close - The appellant doesn't state any issue or concern about the close (and there isn't any, because the close was correct). The title has not been salted, although one of the AFD participants recommended salting, so the appellant can create a new draft including the new reliable sources. Since the deleted article was characterized as spam, the appellant should start over rather than requesting a refund. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment - This seems to be a Mistaken Use of DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Hi everyone, and thanks for your comments. I came across this topic as I'm watching cheap stocks (not penny stocks), specifically in Germany, considering the DAX / MDAX rally in the past months. I submitted this deletion review as I was advised by Explicit, I assumed its the correct procedure. I apologize in advance, I'm not a Wikipedia savvy, even submitting this review took me a few attempts. I'm unsure why the original article was characterized as spam. As previously stated, I'm prepared to improve it. Editing an existing article would be far more efficient than starting anew. Hightex (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse and speedy close as a meritless appeal. It may also be a good idea for a CU to take a quick look at a possible link between the banned Hilit.schenkel, the admitted COI Danielwish, and the appellant. Owen×ばつ ☎ 17:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse. People should not tell clueless newbies that they can take their hopeless appeal to DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Unless I'm reading @Explicit's comment wrong, it was less "you should go to DRV" and more "You can't edit war. If you insist you're right, this is your venue" to proceed. Star Mississippi 12:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
Davide Lo Surdo (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

Hello, i created a draft of the page "Davide Lo Surdo". You can see the draft here. I ask you to check out the new draft with new informations (new articles and recognitions) and reconsider this page for the publication since now it meets the notability criteria (museums exhibitions, bronze statue, Rolling Stone Brasil article signed, independent sources signed, etc). Johnmarrys (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Comment - This appeal is properly at DRV because the title is salted with a notation that DRV or equivalent is required prior to re-creation. Will someone who can see the deleted article please verify whether the sources in the draft are significantly better than in the deleted draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    User:Robert McClenon, it is not true that drafts should come to DRV if the article title is SALTed.
    First, an AfC reviewer needs to want to approve it. Then, they can request desalting at WP:RfUP, at WT:AFC, by asking User:Primefac, or the SALTing admin, methods that are much faster than a week+ at DRV. It’s not as if it is frequent that an AfC reviewer wants to approve a SALTed article_title draft. Hopeless cases and inept newcomers should not be sent to DRV to waste time at DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    User:SmokeyJoe - The log entry by the salting admin says: subject to frequent promotion; should only be re-created after a deletion review or similar discussion. That is why we are at deletion review. I was contrasting this request with Misguided Use of DRV where the appellant wants to create a draft of a deleted article and the title was not salted. Maybe the salting admin made a mistake, but the appellant read the log correctly and is acting as instructed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    At the time, I thought that an article about this person should only be created if he became much more notable in Wikipedia terms (i.e. had a few independent articles written about him in sources that Wikipedia usually considers reliable, especially for music. I thought DRV would be the best way of determining that. Graham87 (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment - The title is salted not only in article space but in draft space. I think that the salting in draft space was misguided. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Graham87, are you able to comment on the salting and provide more context on this topic? Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Yes, this article has been subject to many many cross-wiki attempts by this user (and others, including IP's) to add it over the last few years, all of which have either failed or are currently under discussion. See for example not just the one in English but the deletion debates in Spanish, German, the ongoing discussion in Dutch (to which I've provided a pointer here), etc. I took the highly unusual step of protecting both the article and the draft page because of (a) the level of persistence in promoting this person and (b)) I didn't want an articles for creation reviewer unfamiliar with this situation to add the article into the main namespace without strong consultation beforehand. Re one of the supposed museum exhibitions: a Bangladeshi news source shouldn't be the only available proof that something's exhibited in an American museum. Graham87 (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    I checked with the Sigal Music Museum and it was indeed a small part of the exhibition noted in the userspace draft (though that doesn't confer notability). Graham87 (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    In my opinion you were WP:INVOLVED and should not have salted. Which is very moot now, because this DRV will either remove the salting or clear any taint caused by it being done by you. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
    Fair enough, as I was the AFD nom and primary advocate for the article's deletion here. I'd be OK with whatever happens here now re the salting. Graham87 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Comment - Ok, perfect. At this point, since the answer of this discussion is clear, i think we can also close the discussion.

Johnmarrys (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Boriswave (talk |edit |history |logs |links |watch ) (XfD |restore )

There is now ample evidence of the widespread use of the term "Boriswave" to describe the unusually high levels of post-Brexit migration to the United Kingdom, including in reputable external sources such as these articles 1 2 3 4 5 6. This is just a small selection, there are many more articles which can be found. Notably, two of these are from a centre-left outlet/author, demonstrating widespread use of the term across the political spectrum.

The outcome of the original discussion was a redirect to Immigration to the United Kingdom this does not sufficient cover this phenoma in my opinion, and there is precedent for having separate articles for particularly abnormal economic or political events, such as 2021–present United Kingdom cost-of-living crisis. Elshad (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  • Endorse. The popularity of the term or the frequency of its use in reputable sources are irrelevant here, and were never disputed. The Redirect outcome was a result of a consensus that the article was a redundant content fork of the target. Nothing stops the appellant or any editor from expanding the relevant section at the target, within the limits of WP:UNDUE. If the section becomes large enough, and independent notability supports it, we can always spin it off back into a standalone article. Owen×ばつ ☎ 12:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Overturn to merge Not a big nitpick here, but when there's clearly RS'ed content identified--and there is--that should be represented at the target article, that's a merge. When the discussion hasn't clearly identified such and/or the content considered for merging is only primary sourced and would need to be appropriately evaluated for balance, a redirect would indeed be the more appropriate outcome. But yes, a derogatory or sarcastic term for a phenomenon should generally be redirected to the section of the appropriate article covering it. G10 applying would be the obvious exception. Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Endorse per OwenX. If there is salvageable unique content in the article history, then it is perfectly possible for an editor to extract and transfer it to the target. It is also possible for the redirect to be retargeted, or the article to be spun back out again if sourcing gets better. All of these are normal editorial actions. Overturning to merge would result in the article being dumped in a one-year backlog at Category:Articles to be merged with no clear benefit. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Closer's comment: In my view, redirection was the more appropriate WP:ATD rather than a merger for the reasons evoked by OwenX and Stifle. The contents of Boriswave and Modern immigration to the United Kingdom#Brexit and COVID overlap significantly in content and scope, which means that a copy-paste merger would not be possible; rather, quite some work would be needed to identify any useful content from Boriswave and to integrate it organically into the target article. Until somebody takes on this task, it is better to hide the Boriswave content behind a redirect to avoid a continued WP:CFORK situation. Sandstein 10:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /