Wikipedia:Deletion review

Skip to:

Active discussions
Recent discussions
Archive
(purge cache)

WP:DRV

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

Shortcut

WP:DRVPURPOSE

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

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);
(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.)
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);
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);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
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.)
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

Shortcut

WP:DELREVD

Before listing a review request, please:

Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
Check that it is not on the list 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 8}}</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 8}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2025 February 8\|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

8 February 2025

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)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Debangshu Bhattacharya

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

6 February 2025

Mehdi Hasan Khan

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Endorse and protect per above. Clear case of BLPREQUESTDELETE on a relatively unknown person. Frank Anchor 15:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hemlata Mahishwar

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

5 February 2025

2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Speedy endorse. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  [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)[reply]

I would support the creation of a DAB page. Frank Anchor 19:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Endorse per Robert McClenon. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 January 2025

Harsh Beniwal – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 07:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closure of this deletion discussion interpreted consensus. I believe meeting WP:NACTOR is usually enough to keep a standalone article. As Harsh has played significant roles in multiple television shows, such as Campus Diaries, Who's Your Daddy? (2020 TV series), and Heartbeats (TV series). Also as per WP:NYOUTUBE(Subscriber count helps meet the second criteria of WP:ENT.) he meets 2nd criteria of WP:ENT As he has over [16 Million] subscribers in his YouTube channel. Jitujadab90 (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting administrator not advised of this DRV by the applicant, as required by step 2 of Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review. Daniel (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have informed the deleting administrator. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Three established editors assessed the coverage as being insufficient for notability, regardless of whether the subject meets NACTOR. The two valid keep !voters either did not evaluate the coverage at all, or mistakenly believed that interview content, RSNOI promo, and churnalism can contribute toward GNG. NYOUTUBE is an essay and carries no weight here, and so was correctly ignored in the close. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was a established editor(@Mushy Yank:) who voted KEEP, but the vote got overlooked. BTW as per NACTOR Harsh is notable as he played significant role in 3 TV series. Now the question is how do we verify that he has played significant role in 3 TV series or not. You can find out the Wikipedia page of the 3 TV series(which I mentioned above). Also I am adding the reviews here where the importance of the character is written. Campus Diaries Review 1, Campus Diaries Review 2, Who’s Your Daddy Review 1, Who’s Your Daddy Review 2, Who’s Your Daddy Review 3, Heartbeat Review 1, Heartbeat Review 2, Heartbeat review 3 Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"regardless of whether the subject meets NACTOR. The two valid keep !voters either did not evaluate the coverage at all, or mistakenly believed that interview content, RSNOI promo, and churnalism can contribute toward GNG": precisely! Subjects meeting NACTOR do not need to meet GNG also to be considered notable. Basing a rebuttal of K !votes on that premise is flawed. -Mushy Yank. 09:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I counted Mushy Yank as one of the two valid keep !voters (the third was a blocked sock). NACTOR is a presumption of notability, the subject can still fail WP:N if it is determined that the coverage doesn't exist to support an article (per WHYN). If you think those reviews are IRS and establish the notability of the actor you can add them to the draft and submit to AfC, but DRV is not AfD round 2. I'll note though that OTTplay is a streaming content provider and so clearly not an independent source. JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly check @Vanamonde93:'s comment here. Jitujadab90 (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As AfD nominator. The whole creation (and multiple deletion discussions) involving this page have been riddled with accounts that have few edits and a lot of SOCKs. Can we please stop entertaining them?--CNMall41 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged, so reacting. A "sources analysis" for GNG and one checking if a person has had significant roles in notable productions are not necessarily completely the same; I am not sure about the first in the present case but performed the second before !voting. So I guess a relist would not have hurt. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 09:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The source analysis showed a clear case to delete and was not adequately refuted. Inadequate sourcing is why the page was deleted in the past and the delete voters made a case that the sourcing hasn’t improved since then. Relisting would have been a viable option as well, based on the relative split between keep and delete !votes, but it was not in any way required. Frank Anchor 13:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but Request Temporary Undeletion - This was a valid interpretation of consensus, with 2 valid Keep votes and 3 Delete votes including the nominator. With four previous deletions, the closer is also entitled to start with some presumption that the previous closes must be overcome. The subject isn't in DEEPER territory yet, but is approaching it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The old versions were moved to Draft:Harsh Beniwal, so I temp undeleted that as well. Memo to myself to reinstate the salting when this is closed. —Cryptic 17:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the socking, and some promotion concerns, I believe consensus was interpreted correctly, but a relist couldn't hurt - it's also true that the NACTOR arguments were not examined in much detail. My understanding is that NACTOR is enough to justify a standalone article if there is enough reliably sourced biographical material to write a page, even if GNG isn't strictly met. I have no opinion on whether this individual meets NACTOR - at first glance it's borderline. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note Gone through the edit history and saw Dna India, India Today, Bollywood Hungama, Easterneye, Times Of India, News18, and IWM Buzz Dna India, India Today, Bollywood Hungama, Easterneye, Times Of India, News18, and IWM Buzz these reference were provided during previous creation and afd's. This time I have provided The Hindu, Ottplay, Daily Pioneer, Statesman, The Indian Express, and The Quint these references which were not provided previous time. The Hindu and Indian Express are reliable source and those has editorial oversight. Ottplay is also talking about his career in-depth. With these we can establish GNG. Though the subject is already meeting NACTOR, is enough to justify a standalone article. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only looked at the first two and they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. DRV is NOT the place to re-hash your !keep rationale. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NEWSORGINDIA The Hindu, and Indian Express are reliable sources. And both the article talking in-depth about his career. Ott Play is also discussing his career. With these 2 articles, GNG is satisfying. Also satisfying NACTOR, still the AFD closed without being examined in much detail. Thanks for telling me that DRV is not the place to rehash. BTW I am not rehashing; I am just sharing the fact for other editors to understand. Jitujadab90 (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse one of the keep !votes was banned as a sock as well, but I can't see this being closed as anything other than delete. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After having read the temporarily undeleted article, my endorsement is unchanged. If I had taken part in the AFD, I probably would have !voted a Weak Delete in recognition of the history of previous deletions. unless I had decided to spend an hour or more on a source analysis. But DRV is not AFD Round 2, and it doesn't matter how I would have !voted, because what matters is that the closer read consensus reasonably. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your honesty; unless I had decided to spend an hour or more on a source analysis or on the verification of the significance of the roles, for which the type of coverage required is not exactly the same as for GNG.....I see plenty of relist comments inviting users to provide more input regarding SNGs being met or not when GNG does not seem to be met very clearly.-Mushy Yank. 07:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Baku Dialogues – Closure endorsed. Daniel (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closure of this deletion discussion incorrectly interpreted consensus. The discussion included one vote to delete, one to keep, and two to merge, which does not clearly indicate a consensus to merge. Additionally, significant sources from reputable organizations such as the Atlantic Council, The Washington Institute, and Central Asia-Caucasus Institute were provided, demonstrating the journal's academic notability and relevance. These were not adequately addressed. I believe this warrants a review of the closure. Wiseuseraze (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. There was a clear consensus against a stand-alone article. Merge is then an acceptable WP:ATD. As for the additional sources, nobody apparently was swayed by them to change their !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Randykitty I would like to raise a concern regarding your repeated involvement in every step of this article’s deletion process. You initially nominated the article for deletion, participated in the discussion, and now are actively engaging in the deletion review, which is meant to assess the closure of the original discussion. This process is intended to gather input from other editors and ensure a neutral review, not to repeatedly reinforce the same perspective. I believe it would be more appropriate to allow others to provide their views at this stage, as the review should reflect a broader community consensus rather than the opinion of a single user.Wiseuseraze (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Involved editors are allowed to participate in deletion reviews. C F A 02:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, closers here at DRV will generally discount their involvement when closing if it's consistent with the outcome. (The opposite is also true: if you argue against your desired outcome, that can be given more weight.) In short it's not an issue. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as correct reading of consensus. The only editor supporting a keep was yourself. Merge is a valid WP:ATD. C F A 02:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as valid outcome and viable ATD. And for the record, there is no issue with Randykitty's participation here or throughout the process. Star Mississippi 03:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Appellant is encouraged to provide additional demonstration of notability for this journal by working on it at its merge target: if it works, great, if not, it's still going to have the best coverage for a non-notable journal that the sourcing can support. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User:Jclemens, I already added more than 4 links from reliable sources to the article during the first deletion discussion. I also left comments in the discussion, but it feels like no one took them seriously, they just got ignored. You can check my latest comment there if you want to see what I mean. Wiseuseraze (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I am not conversant with either the relevant languages (and I don't read stuff in translation for fun) nor how to assess the sources relevant to this journal, so I'm giving guidance on how to deal with an adverse merge, rather than suggesting that the AfD participants were correct; we're primarily reviewing the close here. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jclemens What languages are you referring to, English? All the added references are in English. It’s clear that you didn’t even check the sources, yet you’re commenting on them. This is what I mean by ignoring. :d Wiseuseraze (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When no one is taking your side, I don't necessarily recommend attacking people for not doing things they were never obligated to do in the first place. I said I didn't read the non-English sources; I didn't say I read any of them. In fact, you're right, I looked at the mix of English and non-English sources and said to myself, "Why start a source analysis if I can't see all of them?". Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jclemens, Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn’t attacking anyone, just pointing out that all the sources I added after the deletion discussion started were in English.Wiseuseraze (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer correctly interpreted consensus as being in between Keep and Delete, and Merge as an alternative to deletion is a compromise. The appellant may create an improved draft and submit it for review. Editors who have taken part in the AFD sometimes indicate that they are involved, and sometimes they don't, and involved editors often take part in DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no error in the close here, nor do I think the participants ignored sources. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is clear consensus to not keep as a standalone article. With a delete/WP:ATD split, the ATD (in this case merge) should always be selected unless there is a specific reason against it argued by several users. This makes merging clearly the best option here. Frank Anchor 00:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 January 2025

Raegan Revord (closed)

Raegan Revord – There is rough consensus to endorse the procedural closure, or at most no consensus to overturn it, which results in the same outcome. There is no consensus as to the criticism directed by the closer at the person who swapped the article's contents mid-AfD, and it's doubtful whether this is even a matter for DRV. Since the article content seems to be stable now, all are free to renominate the article for deletion if they so desire. Sandstein 09:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Admin did a "Procedural close", stating that it was because the page was swapped out with one from draft space during the discussion. However,

That's not what happened; the discussion was closed, then the page was swapped with clear consensus from both Keep and Delete !voters, then the discussion was reopened following a January 3 deletion review.
That shouldn't matter because both articles were on the same subject (a specific TV cast member) and the discussion was all about notability (i.e., the subject) and not content (the article.)

Discussion on this has been extensive and should be allowed a proper close. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. In this case, a closing admin should be able to make a whatever closing outcome they find reasonable based on the comments at hand. I don't think we need another week of discussion, 2 relists are enough, but an "actual" close, either by last closer @Liz herself or another willing admin. The post-close "swapping" can be seen as encouraged during-afd improvement. Ping "swapper" @PrimeHunter and afd-starter @Pppery if they wish to comment.

This subject has been in a kind of "development hell" for quite awhile. The draft was pending for review (again), and someone decided during that pending to make a new version and put it in main-space, and that version was taken to afd. Then the afd closed, the "swapping" happened, there was a DRV, and the afd was reopened, then closed by Liz. So IMO, the closer should also consider if a no consensus close here means

no consensus = back to draft

or

no consensus = stays in main-space. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the procedural close as a procedural close. I agree with the appellant that the discussion was extensive and deserved a proper close, but the discussion had been about two versions of the article, and I agree with the closer that this made a consistent close impossible. The closer said that a new AFD would be the way to resolve the biographical notability issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The MFD notice on a draft or project page says not to blank, merge, or move the page, or remove the notice. The AFD notice on an article says not to remove the notice. I have been saying for several years that the AFD notice should say not to blank, merge, or move the page, or remove the notice. An editor moved the page by replacing it with another page, and that confused things. I have mostly been concerned about bad-faith moves of nominated articles, but this was a misguided good-faith move that should not have been done because it made a consistent closure impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not invested in this closure and I came to the decision of a procedural close after reviewing the discussion again. The AFD was started with one version of the article on this subject and, after several relistings of the discussion, it came time to close the discussion but it was now about a different version of the article than when it started. I looked at the possible options for closure and none of them seemed appropriate as they would all be ignoring the fact that the AFD had covered two different versions of an article on the same subject.

I realize that the AFD is about the subject but this still seemed like a highly unusual situation so a procedural close was done and, if editors wished to do so, a fresh AFD could be started if there were those who still sought deletion. This seemed like the only resolution that would abide by the spirit of our guidelines. I review most open AFDs on a regular basis and if I had noticed that the articles had been switched out (main space>draft, draft>main space) earlier in the process, I would have closed this discussion sooner before it had gone on so long. I have closed hundreds (thousands?) of AFD discussions over the past four and a half years and this is the first time I've seen a situation like this happen. I'm glad this review is happening, not to second guess myself but because I'm curious what other solutions DRV regulars think might have been suitable for an AFD where the article that has been nominated is switched midway through the discussion with a different draft version. If the consensus is that my closure was incorrect, I accept that determination and welcome the community's guidance on how to handle situations like this should they ever come up again in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that if an article is re-written during an AFD, that does not invalidate the !votes, since AFD arguments usually address the subject's notability rather than the state of the wikitext. I was expecting a keep close for this particular AFD. Not sure how much more editor time we should spend on this though. It's been to deletion review twice now. I would not have personally taken this to deletion review. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time this user insists on starting a deletion review on this article in a short time. He asked the closer but gave very little time for a reply before starting this second deletion review. Why this painful rush? Why force the community to spend all this time? Is it really a life or death situation to achieve just the exact and precise sort of close?
I wholeheartedly agree with the above endorse (=leave the close as "good enough") in that in the bigger picture some sort of status quo close was realistically all that would be had from that discussion, so "procedural" is just fine.
I strongly advise against a backdoor delete; it is not appropriate to reinterpret "no consensus" to mean back to draft; that is explicitly against what both keep and delete !voters meant and intended when they made their comments. If "keep" starts to mean "keep or possibly back to draft" then every Wikipedian needs to be made aware of that and we need a new term for "keep and only keep". To me, "no consensus" needs to keep having the meaning "we could not agree to make a change, so we keep the status quo" Regards CapnZapp (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the above poster who is criticizing me is a very involved editor who "insists" on dealing with this matter by insisting that those questioning specific claims inconvenient to his stance remain silent. The appropriateness of the first deletion review should be apparent in its success. As for rushing, I waited approximately a day and saw that the admin involved had responded to a number of other matters without responding to concerns posted by multiple people on their Talk page... and that admin has now expressed that she is "glad this review is happening". If this is found to be an appropriate close, I'd be interested in seeing where the limits are (WP:AFD says "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article", and that is largely what the swap was, as the draft article was basically a superset of the information in the article-space article, with better sourcing; cutting and pasting the entire draft article would seem within the letter of that, but the swap maintained edit history better than such pasting would've.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop mischaracterizing my comment as "insisting" you "remain silent", User:NatGertler. I asked you to not shade Vanamonde's comment by pretending he was in the business of creating exceptions when good faith would assume he was not. I think if Vanamonde93 wants to define an exception, it's up to them where the line is they are arguing for. is a strong case of gaslighting and I wasn't letting you get away with it - to me he was definitely not trying to create exceptions and your demand that they draw lines is unreasonable. Telling you to stop diminishing another user's comment is very clearly not the same thing as "insisting" you "remain silent" - you are free to express yourself in a million ways; including ways where you put your thumb in the eye of a user that might not meet your stringent precision requirements. If, that is, you accept you might receive push-back from random users like me. Also, your comparison with Friends (each of the six Friends actors deserves equal notability while apparently there's this invisible line between the fifth and sixth main actor of Young Sheldon, which only excludes Revord). You somehow think it's okay to arbitrarily downplay actors (she is probably 6th in quantity of screen presence, She's a regular, yes, but she's supporting cast.) - no, Nat, there's zero weight in arguing her screen credit is less valuable than, say, Jordan's or Pott's. Finally, the context for what Nat is accusing me: Another user tried to defuse the situation by the very reasonable interpretation of Vanamonde's comment (Perhaps we can agree on "a main [cast] actor"?) but no, you doubled down - and when I didn't fold, that's how you end up in situations where your only recourse, apparently, is to think people "insist" you "remain silent" when in reality, they are merely asking you assume good faith. CapnZapp (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of electrons have been sacrificed arguing over my intended meaning - I wish I had been pinged! For clarity, I am aware that Missy Cooper isn't the main character of the show, and "a main character" is what I intended to write. Also, for the record, I have not watched the show, would not describe myself as a fan, and am only aware of it because of how often it is mentioned in articles on the internet. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming what we all (but one) knew: that you intended to write "a main character" is the obvious good faith interpretation. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By "we all (but one)", you seem to mean precisely you. (Only one other editor beside you and me was in the discussion that followed Vanamonde9's comment, and they just asked a question, rather than making claims about V's intent.) And no, "good faith" does not call on assuming that people don't mean the thing they say but mean the thing that would agree with you. Your repeated use of that technique in a recent discussion does not come off as a reflection of "good faith". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This whole row started because you decided to not leave Vanamonde93's !vote alone. I told you to not undermine other people's !vote based on bad faith interpretations of their arguments when a better faith interpretation is reasonable and readily available. You now refusing to conceding the point even after the original poster has established that my good faith interpretation was correct speaks volumes. CapnZapp (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This is a unique but excellent close. I agree above that AfDs are about notability, not about what should happen to a specific article, but I think "no consensus" is the strongest close here, it's been at AfD for awhile, and a "no consensus" creates possible issues with draft space, so a procedural close both allows it to be kept in main space, at least temporarily, and allows for a new conversation. I would give it a couple weeks and then start a fresh AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I would still have nominated regardless of what the text of the article said, as I would not have allowed an article created in open contempt of process to survive without an AfD. And I still won't allow it, and will renominate this version for AfD as well as soon as practical. Hence nothing has addressed the actual reason for my nomination, and the procedural close was improper. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm hoping for an "actual" close instead of the procedural, it would hopefully spare us that new afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a little casualness in starting a new AFD, for the simple reason that there is currently material bubbling up through tabloid sources regarding an online persona that, should it reach the level of better coverage in the next few days, could push the subject past the WP:NACTOR concern, at least for me, and would leave the article in a state that would likely have been accepted if submitted from Draft. See Talk:Raegan Revord for details. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ~~closing, including the SuperTrout~~ ~~({{Whale}}) for User:PrimeHunter for disrupting the AfD~~. Ask User:Pppery to wait at least two weeks after the close of this DRV to renominate. While some have a sense of outrage, there is no reason to rush. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe, look at the timeline again. When PrimeHunter did their thing, the afd was closed as keep, then it was re-opened, and then Liz closed it again. This trouting thing is quite unfair, and disappointing from an 18 year + Wikipedian. Not to mention an admin/arb. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I withdraw endorsement of the SuperTrout, it does appear unfair. Is he an Arb, didn’t know, but that’s irrelevant. Looking at the state of things around 10am 3 January 2025, the AfD was closed, and looked reasonably closed on my pass, and explicitly raised the possibility of a page swap of the article for the better older draft, which User:PrimeHunter carried out. That was ostensibly the perfect thing to do, so apologies to PrimeHunter. I’m tempted now to criticise User:OwenX for relisting. OwenX did not reverse the pageswap, and from then onwards, the process had failed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe Thanks! "admin/arb" referred to Liz, maybe I should have said "from an admin/arb". When she says stuff, people are likely to listen, for good reason, but IMO she should correct her closing statement. Agree with "ostensibly the perfect thing to do".

On reverting the swap, I see your point, but I also think that would have been a bad idea from the BLP-perspective, changing [1] back to [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The pageswap should not have reversed, meaning that the AfD should not have been relisted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right to criticize me, SmokeyJoe. I noticed something was fishy when I reverted the NAC, since the linked page under review didn't have the AfD template in its history. But I figured I'd leave things for the WP:GNOMES and bots to clean up, and thought things were fine once I saw user:cyberbot I attach the missing template. I routinely un-move pages that are moved during AfD, and should have dug deeper and unswapped in this case as well. Mea culpa, and a well deserved self-trout. Owen× ☎ 12:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a strange case, and you’re a pleasure to work with. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a strange case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have raised the question of forbidding the moving, merging, or blanking of an article during AFD at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Forbid_Moving_an_Article_During_AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon: sure, as long as we agree that doesn't apply to this particular article - as stated above it was only moved after the AFD was closed (and before it was reopened). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly see a issue with the swap, especially since it technically happened while the AFD was closed? More generally, significant rewires, including total replacements, do not totally void an AFD discussion, and therefore page swaps shouldn't either. On the other hand, the close is essentially a no consensus without prejudice closure, and the AFD is enough of a confusing trainwreck to justify that (the bludgeoning does not help, though I suppose this is not a conduct forum). I would endorse the close in this specific case, and unusual closes that creatively get around issues (the trainwreck) more generally, though absent the trainwreck I would recommend that a page swap not be considered to preclude substantive closes.

As an retrospective on earlier administrative actions, the WP:REOPEN statement could possibly have been a bit more detailed, though of course I do not know if an exhortation to be more focused and provide analysis would actually have been effective. I agree with Robert McClenon, Liz, SportingFlyer and Pppery that a new AFD would be appropriate (in a couple of weeks). I would encourage participants of said new AFD to clearly link their arguments to the relevant guidelines, and if making an argument to IAR, clearly explain why the exception would make for a suitable article in this case. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz is completely correct that you can't understand and parse a discussion when two separate iterations of an article are being discussed. Really, I don't think you can effectively hit a moving target when making changes during an AfD, which is why I rarely do. However, while Novem Linguae may be correct in theory, too many editors only look at and comment on the current state of the article--they don't do any research themselves nor engage with additional sourcing brought up by others in the course of an AfD. This is yet another topic that could stand to be clarified. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, I think you can understand and parse. It's a bit complex, though.

In the first part of the afd, you have a bunch of keep, and they are saying keep to this version. 2 editors, me and @NatGertler, are indicating doubt, Nat Gertler with an !vote.

In the later part of the afd, after the first relist that came after the close-swapwithmuchbetterandmucholderdraft-DRV-reopen sequence of events, editors are now commenting on this version. Now, consider this speculation on my part if you will, but that change would not have made the keeps do a 180, the improvement is quite obvious.

Nat Gertler commented extensively in the later part of the afd, if he had changed his mind he would have said so. As for myself, I wrote an !vote, so readers will know what I thought. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be uncontroversial to say there was universal consensus for "the second version is superior to the first" in both !keep and !delete camps. Everybody seemed to think PrimeHunter's "swapwithmuchbetterandmucholderdraft" was a good idea, which makes his current supertrouted (whalesquished, even) status all the more poignant. CapnZapp (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, much of my argument in the pre-original-closure made it clear that even then I was looking at the draft version, because I repeatedly argued that the draft version is the one that should be kept if there was a keep result. My delete concerns were based on notability, not on the content of a specific version of the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, my cautionary advice stands: Just because one can follow what's happened, doesn't mean we should expect the average participant and closer to do so. The contrarian in me notes that if we made AfDs more confusing we might get fewer drive-by !votes, but reducing participation is almost never a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Average closer? Perhaps no. Called-in-for-re-close-after-first-DRV-admin Liz? Perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse (involved, voted keep). Very difficult close by a very skilled closing admin. There were two different versions of the same article that were being discussed. While a no consensus close would have been fine, this probably works better as some may have considered a NC close to mean to send the article back to draft space for improvement. As the keep close is on procedural grounds, anyone is free to renominate it. I would recommend waiting at least a month after this DRV closes, in an attempt for tempers to cool down and to possibly allow for perspective from different users. Frank Anchor 13:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure (mostly to undo the Liz's incorrect WP:TROUT of PrimeHunter). Should probably be re-closed as a simple keep and the WP:TROUT should be applied to Liz and to OwenX who reopened the AFD without saying so and without noticing that the page had been moved . —Kusma (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't [3] count as saying so? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, yes, it is in the relisting bit that I never look at. Trout for me too I guess (tasty!) —Kusma (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect to Liz, who does excellent work at AfD, I don't believe a procedural close was needed here, and a lot of the procedural argument is quite unnecessary. If this is kept - and it seems it will be - the material in draftspace should just be merged to mainspace, and the draftspace title redirected to preserve history. If "credit" becomes important (why would it? DYK? GAN?) anyone who contributed substantively is logically entitled to credit in the same they would normally be if something were drafted in talk- or user-space. I !voted "weak keep", but either a "keep" or a "no consensus" could be justified here: there are substantive arguments for both outcomes, and many "keep"s acknowledge that notability is borderline/somewhat based on IAR. I would be fine with striking the trout to PrimeHunter - if I am reading the sequence of events correctly they acted while the AfD was closed, and as such their actions were reasonable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential comment The reason "credit is important" is that editors (technically) retain copyright to their contributions, but license them under CC BY-SA, which requires attribution. If you can't figure out who wrote what, then we're in violation of the license terms. It's a little hard to imagine such a thing coming to trial, but it's a point of hygiene that the community takes seriously. --Trovatore (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trovatore: Our copyright and licensing choices require us to preserve the history of content we host. They do not in any way require us to preserve it at the same title, otherwise merges from draftspace/userspace to mainspace would not be possibly (they are in fact routine). If the page is kept, we need to preserve the history of both versions - but we do not need to waste more time over which title which version exists at. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Liz is correct that the AfD should be restarted because it is a mess, but wrong to blame PrimeHunter. There is clearly no consensus to delete in the closed discussion and I doubt that one would develop in a fresh one so perhaps it's best to wait a while before renominating. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you meant the implication here, but if you did - the reason to wait is not for a consensus to delete to develop. To the best of my knowledge everyone involved in reopening the AFD have done so because they feel it has been improperly closed (twice). At least I hope they aren't trying to keep it open until a delete outcome emerges, because - at least to me - the clear outcome, if the AFD we're discussing is reopened, would be "no consensus" (meaning "no consensus to delete", mind you, it is after all an "articles for deletion" discussion and not an "articles for keeping" discussion so "no consensus" must and should be taken to mean no consensus to take the discussed action), and - assuming we're not spammed with AFDs until people get tired of responding - I see no reason to expect a different outcome of a future AFD; unless obviously, sources appear that move the needle towards a clear keep result. CapnZapp (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? My reading of the above comments is Anyone who think they should can open a new afd, but give it awhile. Which is, sort of, what Liz said in her close. I also think there is support above that @Liz should strike/rewrite her closing comment regarding PrimeHunter, since the "in the midst of this AFD discussion, User:PrimeHunter moved the main space article to Draft space and the Draft space version to main space" is incorrect and PrimeHunter didn't deserve any kind of trout, super or otherwise. On a sidenote, afaict the ongoing Talk:Raegan_Revord#They/Them_Pronouns discussion has so far not produced any more GNG-good sources for the Revord article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, are you saying you believe there is consensus to let Liz' close stand and have the AFD remain closed, User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång? On the sidenote, not sure why you expected that discussion to impact the notability issue? It's TikTokers with a weak sense of verifiability that get annoyed Wikipedia isn't mirroring the latest gossip - they aren't interested in our notability guidelines...? And on that topic, yes, Revord's notability is weak, but is it non-existent? Before the AFD was closed, it to me clearly was heading for a no consensus result (meaning "no consensus to delete", mind you, it is after all an "articles for deletion" discussion and not an "articles for keeping" discussion so "no consensus" must and should be taken to mean no consensus to take the discussed action) Regards CapnZapp (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, my reading of the above is that there is no general taste to undo the close, but several have said "start a new afd". @Pppery said they intended to at some point. And IMO, in a new afd, we wouldn't have the "what does no consensus mean in this situation" issue. On the sidenote, the pronoun thing could have (might still) resulted in some usable sources, like the car crash, and those sources could have had some WP:N value. I think Nat Gertler had a similar thought at [4]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I for one thing Liz's criticism of PrimeHunter is completely right - PrimeHunter's action was the but-for cause of this tangle. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery, when PrimeHunter did their thing, the afd was closed as keep, then it was re-opened, and then Liz closed it again. There was no reason at the time to think "Oh, this close will only last 36h." This I know because I didn't either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this discussion? --Marbe166 (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep. There's no hard and fast rule here. Considering the rationale behind the nomination and the discussion as it addresses that rationale, it is amply clear that there is a consensus that the subject is notable. The state of the swapped-in incarnation of the article is not something that can negatively affect arguments that the subject is notable. Therefore, it was not reasonable not to find a consensus to keep when one existed, in spite of the unusual circumstances. The core facts of the matter are that the burden to delete wasn't met, editors overwhelmingly did not believe that an article about Raegan Revord at the page name "Raegan Revord" should be deleted for lack of notability, and that is a keep outcome, and no circumstances can change this core truth which should have been recognized.—Alalch E. 13:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note I listed it at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Deletion_discussions since so many DRV regulars have been a part of this discussion or the related AFDs. Star Mississippi 17:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi And I added it at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Other_types_of_closing_requests... :P Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GMTA @Gråbergs Gråa Sång! (and thanks @Extraordinary Writ for the cleanup) Star Mississippi 18:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

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

v t e Wikipedia community
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	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creating articles Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates