The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
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.
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.
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
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
1.
Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 July 1}}</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 July 1}}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 July 1|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of 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.)
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".
Summary: the article was recreated and speedy deleted without meeting speedy deletion criteria.
In more details: The article was originally deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Functional_Decision_Theory in January, with the main reason being insufficient proof of notability. A few weeks ago, I came up on a recent news article talking about "Functional Decision Theory" from Wired, so I searched for the concept on Wikipedia and realized the page was deleted. I created a new one from scratch, with additional sources to establish notability. It was immediately draftified by User:David Gerard as he claimed it is substantially similar to the previous one. I brought up that it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion as per WP:G4, since it "applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". He responded that "has the same bad referencing: the sources about the topic are primary sources, and the reliable sources aren't actually about FDT". While I disagree (some of the new non-primary sources are about FDT), I added 4 new non-primary references talking about FDT, including a published book, and moved the article back to mainspace. He then speedy deleted it again. I contest this speedy deletion, as I think the article is now substantially different to at least merit a new AfD debate AND some of the added sources were published after the last AfD was closed. 7804j (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - there are certainly OR issues with the draft that DG has undeleted above. Many of the references don't mention this concept, and the author has SYNTHed them together in my opinion. That said, as the WIRED article (briefly) states, this is a thing. In fact if one searches for Timeless Decision Making which the WIRED article says is another term, there are more peer reviewed sources. However the issue is that these sources are almost all simple mentions which point back to an unreviewed paper and/or one on arXiv. So there's not really much to go on to write a page without writing an OR essay. Without getting into the weeds as to understanding what this is about it seems like peer reviewed papers are mentioning this as a FRINGE idea and not bothering to explain or critique it. If all of that is stripped away this only really leaves the WIRED and a self-published paper, which isn't enough to write a WP page in my opinion. If there ever is an extensive peer reviewed paper on topic, this could change. JMWt (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leave SALTed to force going through AfC. I may be mistaken, but it looks like the four sources added are either primary or include only perfunctory mentions of the topic. But whether or not this qualified for G4, the appellant's behaviour comes across as sealioning - civilized and soft-spoken, while effectively ignoring David Gerard's sound advice, and engaging in what I can only describe as an edit-war against an admin who was trying to enforce the consensus reached at the AfD. I see no value in wasting the community's time with another AfD to review those four added sources. An AfC reviewer can do the job, and decide whether the draft is ready for mainspace. Owen×☎20:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 as a technicality; the version that was G4ed is not sufficiently identical to the version deleted at AFD. I find the newer version to be of considerably lower quality and would stand no chance at AFD due to the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH concerns brought up by JMWt. To that effect leave in draft space to allow for any good-faith improvement for a potential AFC submission. FrankAnchor20:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article aside, is this specific type of situation becoming a problem? It's probably not a G4, it's just different enough and most importantly has new sources, but I'd be surprised as socks if it has any chance of actually being kept at AfD. (This isn't relevant in this instance, but I think if an article is deleted at AfD, and is re-created with exactly the same sources but entirely different prose, G4 can still apply.) SportingFlyerT·C20:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment or Question - If I understand correctly, what is visible as the draft is the submitted new article, and what is visible in the history as of 21 January 2025 is the article that was nominated for deletion and deleted. I don't see a G4 in the log. What I see is that the new draft (which may have been deleted) is less complete than the deleted article, but not a proper subset of it. If I understand correctly what is what, then the G4, if there was a G4, should be overturned, because the draft is not a repost, but will itself be deleted. Are my understandings correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page had many good articles but still it got removed. Why it was deleted? Just because before it was not notable? That don’t seem fair. Please don’t do like this. I saw in AfD many top level sources were there but still some editos didn’t cared about them. This is not right. How can so many good articles about the company not matter? Please check properly and do fair thing. 2409:40D0:BE:E670:C57E:19E6:F357:9A87 (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC) -->[reply]
Endorse, sockpuppet limit breached. Plus, while it wasn't a G11 - there were about four neutral sentences hidden between marketing drivel like "Spinny operates a digital-first model integrated with physical retail touchpoints, offering services across several major Indian cities." and "It also offers additional policies such as a five-day return period and a certification program named 'Spinny Assured.'" - it was pretty close. —Cryptic08:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. After discarding socks, COI SPAs, and those clearly canvassed off-wiki, we're left with one legitimate, P&G-based argument to keep. The bogus, shameless source analysis table is particularly offensive. Title-gaming to evade a SALT is never a good way to recreate an article. Owen×☎08:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closer used good judgment in ignoring the Keep votes from start-up accounts and IP addresses that were probably canvassed. As per OxenX, any article that is created with a gamed title is suspect from the start, and this was no exception. The original title is not salted in draft space, and a good-faith editor can recreate a draft for review rather than trying to evade the salting. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse although a bit reluctantly. I thought User:Afstromen was making a sincere effort to engage with the GNG and shouldn't be lumped in with IP and possible COI editors. Their last div in the discussion wasn't really refuted. I accept that there are issues with Indian media and PR puffery, but at the same time we now have a situation where it is almost impossible to have any Indian business meeting the standard for inclusion. I don't know how this can be resolved. JMWt (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a somewhat reluctant close on my part, for similar reasons. Speaking of Afstromen's participation, @OwenX, I count two good ones, Afstromen and @HighKing, but they're outnumbered more than 2:1 on deletes. In particular, HighKing's endorsement gave me pause, since he is usually quite strict on interpretations of WP:ORGTRIV. I suspect that the issues raised by @Cryptic and @Robert McClenon had some influence on the discussion and that an actually good article on the topic would have fared better at AfD. But I think it would have been a real stretch to close the discussion as it happened as "no consensus". -- asilvering (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JMWt, I fully respect the admin’s decision on this AfD and have no objections. I also want to clarify that I have no connection with the IPs involved. Creating the article about Salt was my first and last mistake. When I created the article, I left a note on the talk page explaining my action, but I understand the admin who had protected the title wasn’t satisfied and I accept that. It was a careless mistake, and I’ve already apologized to the admin. I genuinely wasn’t aware of the correct procedure in such cases. I assure you this won’t happen again, and I sincerely apologize for my actions. I also want to mention that I was only sharing my thoughts in the AfD, as I believed there were a few good-quality sources supporting notability. That said, I respect the final decision and don’t wish to pursue this further. Afstromen (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should continue as you are, friend. I don't see any issues with your edits. And certainly nothing serious to apologise for. JMWt (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching articles and drafts with gamed titles in various forums for more than a decade, and I an always deeply wary of any such article, and this is one. I would have endorsed the deletion even if the votes by good-faith and good-standing editors were roughly even. I think that any editor who advances such an article is likely to be either a paid editor, a sockpuppet, a canvassed pop-up editor, an ultra, or an inexperienced editor who does not understand about the frequency of the gaming of titles. I see that User:Afstromen was an inexperienced editor, and that they see that they made a good-faith mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Afstromen or any other good-faith editor thinks that the company is notable, they should submit a draft with the original title, Draft:Spinny for review, and the reviewer can decide whether to request that the title be desalted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse and salt the disambiguated title (involved). An IP address bringing an appeal of a discussion riven with sockpuppetry is not something we need to deal with in good faith. (I would still have endorsed, but not speedily, had HighKing or Afstromen brought the appeal. I generally trust HighKing's assessment but the one source they proffered that I could see was not SIGCOV in my view.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Salting isn't likely to be effective if people are already adding unnecessary disambiguators, and I'd normally be wary of blacklisting a term this simple. Surprisingly few hit for it, though - besides this, its previous title Spinny, a version in draft, and an image, there's only ever been Spinny & SpikeSpinny & Spike, Spinny chairSpinny chair, Spinny ship, and a bunch of unrelated user- and usertalk pages. Nothing like what's at Spinney. Maybe create a protected redirect there and blacklist; wikt:spinny gives it as an alternative spelling, and redirects usually don't need the sort of associated pages like talk archives and GA reviews and AFDs that normal articles do. —Cryptic20:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Revert and delete - consensus was to delete. Closer should get a trout. I haven't checked, but if this is has happened before by them, upgrade the trout to a haddock and pban them from AFD. - UtherSRG(talk)00:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the only controversial close I have seen from this non-admin. While I believe they are working in good faith, I would encourage them to step back from closing close AfD's. Let'srun (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Redirect is a valid ATD for Olympians and this outcome has occurred probably over a thousand times by this point. I don't see why this is necessary, or why it shouldn't be redirected. And suggesting the closer deserves a pban for this is utterly nonsensical. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorseish. No reason for not redirecting was articulated, so the outcome is correct. But a relist or an admin closure would both have been preferable to a borderline NAC. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse as per Jclemens, because this would have been a valid close by an admin. However, as a non-admin close, the optics are wrong. It looks like the non-admin is trying to make a close that they can make. A Relist, which they also can make, would have been more prudent. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer: Unless someone can explain why the redirect is invalid, I see no policy-based reason to delete and then create a valid redirect. That is needlessly hiding page history and obstructing editors looking to re-create the article should the subject become notable in future. I would have closed this the same way even if I had the ability to delete, and I believe any responsible admin should have done the same. Toadspike[Talk]06:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are not an admin, you should not be making any controversial closures (especially since you couldn't close it as delete). There were 4 votes to delete while only one to redirect, so closing as redirect is effectively a supervote. The redirect vote came after the 4 delete votes, thus either a relist (to ask the other delete voters regarding how they felt about the proposed AtD) or a delete closure by an admin should have been the only considerations here. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. There's no consensus for delete there, just a nose-counting plurality. That's not how a rough consensus works. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Where a valid alternative to deletion is presented, it doesn't need to have the highest !vote count - any closer can determine that. Kingsif (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Technically, this was a BADNAC, since deletion was a possible outcome, therefore it should have been left to an admin to close. That said, with a valid ATD proposed, those calling to delete must provide a compelling reason to erase the history, not merely outnumber the minority ATD !voter(s). I see no argument about the page history violating policy, nor any argument that would stand up at an RfD to remove this useful redirect. Toadspike shouldn't have closed this, but the close itself is correct. Owen×☎09:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it have been relisted at the very least to ask the four delete voters how they felt about the AtD, especially since the redirect vote came very late in the discussion? Especially since, as you noted, this was a bad NAC? Let'srun (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, because consensus is not required to perform an ATD instead of deletion. If the four delete !voters strongly feel the ATD is inappropriate, then they are welcome to list the redirect at RFD. FrankAnchor15:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun: fair point; a relist would have also been acceptable. Personally, I don't see any valid reason to erase the history behind the redirect, but if any of the AfD participants (all of whom were pinged here) can see such a reason, they (or anyone) are welcome to present their argument here, or as Frank Anchor said, start an RfD. I see no harm in keeping the history behind the redirect in place while we debate this. BADNAC or not, I see no reason to undo a close just to redo it by an admin. While I respect the process, the correct outcome takes precedence. Owen×☎16:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that decision could have simply been made through a relist and (at least temporary) restoration of the article. It appears that the community wishes to endorse the close, and I respect that, but I hope that the closer understands WP:XFD#CON when closing discussions. Let'srun (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the above. Redirects are pretty much standard for Olympians at this point and no compelling reason for deletion of the history was presented. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close should have been left to an admin, but WP:ATD is policy. As OwenX says above "I see no argument about the page history violating policy," so there is no need to delete the underlying history. --Enos733 (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No delete !vote discussed why a redirect was inappropriate. If there is some reason, bring it to RfD. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I would have closed this as redirect, and I'm honestly pretty irritated to see people calling this a WP:BADNAC. Let non-admins do things they have the tools to do. -- asilvering (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With regards to this close being a WP:BADNAC,I didn't call it one in my initial comment above and I don't think it is one under policy, but it is a close that I probably wouldn't make myself as a non-admin and wouldn't really encourage other non-admins to make. Partly, that's because of the (unfair) criticism that comes with making even clear calls against pure numbers at AfD or non-admins exercising even correct judgement when deletion is a possible (but clearly inferior) alternative close, but mostly it's because closing this kind of discussion as a non-admin is actually often counter productive. It's bound to be challenged and brought to DRV even though you were perfectly correct, so closing it actually creates more administrative backlog than leaving it open for a admin to evaluate would. It is a frustrating part of wiki culture, but it is definitely real and worth understanding. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was closed as a clearly inappropriate supervote. The closure claims that the UCoC clause "People having a particular physical or mental disability may use particular terms to describe themselves" somehow preempts this discussion, however deleting categories in no way stops people from doing so, and the rest of the closer's lengthy argument is their own opinion that should have been in a !vote, not a closure. * Pppery *it has begun...21:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn NAC supervote based on the UCoC is not OK. The people who're trusted to make such interpretations are the admin corps. Jclemens (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I just explained to Marcocapelle here - I used my good judgement as a human that can see non-uniform application of rules and that given the existing treatment of other such categories existing and somehow singling out Wikipedians with medical conditions/disability from not having one (and having read some of the explanations from users explaining why such categories can be relevant) is a clear mistreatment of a group of people. I cited the UCoC, because they conveniently even spelled it out. I don't believe the close is a supervote as I carefully considered the existing practice and therefore the nomination as it stood on the basis of singling out a particular characteristic group, rather than saying "we should delete all Wikipedians by X" falls in lack of Mutual Respect/discrimination territory (Also just to clarify, I don't think there was any malice on the nominators part, just a missed observation or accident in noticing it), so in the interest of the community, a procedural close looked entirely appropriate.
However as I explained in the longer response to @Trilletrollet when they asked about the CfD from last year, I think you will be very hard pressed in light of the user groups around religion, gender, ethnicity and co and the social norm of these having existed for a long time around this. To use maybe the most polarizing example - Religion was nominated for deletion in 2007 and the closer noted that, that category could have been deleted based on the arguments, it was still kept because there's a lot of people who feel strongly about their religion and voted because they don't like the idea of their category being deleted.
So my close was founded in the established social norm of these usercats of defining characteristics of Wikipedians existing with the history of that the standard for such characteristic groups are condoned, and such CfDs have typically been popularity contest, it can't be in the interest of the editing community to waste time on discussing any such sub-section of "Wikipedians by X" flavor of the day every couple days/weeks/months/years.
If you want to change the project-wide norm and standard that no such categories exist, that's a matter for a WP:CENT RfC. But when it's a nomination of a marginalized subgroup, whether because someone may not like it individually, or by oversight, and the rules are not uniform, then you're by definition in discrimination territory (intentional or not).
Given that I closed this, and still firmly believe, that the heart of this is one of mistreatment/"different treatment" of a group, I did so on those grounds procedurally. The history of these discussions have either been a popularity contest, or it needs to be a separate discussion - there is no "yeah we're fine deleting this group because we don't like it", but "that other one is fine because it has a large enough following to steamroll any rationale based points".
Due to that DRV is not the right venue of this and you are welcome to argue why singling out of this group is okay in your opinion to U4C if you believe that that is a good use of stewards time, rather than taking the opportunity to take a step back and realize that maybe the WP:USERCAT guidelines could indeed use an update to lay out the uniform application of established project-wide norms of such usercats and avoid the re-litigation of such repeated cases. Raladic (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn procedural close and leave for an admin to close. The closer has made a plausible argument as a vote to Keep the categories. At the same time, an argument can also be made that the UCOC does not require keeping the category, only allowing users to self-identify, and I think that argument is stronger. So the closer's argument, while a valid vote, is a seriously incorrect procedural close. The closer says that DRV is not the right venue for this, but I don't see a suggestion as to what the proper venue is. It appears that the closer does have the right to appeal to the U4C, but only by arguing that the English Wikipedia is refusing to enforce the UCOC, and we are not refusing to enforce the UCOC, but interpreting it as not mandating the category and so not requiring the procedural close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The closer is probably right that the applicable guideline should be reviewed. That doesn't validate the closure or invalidate this DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn and relist – the closer's rationale is a completely inappropriate supervote. Whatever their opinions on the UCoC, they should be presented and discussed as a !vote, not used to speedily shut down a rational, policy-based discussion. Toadspike[Talk]12:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse on principle I would be happy with getting rid of user categories completely, to be honest, but I actually agree with the closer here in the sense this is a rare instance in which the code of conduct applies and as such the discussion should either be reverted and advertised more widely, or moved to a different forum. CfDs are low participation discussion areas. SportingFlyerT·C15:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn on the basis that the NAC makes no sense. It seems clear to me that there's a debate to be had regarding userpage badge choices and whether every user is aware that this means they'd be put in a searchable category. It may well be that users should should be able to self-identify in various ways under the UCoC. That doesn't mean that therefore the category should have to exist. JMWt (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it's a poorly formed CfD ("What do you think?") with a number of related-but-unrelated categories, and the UCoC argument is a valid one that I would have missed. Honestly I would have closed as a no consensus trainwreck and let anyone immediately renominate specific categories. SportingFlyerT·C21:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By my reading, the closer is suggesting a larger discussion with many more categories. In contrast, you're suggesting smaller nominations of specific categories. (I'm not trying to sway your position, just to point out that, if the close is upheld, the next step would be unclear to me.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The next step as I suggested in the close and follow up comments, and made here would be that a discussion is held to address the points I raised. Some people (even some who voted overturn here) have suggested/agreed that maybe an outright deletion of all such user cats is one of the possible outcomes. Or the other alternative being that the community workshops an update to the current usercat guidelines that creates a framework for uniform (non-popularity contest) rules with regards to "Wikipedians by X" type usercats.
Since the point I raised with my procedural close has now been acknowledged/agreed by several other editors, I believe the reasonable next step is that CfD discussions on the "Wikipedian by X" are paused/injunct until the community either had time to vote (probably most appropriate in a RfC, given the possible project-wide impact) on which of the two options we should go, or maybe someone has another third or further suggestion to get away from the current state of affairs that has resulted in a shotgun approach and basically popularity vote on retention of such categories, which is not in the interest of the project (like I pointed out above with the Religion one as an example - the closer's hand was basically twisted, while other categories that may not have had such a big following get randomly nixed).
So, I believe my procedural close was correct as I effectively identified a gap in guideline and uniform enforcement thereof. So we should let the wider community now go from here and decide which path to take to fix the problem to update/clarify the guidelines to bring their current non-uniform treatment for such categories out of conflict with the UCoC, which are policy level, and thus, the policy takes precedent per WP:POLCON - As a temporary measure, if a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, editors may assume the policy takes precedence. - so for the time being, CfDs for such "Wikipedians by X" should be paused, the community address the issue, and then we go from there.
Would it not be for my procedural point and closure, I would also agree with SportingFlyer on the point of the CfD in question itself had a rather scatterball mix of categories in it, some of which may very well be deleted, but that would be incredibly difficult for a closer to discern if editors suggested "keep X, Y, Z, delete A, B, C" for any closer to come to any better close than a likely no-consensus WP:TRAINWRECK that even @Ppperymentioned on the actual CfD discussion, so arguably, someone may even procedurally just decided to close it preemptively on trainwreck grounds, invoking WP:COMMONSENSE, rather than wasting editors time for a week on a quite-likely foregone conclusion close. Raladic (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of that reply remains that you do not favor breaking down the existing nomination into separate discussions for each subcategory but correct me if I'm mistaken. I reached on your talk page partially to better understand what changes to WP:USERCAT you were contemplating hoping that we could maybe write a draft to reword it away from the back and forth. I'm not sure if that would work because, in some places, it sounds like the the CFD nomination process itself is what's being objected to. But I'm willing to try, and the offer still stands. I'm always happy to collaborate here, there, or wherever. But, since we don't currently have any affirmative proposals to discuss at an RFC, if the close is upheld the next step would be unclear to me. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’d be somewhat correct that I don’t think it is fruitful right this very moment to break down this CfD as I think the systemic question is more relevant right now. But thereafter, I’d say that yes breaking it down would be the right path (and I can totally see that quite several of the cats in the original proposal won’t see the light of day). So to clarify in case it wasn’t clear (getting thoughts out of my brain and across effectively is sometimes/often tricky as I’ve learned over the years and is still a work in progress, but that’s a story for a different time in the future) - I’m not objecting to CfD as a process itself in general or that any and all such categories should exist, but the current guidelines in particular to the “Wikipedians by X” type are too fuzzy as past discussions have shown and were subject to the wit of the moment).
And with regards to your comment on my user talk page, I’ll see if I can come up with a starting point in regards to that and get back on that when I find a moment. Raladic (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Westlake is a former incorporated settlement and now has a paragraph in the Moses Lake article. Most uses of the term still refer to the former town rather than the Seattle neighborhood. SounderBruce04:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[Closer's notes] The outcome was a Retarget. I closed on 27th, and mention was added at the redirect's previous target article on 28th. Appellant didn't discuss with me regarding the close. Jay 💬09:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I was directed here when I asked for some advice on how to undo the decision (as I did not have time to respond to the discussion due to an extremely busy week). Next time I will just contact the closer directly. SounderBruce18:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There was limited discussion and not a quorum to do anything. The nom statement that there is No mention in article [Moses Lake, Washington] has been addressed with the addition of sourced content. A relist would allow this content to be evaluated. FrankAnchor11:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No action. This could have been resolved with the appellant directly contacting the closing admin, who is responsive and receptive to such requests. While this isn't strictly required by policy, I see no reason to waste the community's time on something that could have been settled within minutes between the two of them. I doubt relisting would achieve a clearer consensus than what we have, but Jay is welcome to relist and administratively close this DRV as moot. Owen×☎12:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I am convinced that a relist is appropriate in this situation. I don't think the close was wrong, but per deletion review point 3, new information has come to light, that should be evaluated by the community. --Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is something wrong with the listing of the RFD log. When I view the RFD log for June 18, I see Westlake as the last entry in the Table of Contents, but I don't see it when I view the log. I do see it when I edit the source for the log, and it isn't obvious to me what has made it invisible, and I don't have time for a few hours to search for the misplaced commands and fix it. I think that the listing should be corrected regardless of the outcome of this DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the correct outcome; the Westlake neighborhood in Seattle would be the PRIMARYTOPIC no matter how you slice it. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admin who closed the AFD doesn't reach back to users who have concerns about an AFD result, so hence why I'm using this route. I was under the impression that an AFD wasn't decided on "popular vote" or "opinion poll" or survey, rather than all sides all heard, and if one side (especially if the arguments seem like hit and run posts etc.) has incorrect arguments, due to the minority side having the correct arguments, then at best case, the minority site is correct, and then at worst case, the AFD needs to be relisted. etc. Article was deleted per AFD, but I totally disagree. Article falls under Wikipedia guidelines as a list article. Correct sources for the page have been added. Is part of a very popular Video Game/Music/Media franchise (Dance Dance Revolution), doesn't fall under WP:NOTDATABASE as it doesn't contain trivial information, rather music/songs/tracks (licensed or otherwise) are an integral part of DDR history. Article was nominated rather quickly after article was reworked and organized much better, with added sources. The consensus argument on deletion was mainly that it was an unencyclopedic database article, which is not true, and also featured drive by/hit and run votes on the AFD discussion.☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admin who closed the AFD doesn't reach back to users who have concerns about an AFD result Where did you give Liz a chance to explain the close to you? Per this note, you stated you were taking this directly to DRV. In any case, endorse as the consensus at the AFD was quite clear. -- Whpq (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that argument that I should have waited for the admin in question to contact me, you have a point, but I also have a point, by looking at the admins talk page history, and seeing handfuls of users who reached out to them in regards to an AFD result or resolution, with radio silence respectively. I mentioned this on the admin's talk page, that if it wasn't for their history of not reaching back to users over AFD concerns, I would have possibly talked it over with them first, but I didn't see a point, I humbly apologize. So supposing my situation wouldn't have been any different, and I messaged the admin with a gripe/concern over the AFD and heard nothing, we would be down this avenue anyways.☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. While a late “keep” can sometimes trigger a relist so participants can engage with the rationale, there was already a robust consensus and the appellant’s argument was a greatest hits list of WP:ATA. Liz’s close was correct. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This falls into the "But no one came back to refute my argument!"-category of appeals. The appellant's main argument at the AfD was WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which means that there was a unanimous P&G-based consensus not to retain the page. Owen×☎07:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might have relisted it, but I can't really fault the close. I would certainly have relisted if Phrasia's comment came in right near the end, but it was up for a few days and no one felt a need to agree with it, so. -- asilvering (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of music considered the worst – Procedurally and/or speedily closed. Consensus is that GogoLion is wasting our time with a request that is not within the scope of DRV and that appears to be AI-generated. I am warning GogoLion that repeated disruptive DRV requests like this one may result in sanctions. Sandstein 20:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I am requesting a serious re-evaluation of "List of music considered the worst" in this Deletion Review, as the article continues to raise fundamental concerns that have not been properly addressed in the multiple prior AfDs. While editors have repeatedly pointed to the presence of reliable sources, that argument has continually overlooked the key issue: the article violates core Wikipedia content policies, specifically WP:NOR (No Original Research), WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View).
Key policy concerns:
Synthesis and Original Research (WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR)
The article compiles negative opinions from individual reliable sources and presents them as if they form a cohesive, broadly agreed-upon classification of certain songs or albums as “the worst.” However, no source makes this comprehensive claim. The list is a synthesis of disparate critical takes, which produces a conclusion not explicitly made by any cited source. This is a textbook case of original research, violating Wikipedia's core content policy.
While the sources used are mostly reliable, many entries rely on only one or two subjective reviews, often rooted in :personal taste or cultural context. This minimal sourcing does not support the wide-reaching claim implied by inclusion in a list of "the worst." Moreover, music criticism is inherently subjective and genre-sensitive. What may be negatively received in one context can be valued in another. The article gives undue weight to isolated critiques while ignoring broader audience reception, fanbases, or historical re-evaluations.
Lack of Defined Inclusion Criteria (WP:LISTN, WP:V)
The list does not adhere to any clearly defined or consistently applied criteria for what qualifies a work as one of "the worst." Some entries are based on critical reception, others on commercial failure or online memes. This arbitrary inclusion makes the list editorially driven rather than encyclopedic. Without explicit inclusion standards and consistent application, the article fails the basic standard expected of a list on Wikipedia.
The framing of the article, both in its title and its narrative lacks neutrality. Declaring works as “the worst” carries an implicit judgment that Wikipedia should not make. Even if retitled to something like “Music that received negative critical reception,” the article would still need to demonstrate balanced coverage and contextual depth, which it currently lacks.
Conclusion:
This article has now gone through six AfDs, but none have adequately addressed these foundational policy issues. Repeated survival at AfD does not override persistent violations of Wikipedia's core content guidelines. The presence of a few reliable sources does not justify a synthesized, judgmental, and inconsistently sourced list. I respectfully urge deletion or, at minimum, a formal consensus to require a full rewrite in strict adherence to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:LISTN standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GogoLion (talk • contribs) 14:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read up on what WP:DRV is. It's not the place to continue a (years ago closed) deletion discussion or start a new one, its to discuss whether or not prior deletion discussions were closed correctly, which none of that appears to even begin to address. Sergecross73msg me15:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. The appellant is aware the article has survived six AfDs, but doesn't seem to dispute any specific one of them. Instead, they hope DRV will invoke a form of certiorari to somehow vacate the consensus reached in the AfDs. They are doing this instead of renominating for a seventh AfD as a form of forum-shopping. This is not what DRV is for. Like it or not, the community has spoken clearly and repeatedly about this type of list. Owen×☎15:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close - This isn't an argument that there was anything wrong with the 2019 deletion discussion, but that the article should be deleted. The arguments made in this filing are a good case for another AFD, but this is not Articles for Deletion because it is Deletion Review.
I don't see an earlier 5 AFDs. The article may have had other names for the earlier five AFDs. However, that doesn't matter at DRV, because this is not a proper DRV filing.
There has been a history of edit-warring. That doesn't matter at DRV.
Yes, I've watched over the article since stumbling upon it a decade past. It's a constant magnet for arguments, with editors either mad music they like is on there, or mad they don't have the sourcing to add their personally hated music on there. But that's not a reason for deletion in itself, and the community has been consistently against deleting it (and similar articles covering films, games, etc) so I've focused on mediating disputes and watching over proposed changes. Sergecross73msg me16:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the comment about "editors being mad" was in reference to various etalk page discussions over the years, not GogoLion, who has seemingly taken offense to the comment. My only problem with GogoLion is their repeated failure to handle things at the correct venues. Sergecross73msg me17:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close. Clear consensus to keep in five separate AFDs, plus a sixth that closed as no consensus. Appellant is making arguments as to why the article should be deleted rather than addressing concerns with the AFD result. The correct venue for these arguments is a seventh AFD. FrankAnchor16:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Speedy close with a non-trivial sanction for wasting our time, not once but twice, with this AI bullshit. I'm quite willing to listen to a case for deleting that article, if anybody actually wants to write one, but I have zero tolerance for those who expect Wikipedia's editors and administrators to serve as gimps for their stupid robot. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I don't believe there was thorough consensus; a nominator somewhat erroneously categorised the sources as irrelevant but there was functionally no votes except mine (as author) to "Keep", and two attempts to re-list the XFD resulted in a single vote each, one that was Keep but changed to Delete and one that was Merge changed to Delete - leaving a total of three votes. I'd appreciate fuller review before deleting the article on one of the most prominent New Brunswick media outlet/projects that is widely syndicated in 10-30 newspapers, resulted in three non-fiction books under the same title, a podcast and a television show, etc.
Endorse Sorry, but Cunard is one of our more thoughtful and thorough AfD contributors, well versed in alternatives to deletion, and to the extent that Cunard was eventually unpersuaded to support such an ATD suggests that a delete closure was well within administrator discretion. Jclemens (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Properly deleted. There was a consensus to delete. There is no need for a “thorough consensus”, whatever that is. There is, however, a need to bring deletion discussions to close after a reasonable amount of time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sorry, there was indeed a consensus to delete the article, and the appeal doesn't make clear that there were missed sources. I also agree with Jclemens - Cunard is one of our best at finding sources, though sometimes I disagree with them about their interpretation of the sources, the fact they settled on a !delete vote in a limited discussion is a decent indicator that there weren't enough sources for a complete encyclopedia article on the subject. SportingFlyerT·C09:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article "Debangshu Bhattacharya", which was deleted after an AfD discussion in September 2024. Since then, several major developments have occurred: he was fielded as a Lok Sabha candidate by the All India Trinamool Congress in the 2024 general elections, which received extensive national media coverage (NDTV, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Business Today, Times of India, etc.).
I have rewritten the article in my userspace, ensuring a completely neutral tone, strict sourcing, and a stronger focus on encyclopedic value and independent notability (especially around his role in popularizing the "Khela Hobe" slogan, and his role as TMC IT Cell head). Kindly review the new version and consider undeleting or allowing resubmission.
Deletion review should not 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
I took a look at the discussion about the article Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza and I mostly disagree with the arguments presented, which seem biased to me. I would like to know how and where I can reopen this discussion so that the article can be rewritten and with new sources (which I provided, by the way).
I don't know if I should argue here, but in case it's useful: the mere previous existence of the article and the discussion about whether or not it is relevant due to its connection to the former Brazilian monarchy are proof that the topic of the article is, in fact, relevant. After all, it's been almost 140 years since the fall of the Brazilian monarchy, and its heirs are still being discussed. The argument that initiated the deletion process seems to me to be entirely based on the fact that the republic is well established in Brazil and the monarchist movement is weak, but I don't see how that is relevant to the topic of the article, whose purpose is ultimately to inform. Furthermore, I disagree that a person cited in so many international and mainstream newspapers such as The New York Times, ABC, Estadão, G1, El País, etc., and who lives in an old imperial palace in the middle of the Brazilian republic, is so totally irrelevant that he doesn't deserve an article.
And as I mentioned, based on the arguments for deletion, such as the lack of sources that are directly about the person in the topic, in this case Pedro Carlos of Orléans-Braganza, I took care to add new sources specifically about him and that are reliable, for example:
[3] This one had already been mentioned in the pre-deletion article and used in the argument for deletion as "it's about the sales of historical objects that Pedro Carlos made", and it's true. What the argument tries to expose is that it's from a mainstream Brazilian newspaper, O Globo, which calls him "Dom (D.)", which is an honorific, recognizes him as a member of the imperial family (extinct or not) and says that he lived in the former imperial palace of Grão-Pará. Three points that, together, make the topic of the article, the person of Pedro Carlos, worthy of note, at the very least.
[4] Finally, this source was already mentioned and the argument for deletion goes as "Prince Pedro Carlos visited a museum". This clearly demonstrates his notability, since there would be no news, or even an article, about a visit by a non-notable person to a museum in the official media of the city of Juiz de Fora. It is worth remembering that Pedro Carlos is not a historian or museologist, so his notability comes from his ancestry and this does indeed confer notability on the individual.
Speedy close (changed !vote, see below). No valid ground has been advanced to overturn the prior deletion decision. However, the discussion was four years ago and not particularly well-attended; the title is not salted and the page may be recreated if the appellant believes sources will support standalone notability. I would recommend that @Von Burgundy use the articles for creation process to minimize the chances of a return trip to AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Vanity Fair article is alright, but the second and third sources are passing mentions and the fourth is a non-independent governmental source. If you choose to refund this article you'll need to find more sources of significant coverage directly of Pedro Carlos himself, and covering more than just his wedding, to get to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's GNG and what's the criteria for which sources are alright or not? I obviously avoid/would avoid biased sources or sources from unreliable sources. But regarding sources that only cite the person in the article, in this case Pedro Carlos, and are not "per se" about him, I don't see why they are any less valid, especially when there are so many of them, which is a clear attribution of recognition to their relevance. Especially given the context of these sources; he may not be the central topic of the articles, but his name is not mentioned "en passant" either. It is relevant, in the sources, who he is for the text presented. Von Burgundy (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is the appellant asking to overturn the 2021 AFD, or is the appellant asking to overturn the 21 June 2025 G4? The failure of this appeal to say what the appellant wants overturned appears to be the reason why Dclemens1971 calls for a Speedy Close, and I agree with that unless the question can be answered in a timely manner. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the G4 in the logs until you pointed it out and was going off the appeal, which only noted the 2021 discussion. If the article is substantially the same as the 2021-deleted one, the G4 should stand, but a different article would not be G4 eligible. Obviously I can't see the histories of the two to know. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking to overturn the 21 June 2025. I re-created the article providing some new sources and it was promptly deleted again arguing about its previous deletion in 2021. Von Burgundy (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Von Burgundy: Looking at the version comparison supplied by @Cryptic below, you had several passages that were copied nearly verbatim from the previously deleted version without attribution. Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution to the original creator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I copied parts of the text of the former deleted article, yes. Partially because my point is that that article shouldn't have been deleted to begin with. Either way, how shall I credit the original author? I kept his sources, though. Von Burgundy (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I concur with the request for a temporary undelete, but would also advise the appellant that submitting a draft via AFC may be an alternate useful approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 and list at AfD. Separate from the attribution failure mentioned above, this is not a valid G4; the articles had some shared passages but were not substantially identical. This article needs to go through a new round of AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Use AFC strictly G4 shouldn’t be used for good faith attempts to try again but its clear from this discussion that a) there are inadequate sources to avoid BLP1E and b) that if the
Nom doesn’t understand what the GNG is then they lack the experience to handle a BLP sensitively. AFC ensures that if barriers to recreation are overcome there will be some oversight of what gets published. SpartazHumbug!13:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFC is not mandatory, so while I think it would entirely reasonable to specify some cases where AFC might be made to be mandatory in the future--and this might be such a case--I think it's premature to have such expectations in this specific case. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 and send to AfD, which can not only consider the sourcing, but whether, if deleted, create protection should also be imposed to forestall future issues. Jclemens (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"future issues" being people trying to argue on why the article is worth to be listed in an encyclopedia? Don't you think that's too harsh?
My point in trying to re-create the article four or almost four years after its deletion is that, precisely. I didn't simply returned the former article from the dead, I created a new one, with differing content and sources (while keeping the original ones I thought useful). Von Burgundy (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not stating there are issues the should lead to create protection ("salting"), but noting that DRV, here, is not the place to assess them. A new AfD should. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4. Not even close to being sufficiently identical to the version deleted at AFD, including several sources which were published after the AFD closed. This can be taken to AFD if desired. FrankAnchor12:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G4 per Cryptic's diff and salt. This would not be kept at a new AfD and pretending otherwise is a waste of everyone's time. SportingFlyerT·C09:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, this has multiple paragraphs moved around, zero words of new reliably-sourced content, and a single new prima facie usable source - which last is something, but it doesn't verify anything in the article. It was even identified, correctly, as copyright infringement by a bot. If this is the standard for significant change, then you're going to have a hard time finding any deletion labelled G4 that you'd approve of. I'd suggest going to WT:CSD to remove it from policy is a better approach than trying to annul the policy piecemeal at DRV. —Cryptic08:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD. Which is not the same as "overturn G4", because if this is enough to invalidate a G4, as Cryptic says, well, AfD won't know what hit it. This is well over my own G4 bar and I think I'm one of the more conservative folks handling CSDs. (As irritated AfDers have made clear.) These paragraphs are basically identical! What's been added is "dynastic position", etc, which are not things AfD participants have much sympathy for at all. But heck, if we've got a bunch of AfD regulars saying to send this to AfD, we can send it to AfD. You'd all better vote, though. -- asilvering (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this discussion as "delete", but have been challenged by the article creator on my talk page. As a deletion review is a better location for this, I am bringing the discussion here. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a consensus for delete. There are 3 Keeps and one draftify to 5 deletes. Most of those deletes came after the 3-week mark, after I had asked 2 administrators to close, but neither one of them did. Most of the deletes come from inexperienced editors. I said that, and the administrator decided to punish me. I was not bludgeoning or insulting anyone, just disagreeing. I was very much doing that within limits. Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. "Everyone should have the chance to express their views within reasonable limits. Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed for consensus building." Orlando Davis (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion nomination for the article was kept open longer than the ideal amount of time. And it's hard to know if there wasn't vote stacking going on. The Randy Cooper article includes a source from Fine Scale modeler and the Evening Independent that are both highly reliable and independent. Additionally, it has many interview sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the deletes come from inexperienced editors.Delete !voter edit counts: 265810, 25756, 14476, 138, 1659, 84573, 10645. What exactly is your threshold for "experienced"? A cutoff of 10000 edits would leave us with 5 delete to 1 keep and 1 draftify... JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In my view, it is a combative move to even participate in an AFD unless it's your article. Why do it unless you enjoy arguments? The person who wrote the article should be given some slack from a bunch of people ganging up on him or her. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "punish" you. You're bludgeoning here like you bludgeoned there. Endorse close and consider sanctions for @Orlando Davis if the disruption continues. I'm just maintaining the articles that I have already written and this is the only one I really need to do. is not an attitude condusive to collaborative editing. FWIW, to my knowledge I've had no interaction with them prior to my relist of the AfD which was normal log clerking. StarMississippi00:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they should sanction you also since you don't really keep a cool head yourself. I don't think you are understanding what bludgeoning is or isn't. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant of the discussion, while I appreciate his input, I don't believe Randy Kryn's status of being 20 most active editors gives his opinion or, more pertinently, interpretation of the policies and guidelines, any more weight than mine, Theroadislong's, Oaktree's or Reader's, as Orlando seems to want to. Perhaps a mere ten thousand edits isn't much these days, but I'd like to assure everyone that my input is carefully considered when I offer them. The outcome of a deletion discussion is not punishment, nor are deletion discussions a grand battle between deletionists and inclusionists. Or, at least, they are not supposed to be treated as one. Finally, deletion discussions are not an admin suggestion box. Administrators, when closing a discussion, are empowered to exercise judgement to disregard or reduce the weight of arguments that contradict policy, are based on personal opinion only, or show no understanding of the matter of issue. The closing administrator does not have the discretion to disregard comments they find to exhibit deletionist bias, or to ignore our policies and guidelines. I would endorse both Star Mississippi's valiant (though unfortunately ultimately unfruitful) attempt to keep the discussion rooted in the relevant PAG as appropriate administrative actions, as well as Ritchie's close as the only possible close supportable by a reasonable interpretation of the discussion. There is no other closure within an allowable level of discretion. I will leave the discussion of conduct to another venue if Orlando wishes to continue it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think the mistake is that it's 200, not 20. And of course the number of an editor's edits don't matter in background discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A clear consensus to delete is ultimately present in the discussion. A "No Consensus" close might have been reasonable at an earlier point, but relisting was not an abuse of discretion. The majority of the contested sources look like interviews, and there is a reasonably broad consensus that those count less for notability than non-interview profiles. The close is not so manifestly in error that I can recommend an IAR, restore. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the correct close. None of the Keeps addressed the issue of SIGCOV, and some didn't bring up any P&G-based argument. After five rejections at AFC, I see little point in sending this back to draft yet again. The repeated, combative moves into mainspace are a form of edit-warring, and should be handled as such. If Orlando Davis isn't happy with our existing tagging system, they are welcome to start an RFC to change it. Disruptive editing to make a WP:POINT isn't helpful. Owen×☎20:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I concede that the consensus thus far is for delete. However, I resent being told I was combative, when I had every right to bring up the article myself as an extended confirmed user and never had any obligation to take it up to the Articles of creation any of the other times. I initially preferred that route as I was trying to not be combative and work out issues in private space. I took it up myself to articles of creation over and over again when I never had to. How is that edit warring? Denial at Articles of creation is no big deal since many articles are rejected and later accepted by other editors, sometimes with little change, despite multiple rejections, as opinions between reviewers vary. I've had a couple of editors reject me and another accept me several times. This time I ran out of patience and preferred to bring it up myself since improving the article had peaked in my opinion.
Wikipedia is in itself very combative as many media sources have pointed out unfair bias in Wikipedia, and one of the founders of Wikipedia has left due to its bias. So there must be something to my point of view. I don't want to dedicate the time to an RFC as I only came back to Wikipedia for this article. I no longer edit Wikipedia very much. Orlando Davis (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I resent being told I was combative, when I had every right to bring up the article myself as an extended confirmed user - the fact that your account technically allows you to engage in disruptive editing does not mean you have "every right" to do so any more than I have the right to use my admin tools to force my view in a content dispute. WP:BRD applies as much to article creation as it does to revising. The extended confirmed bit, like the sysop bit, can be revoked if it is used to bypass collaborative editing. Your interaction with the other editors involved was decidedly combative. And your declaration that you only came back to Wikipedia for this article presents you as a WP:SPA - not a good look. I strongly suggest you do not abuse your privileges as an extended confirmed editor, and start working with other editors instead of against them. Owen×☎21:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a single purpose account. I'm just maintaining the articles that I have already written and this is the only one I really need to do. That's not the same thing. You go ahead and do what you gotta do. I really don't care anymore. Orlando Davis (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as clear consensus to delete. Electing to relist the discussion is well within the scope of administrator action, the fact that 2 admins elected to do so indicates an independent consensus to continue the discussion. The "experience of editors" is irrelevant to the substance of the argument put forth, which is concerns regarding whether the sources are sufficient to meet GNG. Suggestions of "vote stacking" are WP:ASPERSIONS at best. Also of note is the WP:IAR argument brought up during the discussion by some keep !voters, in which case the WP:ONUS is on the argument maker to demonstrate why an exception should be made for WP:GNG. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C21:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: those seeking to overturn should look into conducting an independent source review, addressing WP:GNG concerns would go a long way in convincing others the page should be kept (or for a non-disruptive recreation of the page, as noted by Owen). — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C21:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Keep arguments clearly failed to convince the majority of !voters that the topic meets our notability requirements. We have 6 policy-based delete !votes including the nominator (and discounting one drive-by), plus a comment from an admin that reads as additional opposition to keeping. Meanwhile one keep !vote carries no valid rationale at all and the other two assert sufficient sourcing without demonstrating such. JoelleJay (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Had I participated in the discussion, I probably would have landed on a "keep" based on WP:NFILMWP:NCREATIVE(typed the wrong damn policy) (and I'm surprised no one brought it up), but this is not AfD round two and there is no defect in Ritchie's close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
endorse as the only possible outcome. @Orlando Davis: your conduct here and on the AFD was so suboptimal that I am suprised you were not blocked for disruption. Take heed of this warning please. SpartazHumbug!13:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to answer multiple times because I don't think of everything at once. For example, I just now figured out, thanks to DClemens, that Cooper qualifies based on NP creative. Also, that it matters that there are no subject matter experts on model making in this forum. What difference would it make if I got blocked? This forum doesn't care about a word I have said, and I don't get paid. And I doubt that would happen; it's an empty threat because I have done nothing wrong. If I go to a restaurant and get treated badly, I can give a bad review. I can give Wikipedia a bad review for treating me badly, too. Any smart organization knows not to offend since bad reviews can be destructive.
I am being bated into an emotional reaction by being accused of bludgeoning, so if I am, well, that is what set that in motion. Being accused falsely. The majority in this forum is wrong, and it is a fallacy of the majority to assume otherwise, which is why I have the right to debate disproportionately if I am in the minority. If Wikipedia rules don't allow for that, they should. Within reason, as I have done. I never used insults or said anything that wasn't logical, nor did I answer more than necessary to adequately make my points. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Orlando Davis, you have indeed verged toward bludgeoning in this debate. No one is trying to bait you to do anything. You could simply WP:COAL, knowing that you have already expressed your views. You do not have the right to debate disproportionately if [you are] in the minority, since WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL are core policies. None of us are getting paid to be here; we are here because we think this is a valuable project worth our volunteer time. And while I do think there was a case for notability for the subject, not everyone would likely agree with me. Instead of trying to overturn a valid consensus, you could rewrite a draft using reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of Cooper's roles in the production of notable films, then submit it using articles for creation. The independent review there can improve the article and help it avoid deletion in the future. However, I strongly urge you to avoid WP:ASPERSIONS like being accused falsely before you exhaust the patience of others in this discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't say I am bludgeoning because this is new information. I did more research and found out additional information. Here is an article about how Randy Cooper and his friend worked on the Iron Man 2 models. https://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/ci_15025239 Also, I found another movie credit of him in Gentleman Broncos by a suitable source. https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/737404/gentlemen-broncos#overview] I have others by IMDB and fandom that I was told by the articles of creation are not usable. I also found out that Boss Films was nominated for an Oscar for Alien 3, and Cooper worked on that film for Boss Films. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon I don't recall reviewing this and cannot find it in my logs. I have no opinion nor insight to offer I am afraid. I concur with your second sentence. Doing that is generally unhelpful. Those who say the least in defence of an article often make the most impact in its favour. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 22:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). Orlando Davis, you put up a good defense for the page, commendable. I favored keeping because of the detailed extent of Cooper's work, which seemed to be enough for GNG, and the fact that publications in his field of endeavor interview him as a peer. But a move review takes into account only the close to determine if it is a reasonable and accurate summary of the discussion. A move (deletion) review is not a rehashing of the arguments but a judgement call on the close. In this AfD it is a valid summary, hence the number of endorsements here. As you settle into Wikipedia the ropes, nudges, and cooperative nature of the volunteers becomes more obvious, and knowledge of things like Move Review play a part. Thanks, and hopefully there will be fuller articles and accolades and the article can be brought back at some point (Cooper's work is memorable and some of it is almost iconic, but it takes more than a few editors on this website realizing that, but unimpeachable sources which echo his notability). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). I am not sure why my reply did not go through so I will repost. I will follow Randy Kryn's lead and concede that the close was a reasonable and accurate summary of the discussion even though I also believe Cooper's work is notable and iconic but the results are beyond my ability to change. I would like to thank everyone involved in this discussion for their patience, as it is only my second AFD discussion, and I am still learning. Orlando Davis (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I saw this article was up for deletion and added it to my watchlist before it was closed. I considered commenting in favor of its deletion. There seemed to be such a strong consensus for deletion that I didn't feel it was necessary to pile on. The editor who is making about a dozen comments in a discussion when most people are making one is definitely bludgeoning. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors already made allegations of bludgeoning. So over and over again I am being accused of bludgeoning. I would consider that to be group bludgeoning which is also bludgeoning. I already endorsed deletion. Give it a rest. Orlando Davis (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on the comments of many editors, it would appear that there is a strong consensus of obvious bludgeoning behavior. One way to react to this consensus, other than continuing to bludgeon, would be to refrain from further problematic behavior. This does not require a further response, as this would just be further bludgeoning. Thank you. Asparagusstar (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Very clearly a correct call, including the closing comments and the guidance given by the relisting admin. The suggestion that those !voting delete lacked experience is disingenuous. There was one delete !voter who did indeed lack experience and no evidence that the admin gave any weight to what was essentially a vote on their part. It was a clear delete all the same. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to sirfurboy. I have to apologize for that. That was something I said in the heat of the moment. However, I was referring more to article writing than the number of edits and ratings of those articles. For example, to me, an editor who has written several featured articles has in some cases done more than an editor who has made thousands of edits and no articles or articles but none of them are featured articles. It depends on context. It varies. That's not to say that the volunteer work that editors do isn't valuable, but that was what I was talking about. However, I myself am not a very experienced editor. So that was not something that made sense to say. So again, I apologize. I don't think you should ignore the things I said that do make sense because that statement didn't. Orlando Davis (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I apologize; I should have been better than that. But this conversation was closed due to a lack of civility, but this whole AFD process is a disgusting lack of civility towards the subject of the article (I don't know him, never met him). And as far as lack of civility, I wasn't the only one. Star Mississipi's condescending tone at a point where the conversation was very civil escalated the argument. And Moritoko made fun of my writing and implied that craftsmen are not as important as designers. Orlando Davis (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – The delete arguments are stronger in both quality and quantity. Quantity has been addressed above. In terms of quality, the keep side did not adequately address the superficial coverage noted in the nomination, nor the niche nature of the sources — a concern raised later in the discussion. gidonb (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're responding too much. Sit back and learn how to respond to AfDs — and when not to open deletion reviews. Take a deep breath and learn from your mistakes. Just the other day you closed an AfD yourself that you had opened, without allowing a third party to summarize at closing time. People make mistakes. If you learn from them this reduces the waste. gidonb (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia operates by community consensus and established guidelines. We try to be patient, but persistent disruption isn't tolerated. Continued nuisance behavior does lead to sanctions. gidonb (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I procedurally opened the deletion review because Orlando Davis asked me to, after asking my views on the article (as an uninvolved closing admin, I didn't have any). Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Orlando had it reopened. The original decision to close as delete was sound. A lot of community time has been wasted, first at the AfD, now again in this discussion, and in between on Ritchie's page. I will add that not all of Orlando's observations on Ritchie's page are wrong. I do see a group of mostly newer editors (traditionally, that would be JPL) who make the most random deletion claims at AfDs. That said, there are many deletionists, especially longer-serving ones, who make well-reasoned arguments. This entire line was totally irrelevant, given that there was an overwhelming consensus for deletion, and for very good reasons. gidonb (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did look at the discussion on Ritchie's talk (and my original comment was actually largely a response to that, in fact) I just wanted to point out that Orlando did not wander here entirely unprompted. Personally, I'd hope we're willing to extend some latitude to someone who appears mostly unfamiliar with the typical and expected conduct in projectspace discussions, and would just like it over with at this point (especially given that if this were opened by them, I'd consider it eligible for withdrawal given the unanimous endorses so far). Perhaps it might not compare to our most infamous of stressful discussions (ANI, RfA, etc), I couldn't (and probably shouldn't) say, but it probably isn't pleasant if one sees it as continued scrutiny of oneself as an editor. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There's a clear consensus to delete this article. I've also looked at the temporarily undeleted version of the article and would also have !voted delete, which is irrelevant at DRV apart to note that I do not believe any clear error was made by those !voting to delete the article. SportingFlyerT·C10:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The RfD closure failed to account for the fact that Template:Transl, unlike the other redirects bundled in that nomination, was the long-standing name of Template:Transliteration since 2007, which was moved away from that title only in 2022. Although replacement by bot was mandated, deletion still broke a lot of historical references. While there may have been consensus to delete the three other redirects, several participants !voted specifically to keep Template:Transl, and I do not believe consensus was in support of deleting it. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this was a serious mistake of discussion closure which substituted the closer's personal preference for community consensus, and caused (and will continue to cause) harm to Wikipedia, especially since our software has never properly handled transclusions when viewing historical versions of pages, so now almost 2 decades of historical permalinks are going to have broken transliterations on them. –jacobolus(t)11:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my closure (I think I responded to each concern raised on my talkpage there, with specificity...can find the links later if needed). While it's definitely true that not all four involved templates had equally strong support, I saw the general concern did apply to all of them and was more supported than not by the guidelines and their weighting of pros/cons/etc mentioned. I have not been involved in this template-area and do not feel I raised new concerns or other judgement of my own on the issues beyond evaluating what others stated. As I have said, I made no prejudice against non-ambiguous forms. I'm having trouble finding where preserving the original/complete viewability of historial revisions is mentioned (and prefereably pointing to a policy or guideline) by a comment in the DRV. DMacks (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The harm in deleting such redirects is, I believe, described by the second main consideration under WP:R#HARMFUL. Such deletions aren't prohibited, but should only be considered when the concerns are demonstrably outweighed by the harm caused by the existence of the redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the talk page responses, I already linked the archived discussions above. Apologies on my part for not responding further before starting the DRV, but the discussion had already been archived and given our conflicting opinions I don't think further discussion could have preempted the need for DRV. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If preserving historical revisions is a concern, this may be a valid solution that could've been implemented without a deletion review. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})19:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unbundle - Put the four trains on four tracks by splitting this into four RFDs.
RelistTemplate:Transl, which is the one that is being contested. The closure does not seem to have reflected consensus.
Leave the three uncontested template redirects in an open state so that they can be closed or relisted by any admin.
Comment I'm not familiar with the usual standards for deleting template redirects, but it seems like the "it's been in use since 2007" argument should have been accorded more weight here. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn transl only We don't need a specific guideline that says "don't break historical stuff without a really good reason" for that to be considered a valid reason to not delete a redirect and it appears that such was the case here. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn transl to either keep or no consensus. I don't see consensus to delete that template. The editors who weighed in on it separately from the rest generally favored keeping this template, while several who !voted to delete all seemed not to understand the purpose of the discussion. I don't think a relist would be helpful – better to close as no-consensus and have a completely fresh discussion on this one template. Toadspike[Talk]19:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those who did favour keeping the template mostly argued on the basis of length of "transliteration" compared to "transl". This, however, is not a policy-based ground to keep ambiguous redirects, and there have been shorter redirects created for this exact purpose ({{tlit}}, {{xlit}}), which mooted the length argument anyway. Some other arguments pointed to the historic usage of Transl, but again that is not an enshrined policy, and TfDs have previously deleted hundreds, if not thousands, of redundant/replaced/renamed/substituted templates as well. Few other keep arguments were made due to general frustration with the numerous <<See RfD>> links in the articles, some of which were rescinded, the others weren't until closure. This last line of argument stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the process is for, and should be discarded altogether. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})19:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn “transl” to no consensus and leave the others as is. There was not consensus to delete that template as there was for the others. No objection to an immediate renomination focused on just the one template. FrankAnchor02:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn "transl" to no consensus and relist. I think this was ambiguous enough that I wouldn't want to say good/bad close without getting out a fine-toothed comb and doing the work of closing it myself. But it does look to me like this topic needs more discussion, so we should let that happen. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion was left open for nearly a month and only commenter stated things about the article's references that patently inaccurate. Close was a no consensus. If there were no commenters at all, that may be appropriate but the inaccurate comment should have been taken into account in the closing and it may have persuaded others not to participate in the discussion. I ask for a relisting to obtain at least one pertinent viewpoint. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the right closure - No Consensus is always unsatisfying, but is sometimes really the lack of a consensus. The appellant/nominator requests another relist, but it was already relisted three times. The appellant disagrees with the Keep voter about the references; that disagreement is a lack of a consensus. Any other closure or another Relist would have been erroneous. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I can't remember when a discussion was relisted four times. More discussion would have been better, but closers must only act with the information that is provided. --Enos733 (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Simply enough, and as frustrating as it might be, I cannot advocate for overturning a discussion to delete when no one apart from the nominator agreed it should be deleted, and there was more than one participant. I'd also mention that if anyone wants to save this article by adding clear sources, now is the time... I see a discussion about it on the American football talk page. SportingFlyerT·C22:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Outside of the inaccuracy in the only other comment in the AFD, I can't disagree with the other people who are endorsing the closer's decision. AFDs are not votes, so comments in the discussion that are not accurate should not be taken into account by the closer. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also failed to add the appropriate notifications to Manchester Freedom and to the AFD discussion, which meant anyone with those pages on their watch list wouldn't have seen the deletion review that way. Jahaza (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It was already relisted three times, there is little to suggest yet another relist would have borne fruit. WP:RELIST discourages repeated relistig. Stifle (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There can not be a deletion without a quorum and one user is not a quorum. Had nobody else participated in the AFD, it could have been deleted as if it were an expired WP:PROD. However, the presence of a keep !vote (no matter how weak) makes this no longer the case. A fourth relist goes against WP:RELIST guideline, which states repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice. (emphasis in the policy). I disagree strongly with the appellant's claim that the keep !vote may have persuaded others not to participate in the discussion. I believe the opposite would be true, as a user who supported deletion (or an ATD) would be more inclined to engage with the keep !voter to point out perceived errors in the vote. FrankAnchor12:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would not be opposed to an immediate renomination (after the closure of this DRV), citing the low participation in the original AFD. A fresh discussion with more visibility as a result of this DRV (and possibly placement on more/different del-sort lists) may be enough to get larger pool of !voters.FrankAnchor12:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
TheLongTone's ANI report was I recently put up an article Liz Lamere for deletion. The discussion seemed suspect to me, with a plethora of contributions from IP editors & very new accounts- leading me to suspect a degree of canvassing was going on . Now I see that the discussion has been the subject of a non-admin closure by Allblessed, a relatively new editor (30th March this year). Apart from the (imo) spam contributios, there were only two votes that looked kosher to me, one keep and one delete.TSventon (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Reading through the deletion discussion, it's clear that most of !votes run counter to our policies and guidelines; for example, by considering trivial mentions as legitimate sources, implying that notability is inherited, saying that record releases on non-notable/unimportant labels should count towards notability, etc. Woodroar (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disclosure: as I was part of the deletion discussion, therefore I am WP:INVOLVED. While there were !votes from new/IP voters in the discussion, however I must fundamentally disagree with the comment from TheLongTone that appears to be characterising my !vote as "spam". In fact, there are 3 "keep" votes from editors with >5 year accounts, and I do request the "spam" insinuation is retracted. Regarding the close: in the discussion I identified a number of secondary sources with non-trivial coverage of the direct works of the subject, which are reliable, and that argument was never rebutted. ResonantDistortion19:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist It's not really a BADNAC except for all of the blatant canvassing, but it needs to be closed by a competent administrator. (I also wouldn't mind !voting now that I've looked at it.) SportingFlyerT·C22:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The question we have at DRV is whether the closer interpreted the consensus in the AFD correctly. From the discussion: the nominator and one other editor suggested that the coverage was largely about the subject's spouse or interviews about the subject (not meeting WP:GNG). Four of the five keep votes (discounting the IP comments for a moment), suggested that the sourcing would pass GNG.
While the closer is expected to discount !votes that are contrary to policy and guidelines, and in this case, whether we see the !vote as 7-2, 4-2, or something else, it is clear that a strong majority of participants concluded that the sourcing was sufficient to meet GNG. Thus, a keep close was within the discretion of the closer, and was far from a WP:BADNAC. --Enos733 (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, as the closer did not take into account the level of canvassing, and taking it into account places the discussion outside of the case of beyond doubt a clear keep described at WP:NACAFD. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept that the IP votes may be treated with suspicion, but it is unclear to the degree that canvassing may have taken place (and the other concern, length of tenure of named editors was debunked). In this case, the allegation of canvassing was only raised by the nominator as a suspicion. IP editors in AFD are permitted. Even if there was late canvassing, the IP !votes occurred after all other editors commented (at least once) in the discussion and at the time, there were 5 comments supporting keeping the article and 2 editors supporting deletion. So, I cannot see this as "blatant" canvassing, and I lean to seeing any suspicious canvassing as not affecting the consensus to keep the article. (As an aside, I would be more worried that the IP comments are socks, rather than being canvassed) - Enos733 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and see what further discussion gets. I would be against a delete closure at this stage despite the apparent canvassing or LOUTsocking, but it's not been relisted so a no consensus isn't appropriate yet, either. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Since there is a serious concern about the outcome of my closure, I’ll suggest a relist for a fair consensus, But I’ll say it again there where keep votes from eligible editors even if some IPs where around, those where the first vote I saw for a keep. Still a relist of the discussion is fine. For me I think the discussion is a non consensus. Allblessed (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: The question isn't whether the closure was "fair." The question is whether it was competent."Closers are also required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project's goals ... Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes ... The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." (emphasis mine). Any closer has the responsibility not merely to count heads, but: "Wikipedia core policies, which requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view ... are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." Ravenswing 07:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Requesting temporary restoration of Draft:Chinmay Gaur (deleted on 14 March 2025 by Jimfbleak under G11). I am the creator (User:Rajat K26). I want to retrieve the content to rewrite it in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, remove promotional material, and resubmit via Articles for Creation.
Rajat K26 (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the promotional material and there'd be practically nothing left. Strongly advise you stop attempting to create articles and try to work on existing ones instead if that's the way you write. —Cryptic11:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For interested nonadmin onlookers, there's some quotes from the draft at User talk:Rajat K26#Reply. I'll add "Chinmay Gaur began his professional journey as a faculty member at the Music College in Vadodara, ..." to the list, which - as usual - is an excellent predictor that the page as a whole is G11able: there's exactly one fully-neutral sentence in the entire draft, the one stating his birthdate and -place. —Cryptic20:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is always a good idea to keep one's own copy of one's work, including but not limited to Wikipedia articles. It should not be the responsibility of Requests for Undeletion or Deletion Review to retrieve pages that were deleted either speedily or by AFD so that the originator can work on them. The originator should have kept a copy. If they don't, they can create the page again from the sources, which they already did once. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Pizza Meter – The Department of Redundancy Department is closed. This did not need to be here, but it also does not need to go to REFUND to effect a decision that there is no opposition to here and we/me are capable of implementing. The Draft is restored for improvement and if needed on mainspacing, a new AfD can happen. StarMississippi02:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Allow recreation (i.e., undelete to draft or sandbox for update) per the new sourcing. This should probably not have been deleted previously; I suspect an appropriate search for sources at that time would have found more. No objection to renaming, anyone can nominate at any time, etc. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the evidence that this wasn't even the COMMONNAME suggests an article could have been built with a bit more digging, but given the sourcing above, it's an academic question. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to mainspace. The AfD was closed correctly, but new sourcing is prima facie evidence of notability, sufficient at least to require renomination if contested. The deleted version wasn't great, but there's no reason to redo that work. Owen×☎12:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the 2024 close, but see at the top of this noticeboard: Deletion review should not 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 The requester has the right to create a draft, to submit a draft for review, or to create a new article subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a new article could be written from scratch, but personally, I'd rather not reinvent the wheel if editors have already written a half-finished article that just needs fixing up. Time is finite, after all. --benlisquareT•C•E18:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I see no advantage to redoing the work in draft, when we already have a semi-decent version in the deleted history. REFUND won't handle such cases, so this has to come to DRV if we don't want to waste time unnecessarily rewriting articles. Owen×☎18:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These questions should not come to DRV. If you’re unsure and not wanting to waste time, request undeletion to draftspace at WP:REFUND. Improve the deleted article by removing poor sources and adding new better sources. Identify the best WP:THREE sources, by citing them first, or on the talk page, and seek review.
If you’re more confident, do the above but move it yourself back to mainspace. Th8s is ok, if you’re sure the sources are better, and as the AfD was so long ago.
For the record, I absolutely believe this is the proper forum - this is where the community gains consensus on what should be done with new information after a deleted recent AfD. SportingFlyerT·C22:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I strongly disagree. You are advocating scope creep.
If every such case came to DRV, DRV would be overwhelmed. AfC and AfD are the forums that are appropriate. Even if DRV says “yes”, it confers no protection from being sent to AfD, and thus nothing has been achieved over the proponent simply recreating in mainspace with their new sources, except distracting DRV.
There is no challenge to the AfD, and so this nomination should have been speedy closed.
If the deleting admin had said “no”, or the REFUND to draftspace was refused, or an unsalting request was denied, then DRV is appropriate, when there is something to review. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original TfD presented no valid rationale for deletion; the only rationale was in the nominator statement, which cited WP:FILMNAV. However, this guideline does not cover (let alone implore) navbox deletion, it discusses subjective criteria for individual item inclusion at navboxes. Kingsif (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Besides generally supporting procedural relist as DELREV nominator, looking at the production credits that made up most of the navbox (The Little Hours, Ingrid Goes West, Black Bear (film), Little Demon (TV series), and Emily the Criminal), in all cases Plaza is producer and main actor and, at least through our articles or a quick search, was the first producer signed on and a primary creative force in the projects being picked up and finished. Two of the film articles also indicate she was directly involved in casting. It's simply unreasonable to suggest Plaza would not be considered a primary creator, and this in addition to the character links, mean it's both a complete and tightly-focused (distinct creator connection throughout all items) navbox. Kingsif (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She is most definitely not the creator of Little Demon and she was one of 6-8 producers on a couple of the films you mention. She cannot be considered a primary creator for these. WP:FILMNAV clearly applies here. --woodensuperman11:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, FILMNAV (no matter what you wanted when you wrote it) is not a deletion policy - you can write a personal argument why you believe some of its content indicates that some items shouldn't be included, but that is 1. an opinion and 2. not something that leads directly to template deletion. At least you now seem to only question inclusion of a couple of the films, so regardless there is certainly enough for a navbox to exist. Kingsif (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist based on lack of participation of in the TFD (just the nom and a single WP:PERX vote). Thats not enough to be considered consensus to delete, particularly without being relisted even a single time, now that a user has presented an argument to retain the template. FrankAnchor14:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
endorse or relist, there is precedent for director-centric navigation boxes and for deleting actor-centric and producer-centric navigation boxes (per MOS:FILM), but I see no harm with reopening this for more discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a usual closer at TFD, one comment + the OP is typical to establish consensus for a routine nomination. I would judge this as one such. I think relist comments based on this factor are probably a miss. (The OP here cites at least one other factor, on which I have no comment.) Izno (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:Izno about TFD: Do the OP and one supporting comment establish a consensus to keep the title deleted, or can another editor recreate the title? Can the OP simply recreate a template with the same title? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The original TfD presented no valid rationale for deletion; the only rationale was in the nominator statement, which cited WP:FILMNAV. However, this guideline does not cover (let alone implore) navbox deletion, it discusses subjective criteria for individual item inclusion at navboxes. Kingsif (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist based on lack of participation of in the TFD (just the nom and a single WP:PERX vote). Thats not enough to be considered consensus to delete, particularly without being relisted even a single time, now that a user has presented an argument to retain the template. FrankAnchor14:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
endorse or relist, there is precedent for director-centric navigation boxes and for deleting actor-centric and producer-centric navigation boxes (per MOS:FILM), but I see no harm with reopening this for more discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a usual closer at TFD, one comment + the OP is typical to establish consensus for a routine nomination. I would judge this as one such. I think relist comments based on this factor are probably a miss. (The OP here cites at least one other factor, on which I have no comment.) Izno (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:Izno about TFD: Do the OP and one supporting comment establish a consensus to keep the title deleted, or can another editor recreate the title? Can the OP simply recreate a template with the same title? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The original TfD presented no valid rationale for deletion; the only rationale was in the nominator statement, which cited WP:FILMNAV. However, this guideline does not cover (let alone implore) navbox deletion, it discusses subjective criteria for individual item inclusion at navboxes. Kingsif (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, request undeletion so that previous versions (the original TfD nominator noted they significantly reduced it) can be properly assessed. Kingsif (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist based on lack of participation of in the TFD (just the nom and a single WP:PERX vote). Thats not enough to be considered consensus to delete, particularly without being relisted even a single time, now that a user has presented an argument to retain the template. FrankAnchor14:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
endorse or relist, there is precedent for director-centric navigation boxes and for deleting actor-centric and producer-centric navigation boxes (per MOS:FILM), but I see no harm with reopening this for more discussion. Frietjes (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the Berry template, it seems likely, but that's okay: in a TfD we must allow the discussion to occur or we are sidestepping accountability. This is why I do take issue, in general, with acronyms (mis)used for authority and "per nom" being ways things get done: no user(s) take accountability and we can't blame a TfD system that has been used improperly, so it becomes increasingly hard to start new discussion or get to the root of decisions, which is how bad precedents are set. Kingsif (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a usual closer at TFD, one comment + the OP is typical to establish consensus for a routine nomination. I would judge this as one such. I think relist comments based on this factor are probably a miss. (The OP here cites at least one other factor, on which I have no comment.) Izno (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even when the comment doesn’t say anything? Anyway, maybe two just generally shouldn’t be considered consensus - I don’t know where else it would. And I imagine if there were suddenly lots more non-consensus status quo closes, it would drive up engagement with TfD. Kingsif (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can not see any future in any forum in which more no-con closes would increase engagement (or in which this would be healthy whatsoever for TFD). Which as you imply, is the problem. TFD has a second issue that it has no PROD or equivalent, which is how AFD would theoretically get around this case.
On which point in fact, several admins at TFD will delete templates with solely a nom as a soft deletion despite there being no policy on the point. (I personally relist nom-only TFDs.) I raised that in 2021 (see Explicit talk page link); discussion at the time seemed not particularly concerned with the practice.
As such, I don't think it's realistic to suggest 'two shouldn't be a consensus' without a wider guideline or policy saying what the minima are. Izno (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:Izno about TFD: Do the OP and one supporting comment establish a consensus to keep the title deleted, or can another editor recreate the title? Can the OP simply recreate a template with the same title? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that question is interesting, TBH. If you mean, would someone recreating these navboxes have to contend with WP:G4? Assuredly. Izno (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I am requesting a review of the deletion of the article Ilyas El Maliki, which was deleted via AfD. I believe the deletion was unfair for the following reasons:
1. The new article was not substantially identical to the previously deleted version. It introduced at least 50% new sources, including coverage of the subject’s achievements from Dexerto, Kings League’s official website, and leading Moroccan media outlets like Hespress, L'Opinion, Telquel and Morocco World News.
2. The new sources were not properly evaluated. Editors repeatedly called for "speedy delete" without reviewing the sources or explaining why they failed WP:GNG.
3. Skepticism toward Moroccan media reflects potential systemic bias. Editors did not provide evidence that these outlets were unreliable, yet their reliability was dismissed. This reflects broader challenges in recognizing notability for figures from the MENA region.
I request a review to determine whether the sources and arguments presented were given adequate consideration before deletion.
Can someone confirm whether WP:G4 applied? I think we've gotten this one wrong and it looks like we can have an article on him based on the wide amount of coverage he's received. SportingFlyerT·C21:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus with no prejudice against immediate re-nomination. The rationale for every delete vote was that an article on this subject was previously deleted in an AFD. However, the temp un delete shows the article deleted in the second AFD is vastly different than the one in the first AFD, including multiple references dated after the article was first deleted. G4 clearly does not apply. There is very little discussion of the merits of the actual article or of the references (particularly those that were not in the article during the first AFD) from the delete !voters. FrankAnchor00:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A "Delete because G4" when G4 does not apply is no delete !vote at all. It likely reflects fatigue with efforts to craft compliant articles on borderline notability people, and we need to instead properly evaluate notability based on the final sourcing provided. The late-breaking G4s after the earlier ones had been contested are particularly puzzling to me. Jclemens (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I am puzzled. The old and the new temporarily undeleted versions that I am viewing are so different that no one should say that they are substantially the same. Was the new version of the article expanded while the second AFD was in progress, in which case some of the AFD participants saw a different less complete article?
This is a difficult case, because DRV is not AFD round 2, but the AFD does not appear to reflect reality. The Delete votes all said to Speedy Delete, and the nomination says that the article being reviewed is substantially the same as the deleted article, but the two articles are not substantially the same. I think that Ignore All Rules should be used very rarely, but this is a case where we need to ignore the rule that are not reviewing the AFD. The AFD was wrong. I was about to say to Relist, but this AFD has been tainted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per above. G4 should not apply if there are substantial changes such that the concerns in the previous AFD are addressed. It is probably too excessive to delete the page because of the G4 comments in the AfD despite the author's convincing arguments against the delete !votes. ToadetteEdit (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to buck the trend here and say endorse This the result of an AfD discussion, not a speedy deletion, so the question of whether G4 actually applies or not as stated in the speedy deletion criteria doesn't technically matter. Instead, "delete per G4" is a perfectly reasonable shorthand way of saying "delete because I don't think the issues that caused the previous deletion have been addressed". And we don't have jurisdiction at DRV to determine that argument is invalid because doing so would merely be substituting our judgement for theirs rather than actually addressing a procedural error as we are supposed to do. * Pppery *it has begun...23:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except there was a procedural error. The “delete per G4” voters did not have access to the previous version which was deleted and recreated. They just assumed, incorrectly, that since it was already deleted once it should simply be deleted again. The procedural error is in the closer (who would have access to both versions and see that G4, whether as an actual speedy or as an argument in an AFD vote, clearly didn’t apply) giving too much weight to these votes which were found out to not be based at all in P&G. That is certainly a valid concern for DRV. FrankAnchor11:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what G4 says at all - it specifically says the draft must be sufficiently identical. The other wrinkle here is that this does look like it should have been kept looking at the available sources. SportingFlyerT·C11:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: Not G4 material. Delete votes were just lukewarm takes that barely addressed the keep votes. It's a deletion discussion, not a vote.--🇺🇸Thegoofhere🇺🇸 (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
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.
