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 August 4}}</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 August 4}}</noinclude>
If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 August 4|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".
I am filing this deletion review to document and challenge the procedural overreach in the deletion of my user sandbox.
The page was located at User:Marchitects/sandbox. It was not in mainspace. It had not been submitted for review. It was a private workspace for a draft under development.
Wikipedia's own guidance (WP:USERPAGE and WP:USERPAGE#Drafts) explicitly allows users to use their sandbox to build drafts. The language is clear: "Such drafts are not subject to the same deletion criteria as articles in the main namespace."
Despite this, the page was speedily deleted under G11 (Unambiguous promotion), with no prior warning, no revision notice, and no opportunity to bring it into alignment with standards.
The deleting admin stated that the page would have needed complete rewriting from scratch. That is precisely what sandboxes are for—iterative development and refinement through multiple revisions.
The tone of the draft is not what's under review here. The question is whether deletion of a user sandbox draft under G11—absent violation of other core policies—aligns with established deletion criteria. It does not.
I have since started a new draft outside the sandbox environment and will proceed through the Articles for Creation process. This review is to preserve proper use of sandbox space for other editors and to clarify boundaries around G11 application in user space.
Could we have a temp undelete please?. I will note that G11 does apply to the sandbox. That said, I'd certainly give a lot more leeway for a draft article or sandbox article than mainspace. But that doesn't mean there isn't *some* point at which I'd endorse a G11 of a sandbox article. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
overturn certainly overly promotional, but something a new user who doesn't understand how to write a Wikipedia article might write as a first draft. It has a lot of information, just needs a (significant) tone change. Speedying this in mainspace I might agree with, but not as a draft and especially not as a draft from a new user. See my user page about sandcastles. We don't need to knock this one down--it is down the beach a bit. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a single paragraph of non-promotional prose in this sandbox. The only parts that might survive unchanged are the sentence fragments in "Awards and recognition" (not even the whole section) and the list in "Discography". Meets both the letter and intent of G11; this needs a fundamental rewrite to be acceptable, and you don't get to write drivel like "Ricardo Scales represents the intersection of musical excellence, community leadership, and cultural preservation" anywhere on Wikipedia. —Cryptic19:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is a new user (or at least a new account). This isn't a good first article, but it's better than many--at least the English is decent and the source is okay. Do you think we're more likely to end up with a good editor by deleting or providing feedback (serious question, I can see the argument for deleting)? Hobit (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any realistic chance we'll end up with a good editor either way. My usual response to a talk page complaint about a page I've deleted for promotionalism whose subject seems possibly notable is to offer to email the content; sometimes it gets immediately put back onto Wikipedia without meaningful change, and rarely it's improved a little, but I cannot recall even once where it's gone on to become a viable mainspace article, or where the editor has gone on to write about anything other than the subject or subjects they were initially promoting.In any case, on what basis are you calling the source ok? The title appears nowhere on the internet except for this page, strongly implying either that it doesn't exist; or that the "Ricardo Scales:" part is a misformatted (which is ok) author, which means A) that it's an autobiography, and B) it still probably doesn't exist, since "Ricardo Scales" and "A Musical Biography" separately still do not appear anywhere together on the internet except this page. —Cryptic21:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restore, and someone should probably look at YesI'mOnFire's conduct with respect to others' userspace content. I've not reviewed policy on this recently, but that seems like some pretty aggressive content policing. Is it within our norms and expectations? Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: There's WP:FUNPOLICE which is an essay, but I think has good principles for maintaining perspective of the encyclopedia in the big picture. FWIW, I sometimes question whether some of the things that land at WP:MFDreally need to be there. Left guide (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is more a cultural issue than an issue with this particular user. Here's an example of a deletion which I, in my humble opinion, is even more heavy handed than this. You can view the content here. It was nominated by a different user and deleted by a different admin. As far as YIOF was concerned (before this DRV), their CSD was correct and approved by an admin. It's only a problem if they have a low CSD match rate, which an admin would have to assess as their CSD log is not enabled. OutsideNormality (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: from a cursory read, this looks fine for userspace. It plausibly looks like a good-faith biographical attempt with a great deal of factual-looking information. The tone certainly isn't perfect, but it's not unreasonable for a brand new user; perhaps they are an enthusiastic fan. If it was in mainspace, it would probably need to be sent to draftspace or userspace, but we're more lenient with non-articles. Left guide (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The content is exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopedic, and that's if the sole source is independent or even exists. If G11 can be used for sandboxes, then this is a perfectly acceptable use-case. JoelleJay (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn the G11 and restore the draft. If I were reviewing this at AFC, I would probably Reject it as hopelessly promotional. I would not tag it for G11 and would not tag it for MFD. If I saw it in article space, I don't know whether I would tag it for G11, draftify it, or tag it for AFD, but it wasn't in article space. We probably should have an article on this musician, although not this article, so as a rejected draft this can be a beginning for a real draft article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am quite surprised to see experienced users arguing in favour of keeping the draft, as I've rarely seen a more promotional draft tagged for speedy deletion... If the consensus is that it could have been kept, then I think we need to revisit G11 to decide whether it applies to userspace or not. The draft consisted of paragraph after paragraph of pure, unadulterated promotion and it would have needed to be fundamentally rewritten to make it suitable for inclusion. There was no sentence that wasn't promotional in tone. So, I felt that it met both the spirit and the letter of G11. If that's not the case, the policy doesn't seem to be entirely in tune with the current consensus of the community... Salviogiuliano09:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I'm completely perplexed on why this was nominated. A few-hours old proto-article by a brand new user, that may have still needed improvement. This seems to a case of WP:POLICE. Given the debatable nature of this, then surely an MFD (that I would oppose), and not a speedy. Nfitz (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is more leeway given to drafts yes, but this article has nothing to save. Every single paragraph is promotional (which also feels like it was written by ChatGPT), and there isn't even any useful sources that could be used in a rewrite (the sole source is Internal documentation which fails WP:PUBLISHED). I am surprised people are willing to overturn the G11, if this is not promotional enough, we might as well chop off the G and make it an articlespace criteria only. JumpytooTalk19:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G11 notes that "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.". A quick Proquest visit does find enough material to make a (weak) notability case. And that's for a page, not a sandbox. Yes, some of the language may sound a bit promotional, but I don't think you could say it was unambiguously promotional - and thus G11 isn't applicable. It was less than 2 days old when nominated, and written by a new user. This SPEEDY seems to me more like an attempt to WP:PLEASEBITE and WP:POLICE than actually improve the project; why didn't User:YesI'mOnFire or even User:Salvio giuliano have any dialogue with the clearly active creator before requesting the Speedy? Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we reading the same article here? An example of what I would call "a bit promotional" is the example OutsideNormality provided of a G11, where there is some flattery but the stuff they did is written more neutrally. This article has promotional language in every paragraph, it would be hard to write something more promotional than that. I believe in this case the best advice to provide the creator is to throw it all away and start over, because attempting to revise their way to compliance will be painful both for the creator and the AfC reviewers. JumpytooTalk03:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirect was a good WP:ATD that multiple participants mentioned. Only one person advocated against a redirect, so consensus for a redirect likely existed per WP:ATD even if delete got more votes. Plus the closer didn’t even give a line of reasoning for why they picked delete over redirect.40.128.69.240 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed without a consensus to remove, but the page is semi-protected, otherwise I would’ve reverted it. If the DRV fails to provide consensus on whether or not that section should be reinstated, I plan to open up a discussion on the talk page. And responding to the point raised below; Chargers-Rams is still there despite not having an article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chargers–Rams rivalry (2nd nomination)) so there is precedent for restoring these articles on the NFL rivalries page to an extent. 40.128.69.240 (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but redirect could've also been reasonable within closer's discretion. There are two supporters for the redirect, but Frank Anchor's objection to redirecting also carried weight since it seems the consensus standard for List of NFL rivalries is to only discuss entries with standalone articles in a {{main}} hatnote. If nobody opposes a redirect, then a redirect is probably a preferred outcome when suggested. Sometimes there are multiple "correct" answers and this seems like one of those times. (involved as having made a comment/question about a source at the AfD) Left guide (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - A reasonable call by the closer. I generally prefer redirect over delete to preserve the history, but there was an argument against redirection, so that delete was within the closer's discretion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An attempt to discuss with the closer was unable to persuade them to re-consider, and I remain in disagreement with the "no consensus" close from the standpoint of how the consensus was assessed. My main rationale from there is copied as follows:
To me, it looked like more of a "no consensus" situation early on with keep arguments lacking in strength, but after a source assessment table was provided and following the last relist, it seems like the final participants pushed the consensus into delete territory.
I thought (as I do fairly often) that the source assessment table pushed a POV pretty hard. Positive coverage is dismissed as promotional. But nobody actually cites the source assessment in their deletion reason, not even its author, since he was already the creator of the AfD.
One of the subsequent comments actually contradicts the source assessment. @Aeon Sentinel says that Coverage is limited to routine announcements and promotional interviews, but the source assessment contradictorily says that the The Week article is independent and reliable and while it says it's "promotional," it's not an interview, so coverage is in fact not limited to "promotional interviews" and "routine announcements". So we can't say that AS has been won over by the source assessment. Jahaza (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn closure to Delete (uninvolved)- In examining the sources and the source assessment table; the Vogue India and GQ India sources are both clearly marked at the top "SPONSORED CONTENT BY Maars Communicates", these are paid placement native advertising and therefore cannot be considered to be an independent reliable source. Several other sources are written by "Team" or "Correspondent" rather than having a proper byline; often this is the case when an "article" is based off of a press release. The rationales to delete are much stronger arguments than the keeps. The sources are poor quality, PR fluff, primary sources or paid placement. I think the article should have been closed as Delete rather than no consensus. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My comment to the OP is at User talk:Liz#WP:Articles for deletion/Akshay Bardapurkar. Reviewing this AFD discussion, I saw No consensus among participants and I thought an additional relist was unnecessary and unlikely to change the discussion. If the consensus here at DRV is different, well, I apologize for my misreading of this discussion and I'll try to improve my performance in future closures. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!21:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I agree with the appellant that the AfD was, indeed, trending towards Delete after the first relist. But like Jahaza, I find the source analysis to be somewhat self-serving, and contradicted by one of the other Deletes, leaving me with an uneasy feeling about taking both at face value. This isn't AfD round #2, and we're not here to do our own source analysis. But a fresh analysis of the sources would be helpful. And to that effect, we should allow an early renomination by anyone willing to put in the work. Owen×☎22:12, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Sometimes when there is no apparent consensus, a consensus really can't be teased out, and sometimes, no matter how unsatisfying No Consensus is, there really is No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. The 3 keep !votes rested entirely on unsubstantiated claims the subject meets PRODUCER; 2 didn't even mention sourcing (a requirement for that criterion) and the last makes a vaguewave at "coverage in reliable sources" without specifying which ones satisfied PRODUCER or contained IRS SIGCOV of the subject. As such, the keep !votes should have been discounted. This is without even needing to look at the source analysis, which at least four other editors saw and either explicitly agreed with or did not dispute in the subsequent 11 days. And if you actually look at the sources, it's clear that their characterization as "promotional" is absolutely correct and they should have been discarded outright, including the only two designated as "profiles": The Weekpiece is literally a marketing initiative and Vogue India is sponsored content. @Jahaza @OwenXJoelleJay (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: as I mentioned in my reply to Cryptic, had your source analysis been presented at the AfD, I'd have no problem closing it as Delete, and I bet the same goes for Liz. But this is DRV. We can overturn a Delete when new sources are uncovered, and we can overturn any close if consensus wasn't read correctly. But a better analysis of sources already presented at the AfD requires a new AfD, which Liz already said she welcomes. Owen×☎13:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, I just wanted to counter the narrative that the source analysis in any way misrepresents the sources as being overly promotional, or that some other delete !votes aren't as accurate because they don't mention the "independent" profiles. JoelleJay (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, but on the basis of WP:IAR. I think Liz's close was correct and per WP:DRVPURPOSE, new evidence is not a reason for overturning to delete (unlike overturning to recreate). The sources being relied on are not merely promotional in tone, but advertorial, which was not brought to light sufficiently in the deletion process.--Jahaza (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am deeply suspicious of any deletion discussion that's relisted multiple times, with all post-relist discussion unanimous, but ultimately closed contrary to that. It's hard to avoid the appearance that the relistings were an attempt to justify a predetermined outcome; and it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that the community's time was squandered. If those three keep rationales are enough to prevent deletion of this article, then they already were before the first relist, and the discussion should have been closed then or at least immediately after it. —Cryptic06:04, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of my concerns as well, and a big reason why this particular close caught my attention. I generally assume that when someone re-lists in a debate with opposing viewpoints, the discussion is more or less in a "no consensus" condition at that moment in time, or else it would've been closed instead. Left guide (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic:all post-relist discussion unanimous is a bit strong for describing a grand total of two new !votes, one of which was a VAGUEWAVE, plus an iffy source analysis table from the nom. The only thing we really gained from those relists was Oaktree b's !vote. If those three keep rationales are enough to prevent deletion of this article, then they already were before the first relist - those three Keep rationales were enough to contest the weak nom and those two subsequent Deletes. Had JoelleJay presented her critical source analysis in the AfD, I'm sure both Sandstein and Liz would have had no problem closing it as Delete. There was no way to know a priori whether we'd get some solid source analyses after the relist, so we can't really say the community's time was "squandered". Second and third relists are often a Hail Mary, yet we get complaints when we close as N/C after only one relist. I don't think attempt to justify a predetermined outcome is a valid accusation in this case. The two relisters and the closer were three different people. Did all three have the same "predetermined outcome" in mind? Owen×☎12:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the major issue for me is that the PRODUCER claims here were already extremely weak. As pointed out in the discussion by @Largoplazo, they hinged entirely on the first clause The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. and at no point addressed the second requirement for meeting that criterion In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. They had plenty of time to point to specific sources demonstrating either PRODUCER or GNG was met, yet none of them did so (apart from a mention of the Hindustan Times, which contains only a quote), nor did they contest the source analysis. The fact that these keep !votes were followed by two delete !votes and were thoroughly dismantled by the nom and Largoplazo (whose participation strongly leans toward being a sixth anti-keep) should have been more than enough to delete. JoelleJay (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just never got around to doing my own research to see whether an outright Delete !vote was called for, and I was resisting the temptation to !vote that way solely on the grounds that Baqi was flagrantly ignoring every part of that PRODUCER criterion after the first sentence and made out not to understand what I was getting at despite my having repeatedly pointed out the pertinent language. So Baqi did not make a legitimate case for a Keep. Neither did Zuck28, who only sided with Baqi and misplaced the burden with respect to notability, placing it on those who say the subject is not notable rather than on those who say that he is. Neither did Monhiroe, whose rationale beyond mere assertion mentioned the existence of coverage in the Hindustan Times, the sufficience of which had already been called into question, and unspecified other sources and mentioned Planet Marathi, but that was what justified the title being a redirect to Planet Marathi, whereas the issue here was whether the should be an article about him. And those were all the Keeps that there were. Largoplazo (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting an urgent and thorough review of the deletion of the article about Annu Gaidhu. Independent, reliable sources establish her notability, and the article’s removal disregards substantive evidence as well as broader representation concerns.
Annu Gaidhu, as Miss India Canada 2014, Toronto's youngest certified yoga teacher and youth advocate, is a notable figure in the South Asian Canadian community. Her achievements have been covered by multiple reputable editorial outlets, reflecting a sustained public presence and impact.
The deletion was carried out without sufficient time to update the article with new editorial sources. Additionally, there was limited participation from editors familiar with the subject matter or cultural context, raising procedural concerns about the fairness and thoroughness of the discussion.
The extended confirmed protection applied to the page has prevented constructive contributions and improvements, effectively suppressing the development of a biography about a demonstrably notable figure. This contradicts Wikipedia’s mission to represent global diversity and notable individuals across communities.
New research and independent sources
Due to link rot and typical web archiving issues, some original source URLs are no longer accessible. However, many of the sources remain verifiable through the Internet Archive. Notability is supported through the following independent, editorially controlled sources:
Femina India (Times of India Group): "Mississauga beauty Annu Gaidhu crowned Miss India Canada"
Voice Online: "And Miss India Canada 2014 is Annu Gaidhu of Mississauga"
Canada India Times: "Annu Gaidhu crowned Miss India Canada 2014"
Vancouver Desi: "Mississauga beauty Annu Gaidhu crowned Miss India Canada"
South Asian Daily: PDF coverage of Miss India Canada 2014
News East West: "Annu Gaidhu is Miss India Canada 2014"
Indo-Caribbean World: Community profile coverage
In addition to press coverage, she is cited in:
Gharabaghi (2024), _Child and Youth Care Across Sectors, Vol. 2_
Her peer-reviewed co-authored article with Dr. T. Edwards (2020)
Her documentary _Finding Spirit_ won an Accolade Global Film award and was screened at two international festivals.
Underrepresentation and systemic bias
The AfD appeared to undervalue coverage from culturally specific and community-based sources. Notability per WP:GNG is not limited to mainstream English-language media. Many of the sources here are reliable and editorially controlled, just not widely known to all editors. This raises WP:BIAS concerns.
Annu Gaidhu’s career spans trauma-informed child and youth care, intercultural education, and wellness advocacy—fields underrepresented on Wikipedia. The article merits broader community input and restoration, especially as deletion processes should not disproportionately exclude racialized or community-based achievements.
I respectfully request this deletion be overturned and the article restored, or at minimum, relisted at AfD with participation from a more diverse and culturally aware set of editors.Yogshakti1991 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and block already. This is well beyond the point of disruption. I'll chuck this at ANI if we have to but NOTBURO and all that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close: We don't entertain LLM-written appeals which the appellant should've gotten the hint from after being collapsed at the AfD. Left guide (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted on 29 June 2025 as the references provided were only Allkpop, when other users did not try searching for reliable ones, even using Mason Moon's Korean name (문 메이슨). Apart from that, the nominator also did not give a specific reason whether or not his career panned out. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌClara A. Djalim໒꒱˚｡⋆11:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the current draft of the article is significantly different and meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, with reliable independent sources. The previous issues have been addressed. I request that the article be restored directly to mainspace. The Page Pilot (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn July 2025 G4 and move above posted draft to mainspace, subject to AFD. The first AFD was closed in 2021 as a G5 speedy (created by a blocked/banned user) and the second was not deleted but rather draftified and the mainspace version essentially A7ed (deletion requested by creator/primary author). G4 excludes pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. It is clear that neither of the prior reasons for deletion apply. I can't speak for the most recent G4ed version, but the current draft includes sourced content pertaining to events occurring after the second AFD closure, making it not sufficiently identical, a requirement for G4 deletion. I have no comment on the validity of the references in the draft as DRV is not the forum to evaluate content. FrankAnchor12:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I guess The Page Pilot means is that they want to challenge the recent G4 deletion
The Speedy Deletion had no reasoning character, rather than the forced will of deprication. The argues of the admins were for the first Draft, it is "Neologism" (Frost) what i corrected. Second, "Notable in-depth"+"reliable"+"secondary"+"independent" (RangerRus). I agreed, i corrected. While correcting, i did several qualified Adoptions - Added sources of referring Literature (at the bottom), Added sources of reffering Wiki-Articles (within the Text), Linguistics, Explainations, Details, a mathematical Proof with the "FormulaOfOntologicFreedom", some minors. I am working hard, very hard to keep all WIKIPEDIA-criteria to the utterest level, and i am the CREATOR/AUTHOR of the Word "BitDrug" and the "FormulaOfOntologicFreedom". This means, there are no second, reliable Sources within the possibilities of a Google-Searching except my private CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 licensed Gaming-Community! The DELETION POLICY has not even recognized (Editing > Deletion). The only real question from Admin-side was "What is BitDrug ?" You have absolutley provided no Administrative competence but a lot of journalistic fascism within an inquisition-process. Pixelfreunde (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - I did a speedy delete of the user's sandbox @ 03:19, 26 July 2025 (U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host). The speedy delete tag and user notification was placed by User:ChildrenWillListen at 01:05, 26 July 2025. The user had posted a contest to the speedy delete (G11) notice on the talk page at 02:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC), with responses by the nominator. I reviewed the page and the contest of deletion and deemed it qualified for speedy delete under U5 as it is original research. Subsequently, User:Pixelfreunde, following process, posted a note on my talk page asking why it was speedy deleted. I moved the discussion to Pixelfreunde's talk page, here; and, I explained the reasons for the deletion and declined undeletion. Discussions continued both on Pixelfreunde's talk page and on the sandbox talk page (I did not delete it). — ERcheck (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pixelfreunde, you appear to have trouble getting started. In my opinion you are starting wrong. Do not try to start by creating new content. Instead, read articles, and try to improve them. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is true that this is my first article, since i was not taken serious at the age of 14 and my account was deleted. But it is still no behaivour to judge as WIKIPEDIA for an Admin. There is no reason to Speedy Deletion. Editing > Deletion Pixelfreunde (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarises reliable secondary sources, it is not a place to publish your own neologisms and theories. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn: The deleting admin lists four reasons for deleting the sandbox, three of which should be overturned, and one of which should be weakly overturned:
U5 - This was not a misuse of Wikipedia for web hosting, because the author/appellant was submitting the sandbox to AFC. It is true but irrelevant that the contents of the sandbox make very little sense and would never be accepted. Original research is not a criterion for U5.
G11 - The sandbox cannot really be characterized as advertising, because it appears to be incomprehensible. This is a weak overturn.
Reliable sources - The lack of reliable sources is not a reason to delete a draft or sandbox.
Notability - The lack of notability is not a reason to delete a draft or sandbox.
Following ...activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals: "#5. Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia. Do not store material unrelated to Wikipedia, including in userspace. Please see WP:UPNOT for examples of what may not be included."
Following WP:UPNOT: "Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article. (For example, in the latter case, because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic for other clear reasons.)" (bold mine)
Comment - I have read the deleted and temporarily restored sandbox, and have read the reply of User:ERcheck. I disagree, and do not wish to get into a long back-and-forth. They have presented a very good explanation of why User:Frost and User:RangersRus were right in declining the sandbox as a draft. I would have rejected it. If the sandbox was only deleted for U5, then I stand by my conclusion that that deletion should be weakly overturned. The other participants in DRV can develop their analyses. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you User:Robert McClenon - I have also mentioned it and would have agreed with changing either my Username or overhauling (deleting) the Reference onto my private WebSite. Pixelfreunde (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you are saying it should be overturned on U5 and then re-deleted on some other rationale.
@Robert McClenon, it has to do with this item at DRV because if Frost or RangersRus had moved it to draftspace, as is generally best practice, U5 would not apply, the draft would be deleted in six months, and we wouldn't have to be trying to split hairs over this issue.
I didn't intend to 'splain at you, sorry about that. I'm just in the habit of tagging people when replying on pages that don't otherwise create notifications, so I started the response out that way (as I did this one) and failed to remove the ping when I edited the statement to direct at Frost and RR instead. -- asilvering (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think page in question pretty clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I think that CSD should be applied rigorously as a general principle to avoid abuse of process that speedy deletions can have. I don't think this clearly falls under any CSD criteria--there is just too much judgement in deciding that this material isn't right for Wikipedia (though in this case it seems pretty clear). In general I'm a fan of WP:NOTBUREAU, but with CSD I think we should follow the letter of the "law". So I'm at overturn and list at MfD. Not because the final outcome is unclear here, but to protect from future "well, I think this clearly has no potential" speedy situations. Hobit (talk) 11:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - It's clearly debatable, so MFD rather than speedy. Crikey, it's an unintelligible sandbox; I feel I'm missing something and I hope no one looks at my even less intelligible one! And it's a days-old new user; I don't know how we can judge whether they are not here or not. Nfitz (talk) 16:13, 3 August 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 discussion was closed via a non-admin closure with only 6 votes and little consensus as to whether to delete it, redirect it, merge it or keep it. Although the redirect and delete votes did make up a small majority, I'm not sure that 4 votes can be called a consensus. Computerfan0 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clear consensus not to keep the article. Obvious redirect target exists, so deletion should be avoided unless there's a compelling reason. Only one participant suggests a merge, and they only want a "selective" one, which the close allows for. It would not have been appropriate to relist this discussion, or to close it any other way. -- asilvering (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer: The only support for keeping comes from a user who's only ever edit was to this debate with reasoning along the lines of WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:Subjective importance. There are two outside !votes for the redirect, the nomination statement which indicates an openness to the redirect, and a merge !vote (which I also accommodated in the closing statement) which is functionally similar to the redirect. The debate between delete/redirect/merge is largely academic most of the time since they are all deletion or alternatives thereof. Re-listing solely for the sake of perfection or process is an inefficient use of AfD community resources for virtually no real gain. A key factor I look for when assessing debates like these is whether those advocating for deletion make direct substantial objections against redirecting; in this case there were none. Consensus was clearly against retaining the article, and the redirect was a sensible means of carrying out such a consensus. Left guide (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the only possible close. I see a unanimous consensus against retention as a standalone page, and broad support for the redirect as an ATD. The sole vote to keep was correctly discarded as a WP:ITSUSEFUL. Owen×☎22:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as AfD nominator there was no consensus for being kept bar the ITSUSEFUL vote, and the closer did an effective job finding a good neutral consensus. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clear consensus to not keep. Among the delete/redirect voters, there was not a clear consensus against redirecting. This was a good close, and probably the only correct close here. FrankAnchor03:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - Relist would have been better as a first-week non-admin close, but Redirect would have been the most likely result after relisting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this had been relisted by a NAC, I would have closed the relisted AfD early and left an irritated message on the NAC's talk page asking them not to relist unless they were really sure it was required. -- asilvering (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as appropriate closure outcome. The only apparent !vote to keep came from an account with no other edits and the rationale was essentially WP:ITSUSEFUL, which doesn't carry weight. Redirect was suggested by half the other participants and is a suitable WP:ATD when considering the remaining participant views. I don't think a relist was necessary as there was sufficient participation to reach a consensus. Bungle(talk • contribs)08:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a correct and indeed the best close. No reason to relist after a consensus of 4 or more comments. The only keep is extremely weak and does not form an effective counterweight to consensus to remove. Redirect had clear support and no real objections to it had been articulated. A Correct and appropriate close for any editor to make. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I happen to think this is an incorrect outcome as a matter of policy, the local consensus in the discussion is clear. I've long argued that the topic of "List of X elements" is not "X elements" but rather "X". Maintaining that each article must be notable regardless of whether the article's topic is notable leads to inappropriately curtailing content or denying the ability to SIZE split. "List of X characters" is a stupid thing to look for RS on, because that's not how RS'es cover the characters of a fictional franchise. Coverage will be under the franchise, franchise elements (books, films, etc.), or the individual element names, none of which maps directly to "List of X characters". Once you get past the idea that there is a 1:1 correspondence between articles and topics, this becomes much easier to work with. In this case, I note specifically that a redirection allows all the prior material to remain in history for either future merging or un-redirecting. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a relist would have been better, but this was within closer discretion. Also, I agree with Jclemens about the general issue. Hobit (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Meh. I don't see consensus to keep, but I also don't see one to delete. Would you find a N/C close more palatable? I'd say, split the difference, and allow renomination in three months. Owen×☎12:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's note: I have to be honest. I mean to click the quick delete, not quick keep, button. There were 3 sources presented but the editors favoring delete presented issues with those sources - with the other keep being a nod to the depreciated NFOOTY - such that I weighted them small enough so as to find a delete consensus. Given the reaction here I probably should have typed this out and avoided the reaction altogether, but also if Svartner had taken the instructions to talk with me first this might have been a rather different DRV discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The closing summary is grossly inadequate for a contested discussion, let alone one that looks like a consensus to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist and reclose whether immediately or allow time for consensus to develop. This was a human error (admitted by closer) that does not need 7 days here. StarMississippi00:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC or relist. I commend Barkeep49 for realizing their mistake and wanting to correct it. However, as the AFD currently stands, I don’t see consensus to delete either. I don’t like third reposts but consensus was possibly trending toward delete and that trend may or may not continue. FrankAnchor03:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's relisted, please let me know. I can make a stronger argument showing this isn't actually no consensus, since the sources cited aren't good enough. SportingFlyerT·C06:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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
Create a new version of the article either in article space (subject to a new AFD on its current merits) or in draft space (subject to AFC review). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The deleted page was a 66-word stub. If the appellant believes newer sources establish notability, they are welcome to submit a new draft to AfC. The page isn't SALTed. Owen×☎14:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-creation is allowed. There was no point, or advantage in coming here. If you have any questions, make the re-creation at WP:AFC. If mainspace re-creation were not allowed, then you should attempt re-creation at WP:AFC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:34, 26 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.
This article was deleted on the basis of a change I had made to WP:NPLACE in December 2024. It wasn't explicitly discussed although keeping all CDP articles has been discussed and questioned over and over for some time (namely, under the "legal recognition" clause of the guideline). The change has proven controversial after the fact and I suspect I wasn't the only one who was surprised to see the justification used for the deletion closure. So I think we have to revisit this. Personally, if we are going to reject the closure as originally made, I'm going to have to stand by the position that the delete arguments were better, but I wouldn't question a "no consensus" result. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally voted delete based on the evidence provided in the article - legal papers for a case against the developers of Encharted Hills, which state it was a property development started in 1961 and a subdivision of Cromwell, which don't match GEOLAND. In the discussion after about CDP @ Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#WP:NPLACE, legal recognition and CDPs, I have used the following refs (statements from the Census Bureau registered with the Federal Register) to show that CDPs are not legally recognised, only incorporated places are (as per GEOLAND prior to Mangoe's amendment in December 2024 [4][5].Davidstewartharvey (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, although a merge to Turkey Creek Township, Kosciusko County, Indiana would have been better. There was an old cartoon in Punch showing a city employee walking back to his truck after installing a new "NO PARKING" sign, only to find a parking ticket on the windshield. Although in this case, the appeal is for a "parking ticket" issued to an AfD participant based on a disputed sign that was subsequently removed. But what exactly is the remedy you are seeking here, Mangoe? Even if the sole Keep in the AfD had been given full weight according to the stable version of NPLACE, the result would have been the same - delete (or merge) per your nomination. Bringing this here is certainly a show of good sportsmanship on your part, but it doesn't look like there's anything for us to do here. Please correct me if I'm missing something. Owen×☎23:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:Mangoe - Please explain why you were the nominator in the AFD and are now appealing the close of Delete, when you apparently requested deletion. If you are raising a question about the guideline, then I don't think that Deletion Review is the proper forum. Maybe the guideline talk page is, or maybe Village pump policy is, but DRV is not a precedent-establishing tribunal. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bringing this back for review because even though nobody objected when I added the passage to the guideline, there are now objections to the change. Personally I endorse the close for the reasons given just above, but I think the outcome needs to be re-ratified. Mangoe (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Correct close at the time based on our guidelines, but there are two problems: the relevant guideline was BOLDly added by Mangoe and is currently under discussion, and only Mangoe referenced a source search. The discussion was only about whether it was presumptively notable, not whether it passed GNG. It should be reopened with a relist specifically asking for a source search. SportingFlyerT·C06:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved) I don't see any reason to challenge the close, the arguments for merge/delete are not based on that change but the lack of sigcov. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are four delete/merge comments and only a single editor (you) opposing. There clearly was consenus that this topic did not merit a stand alone article, the guideline change doesn't have any impact on that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As closer, this appeal appears to me to be an abuse of process and should be closed accordingly. Mangoe, who nominated this article for deletion, is now appealing (without first contacting the closer) the "delete" outcome they themselves asked for in the AfD. This is a waste of volunteer time. Sandstein 07:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The closure was based on your non-neutral interpretation of an invalid guideline that was added by the nominator of the AfD and of this deletion review.Djflem (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The closure was based on your non-neutral interpretation" do you mean to say that you would have been challenging this close even without the guideline issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per Sandstein, with a trout to the appellant. DRV is a forum to consider whether there was an error by the closer. The appellant is not arguing any error by the closer but an error in the guidelines, maybe introduced by the nominator/appellant. DRV is not the forum for that discussion. Maybe the guideline talk page is that forum. Maybe the Village Pump is the right forum. The discussion properly considered the guideline as written, and the closer properly assessed consensus under the guideline as written. The appellant appears to be arguing with the nominator. I am not sure whether that is a proper use of DRV when those are two different editors, but they are the same editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominating something for deletion to see if it gets deleted or not when you yourself do not think it merits deletion is not a good idea and also arguably an SK #1 situation. SK's aren't mandatory and none were used, so the full consensus, even with the nominator opposed to deletion, is a presumptively valid outcome. Or am I missing something? Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relist incorrectly closed with closer who added their own 'interpretation' of a of a poorly written guideline which was added to the SNG and not vetted by the community and is controversial. It was BOLDly added by Mangoe and is currently under discussion and has been removed. Per Sporting Flyer: the discussion was only about whether it was presumptively notable, not whether it passed GNG. It should be reopened with a relist specifically asking for a source search.Djflem (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the discussion was only about whether it was presumptively notable, not whether it passed GNG" thats just not true... It was a general discussion of the articles notability... It was AfD. It doesn't pass GNG any more than the SNG, the fundamental lack of sufficient independent significant coverage is not overcome. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: Mangoe boldly added a clause about CDPs to WP:NPLACE in December, and then AfD'd this article based on that clause. As a result of this AfD, there's a discussion about whether the clause was correct, and I ended up removing it, for now at least, since there wasn't clear consensus for the change after a discussion, and because it's needlessly USA-specific for a general site-wide guideline. I'm more concerned with how this was a meets SNG/doesn't meet SNG AfD than one that looked at sources, but that's sort of how we got here. SportingFlyerT·C20:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must correct this account on one point: the nomination as I wrote it made no appeal to the added text, and indeed I was quite surprised by the closing rationale because I had completely forgotten that i had made the guideline change. We shall just have to differ at this point about the addition's merits, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No SIGCOV was identified after notability was challenged, and this was the main basis for deletion, not the presence of guidance on CDPs. JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shyamambaram – IP requester is a paid-editing sockpuppet evading a block. Sorry OwenX, Cryptic is going to be thinking very hard in your general direction. Furthermore the contested G4 deletion concerned an article which had been modified from the deleted version only by another sockpuppet, so I'm considering it valid and restoring this to deletion. I won't take it personally if another admin interprets the discussion differently and restores this to draft instead (no need to inform me) but I strongly recommend indefinite semiprotection and EC move protection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I note that this has been G4 deleted twice since the AfD. What's the situation? Were those appropriate? What improvements since the AfD can we expect in draftspace? Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Me personally I don't think that the G4 deletion twice were appropriate because the tv show has become one of the notable shows of malayalam televison and now there are are more reliable sources online which can be included if the article is restored to draftspace. 103.203.73.67 (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the 2023 AfD and the January 2024 G4. No opinion about the June 2024 G4, since that version added seven sources, mostly in Malayalam, which I haven't checked. Will gladly support draftification if the appellant (or anyone) can show at least one added source that meets our RS/SIGCOV standards. Owen×☎12:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting temp undeletion to review the G4ed versions. Based on OwenX's analysis, I find it unlikely the second G4 was correct with seven new references, but would like to review how significant these added references are. FrankAnchor15:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically overturn the second G4 as the recreated article is not substantially similar to the version deleted at AFD. I see it as a slight improvement but suffering from a lot of the same issues, such that it would very likely not be kept at an AFD. Restore as draft to allow the appellant to build this up to article standards. I do not think the references provided above, or what is in the deleted article, are enough to get it to a GNG-passing state, they seem to be WP:ROUTINE descriptions of the subject program (though I will note some difficulty translating with basic translator apps). FrankAnchor17:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft as that is what was requested by the IP address appellant, and there at least appears to be potential for an article. Showing all steps, this is overturning the second G4 followed by a voluntary draftification. Jclemens (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn latest G4 and restore to draft, explicitly without insisting on OwenX's request above to stage-gate via quality of new sourcing. As Frank Anchor wrote, the last deleted recreation was not substantially similar and so the latest G4 was not correct. Restoring to draft so interested parties can add new sources (including maybe discovering they are still not adequate) is a very reasonable next step. Based on this and [8], it does seem we repeatedly have cases where G4 is stretched from "article substantially similar" to "sourcing not materially different". That is not covered by our speedy deletion criteria. I have a lot of sympathy for admins mopping up recreations that repeatedly fall short of the mark in terms of notability and sourcing, but passing judgment as to whether expanded sourcing is or isn't sufficient is much more nuanced than application of SD criteria, which should be noncontroversial housekeeping. I don't know if we should stop doing it (as not supported by policy), or carefully and throughfully expand G4 to include obvious cases but punt less obvious ones to a discussion, but at the very least we need to support users making a plausible effort to bring articles up to snuff. Martinp (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cheer any effort to improve our policies and guidelines. At this point, however, that seems about as easy as updating the Catholic Canon. For example, in April, Jclemens, who authored many of our existing policies, suggested adding a Speedy Keep criterion to cover low-effort mass AfD nominations. Seemed like an easy fix to handle situations that can burn up an inordinate amount of community time under our existing process. After a 20,000-word debate involving dozens of participants, we ended up just like we do with almost every such proposal - exactly where we started. The original version of G4 read, "Reposted content that was deleted according to Wikipedia deletion policy." This was our primary tool for enforcing AfD results. But due to cases of admin overreach, it was later tightened to add the "substantially identical" restriction, which opened the door to gaming the system by adding a source or two with a cursory WP:ROUTINE mention of the subject, and voilà! They get a free extra bite at the apple; AfD round #2 without even having to go through DRV. I'm not saying this is the case here, and have no problem draftifying. I'm just very reluctant to trout an admin for a good-faith application of G4 to an article that was, prima facie, no better than the one deleted at AfD. If you can come up with a G4 improvement that passes RfC, my hat is off to you. Owen×☎22:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Owen. To be clear: I'm not asking for trouting, just overturn-G4 and noncontroversially draftify. But I do see significant daylight between "substantially identical" and (quoting you above) "good-faith assessment that new article is no better than the one deleted at AfD", with "reposted content delected according to policy" somewhere in the middle. And I fear admins who spend a lot of time in the trenches fighting COI editors and gaming-the-system get jaded, and can end up biting good-faith if sometimes naive editors....exactly the ones draftspace in particular is designed to help. In particular, absent a pattern of tendentious recreation, I think a REFUND to draft of an article deleted at AFD on the basis of inadequate sourcing, with *any* plausible additional sourcing provided, should be pretty automatic. But I don't have the experience to know what pitfalls that might bring. I'll observe for a while longer before attempting any Solomonesque policy proposals - but absent a policy modification, I think SD criteria need to be interpreted fairly strictly. That's why it's speedy deletion, it's where it's noncontroversial. Martinp (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: I'm not going to argue about it in this instance if this does turn out (per Cryptic's comment below) to be an IP request of undeletion of text written by a sockpuppetteer, but I'm still uncomfortable at the stretch of G4 which seems to happen not infrequently. Martinp (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
stretch of G4 which seems to happen not infrequently is a bit too charitable. There are a number of administrators who intentionally and repeatedly disregard the wording and intent of G4, and a number of contributors here who also disregard that wording and intent by endorsing the out of process actions of those admins. It's not the end of the world that our policies and process are controversial and/or don't match perfectly, but this specific issue did just factor into the complaint against David Gerard. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You give me too much credit; I'm simply one of the dinosaurs who is both opinionated and has stuck around. I've done far more policy refinement than outright creation. Regardless, the proposal you reference was eye opening for me. I don't do NPP, never really did except when I was gaining diverse experience in prep for my RfA, and was surprised at the number of people who saw that proposal as a perverse incentive to create low effort stubs. Not something that was on my radar at all, so I learned something. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was a long time ago, so anything I say here is a reconstruction rather than recollection. I'm the second-G4 deleting admin from 8 June 2024. Note that this is all long prior to the April 2025 discussion for clarification or modification of the wording and/or any later changes to is implementation in spirit. , I would have looked back to the state of the article at its prior-deletion state (20 January 2024) of a multiply-deleted article and seen this diff to see if it was substantively equivalent, or had substantive hint of changes to overcome the conventional DRV standard to overturn or overcome-previous AFD at the time, and I would have looked at the editor involved to see if there was a serious doubt of their good-faith status to be working on it (evasion and other hopelessness means G4 might not be technically the best/only/most-correct log detail). The substantive changes in the diff appear to be the plot/synopsis (less detail and no sources, but plot often does not need them), the cast-list (substantially reduced but has sources) and the controversies (new section, has sources). That last is a fairly small content addition and is the only place I would have said (and still now would say) "this is not really the same as the previous" and look at it in detail. The original AFD was for SIGCOV, and the refs for the new section are all prior to the AFD. Using the DRV standard as I understood it at the time, that means it was in the timeframe where it should have been found at or before AFD, so it wouldn't merit an automatic acceptance. The subject, as a Zee-related production, is highly susceptible to COI/PR-team contribution, so I would have leaned against automatic acceptance in light of previous admin actions. Note that by "automatic acceptance", I mean "created into mainspace, without DRV helping decide that we actually have something acceptably new and with suitable sources, etc. or without AFC process". So I stand by my decision at the time based on standards as at the time as I understood them at the time.That said, I have no objection to overturning my deletion via DRV and sending to draft-space based on current standards and other editors' desire to work on the article, and even those are in keeping with something I would have advocated at the time. DMacks (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. @DMacks: since no one seems to object, you are welcome to move the page to draft and procedurally close this DRV. Owen×☎ 00:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't see Cryptic's comment when I wrote this. Owen×☎00:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Don't let me stand in the way. I won't even come onto your talk page to say "I told you so" if this turns out to be the same banned user yet again. I will think it at you all awfully hard, though. —Cryptic00:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's the same user, which is why in my original comment here I added the condition of an extra source. But if you're okay with a draftification and procedural close, then @DMacks: feel free to close this DRV. Owen×☎01:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind adding some basic qualifications for DRV nominations, such as autoconfimred or ECP, given that those without such either 1) don't have an idea how to use the process appropriately, or 2) are sockpuppets. However, as that's not a criterion at the moment, I have simply AGF'ed that this IP address editor is entitled to a presumption of making this request for encyclopedic motivation. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How far back should we move, and how much undeleted? For example, "move the whole history, and delete everything up through the first G4", or "only move subsequent to first G4, leaving the rest at mainspace and delete it"? DMacks (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a G5 because it was only detected well afterward, but I'm still really reluctant to undelete content created by sockpuppeteers at the request of an ip or other non-established editor. —Cryptic00:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first DRV so I hope I am doing it right and apologies if not. First I wish to adress that the TFD for the template was handled problerly and therfore the conduct does not warrent a review, my problem is purely with the outcome. I understand this goes against WP:DRVPURPOSE point one however I am invoking WP:Ignore all rules which states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
Now the reason for me opening a DRV is as follows. Both point made by User:Pokelego999 in the nomination is "A navbox for an in-universe element that now lacks an article" and " No navigational use, especially since it contains basically every single time the concept ever appears on-screen, no matter how minor." are true. While the first one is pretty solid and i can not refute it, the second ins't most (if not all) navboxes for fictional Doctor Who elements include both major and minor instances of said element, (see Template:First Doctor stories, Template:Dalek Stories, Template:Weeping Angel stories). A delete vote made by User:LaundryPizza03 reads "Delete per nom. Better served by season navboxes." which isnt true at all since since the Doctor Who episodes navbox is seperated by season and most regeneration episodes (all but two) happen in different seasons they dont link to each other. Now why should it be kept? Depsite Regeneration (Doctor Who) being defunct its still fairly useful, for instance a reader who reads about The Power of the Doctor might wonder when the concept of regeneration first appeared, hoever The Tenth Planet is not linked. If they wondered what other episodes had regeneration theyre left in the dark. Full disclosure i have inquired about this before with the XFD closure before taking it here. – Olliefant (she/her)05:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a page that's been around for 18 years deserves a little bit more than deletion with such a thinly-attended TFD and would relist to allow for a fuller discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: until a week ago, the target of the redirect - Time Lord - had an extensive section about Regeneration, which included the list that the appellant wishes to see. This was removed by a massive rewrite of the article carried out by the same Pokelego999 who !voted to delete the template. This means that the redirect, which resulted from a 2024 AfD, is no longer a useful one. I think the best way forward is to start a discussion at Talk:Time Lord about restoring the Regeneration content to the article, or if WP:UNDUE, a spinout back to the old Regeneration (Doctor Who) page. Only then would it make sense to discuss the usefulness of the deleted template. I am not a Whovian, and have no substantive opinion on the issue itself, but procedurally, I think that's the way to go. Owen×☎08:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A discussion being attended by few cannot be deemed to have been a failure of process when the discussion was up for the same amount of time as any other nomination; being a victim of circumstance and lack of participation is not inherently a flaw within the TfD system given many other Navboxes get some big discussions, and this one did not. Additionally, a whole navbox for a non-independently notable fictional element seems very flawed, especially since the argument that "It has appeared multiple times before and people will want to see its other appearances" is something that can be applied to nearly every other recurring element in the series, notable or not. There's no clear indication why regeneration specifically would warrant an exception from the norm.
From what sources exist, regeneration is ill-discussed outside of the case of The Doctor's regenerations, which seem to be well covered as an aspect of their character; as a compromise, perhaps we could include stories where the Doctor regenerates in Template:Incarnations of the Doctor? I recently rewrote Time Lord to trim down on Wikipedia:OR and Wikipedia:CRUFT, and if you feel there's more that could be added there to better describe the concept, I can see what I can do to incorporate it (I'll add a mention of the first appearance pretty soon). If you wish for in-article navigation, perhaps we could have a template like Template:Metroid chronology in the Doctor's article, as well as in regeneration stories' articles? I'm admittedly not too familiar on the guidelines, but that seems more useful navigationally than a navbox. I do agree at the very least more could be done for navigation on wiki, but I'm not convinced resurrecting the template is the way to go about it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a necessarily uncomfortable part of cleanup. Reality is that few editors like Pokelego999 try to even edit older content, and none that I know of do the job that I would like to see done, where concepts are meticulously covered somewhere and redirects are fastidiously retargeted. It's regrettably much more common for editors to try and redirect a ton of things to one article that can then be deleted, effectively G8-ing vast swaths of things that really should be kept around somewhere pending improvement. But bad faith isn't necessary to break something, and our processes are regrettably piecemeal and iterative, rather than holistic. To some extent that's difficult to separate from the nature of edits/revisions, but it sure would be nice if we could build more robust processes without hamstringing efforts to streamline and upgrade older content. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was unanimous consensus to delete the template, which means that the closer correctly assessed consensus. XfD discussions do not require a quorum, so the fact that few people participated does not matter. Whether the consensus to delete was correct is not for DRV to review. Sandstein 05:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Liu Sai – Deletion endorsed, but restoration allowed based on newly provided sources. The history has already been temp-undeleted for this AfD and the deleted versions are therefore available for improvement. Sandstein 09:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The article appears to have been deleted largely due to a lack of participation from Chinese-language editors in the AfD discussion. I only recently noticed the discussion and would like to express that I believe the article should not have been deleted. Liu Sai (劉賽) was a first-rank minister at the imperial court during the Song dynasty. He held several high-ranking administrative positions, including governorships of major prefectures such as Tanzhou and Guangzhou. As a central court official, he also served as Minister of War and Minister of Rites.
Liu Sai is a significant historical and political figure from over a thousand years ago, and he is referenced in numerous historical sources. He clearly meets the criteria under WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. If a historical figure with such a career does not qualify under WP:NPOL, then the guideline itself should be reconsidered. Notability is not limited by time period. Here are some sources supporting his significance: Research on the Song Dynasty's Envoys to the Liao Dynasty, p. 276,Complete Prose of the Song" (Quan Song Wen), p. 129, Chronological Table of Prefecture Governors of the Liangzhe Circuit during the Song Dynasty (宋两浙路郡守年表) – Volume 2, Page 48. Plus, his biography can be found in lines 33-34 in Collected Works of Yuan Xian, Volume 22. He was also a court scholar. Liu Sai and others presented to the emperor their translation of The Elucidation of the Great Learning (大学衍义, Dàxué Yǎnyì). After reviewing it, Emperor Renzong said to his court officials, “The discussions in The Elucidation of the Great Learning are most excellent.” See 北京出版史志 Page 10, and see also limited sources in previous AfD. These works document his official posts and political activities. He is notable enough even though he did not hold ministerial posts. SongRuyi (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SongRuyi (talk·contribs), thank you for raising this at deletion review and providing the sources you've found. I encourage you to monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China because as shown by this AfD, AfD needs more participation from Chinese-language editors. Would you provide the reliable sources (and optionally quotes) verifying each of these sentences: Liu Sai (劉賽) was a first-rank minister at the imperial court during the Song dynasty. He held several high-ranking administrative positions, including governorships of major prefectures such as Tanzhou and Guangzhou. As a central court official, he also served as Minister of War and Minister of Rites.
Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.
After I made the above comment, SongRuyi added to the nomination statement the Collected Works of Yuan Xian. The public domain work by Yuan Xian says: "尚書兵部郎中知潭州劉賽可太常少卿直昭文館知廣州制 敕百粤之㑹督府表于南溟九卿之亞奉常尊于右棘惟是文館寵昭儒服我有命數屬之材良以爾具官劉賽性劭直清業總和濟始階鄉秀寖講吏丈內則居評刑受計之煩外則宜頒條將漕之職躬實勞止譽亦藹然淹徊諸郎華皓一節●倚湘中之劇未更嵗次之遷屬番禺守方符虎須代適當便道宜委于蕃雖臨遣弗遑而進升惟舊俾改括河之貳仍預登瀛之遊往撫裔邦毋添朝渥可"
From Google Translate: "Liu Sai, the doctor of the Ministry of War, is the governor of Tanzhou. He is the junior minister of the Ministry of Rites and the governor of Guangzhou. The emperor ordered the governor of the Hundred Yue to present his position to the governor's office. He is the second of the nine ministers in Nanming. He is always respected as the right thorn. Only the Wenguan favors the Confucian scholars. I have a destiny to give you talents. Liu Sai is honest and upright. He is a good person in his career. He is good at helping the local talents. He is a good official. He is responsible for evaluating criminals and taking on the responsibility of calculating. He is also responsible for issuing regulations and taking on the duties of transport. He is also very kind and lingers on the officials. ●Due to the heavy workload in Xiangzhong, he has not changed his job. He has been transferred to Panyu Shoufang Fu Hu every year. He should be replaced by Fanyu Shoufang Fu Hu. He should be entrusted with the right way. Although he is not in time to be sent, he should be promoted. He should change the old rules and still go to Yingyang to comfort the descendants. Don't add to the court."
@Cunard — Thank you so much for your efforts in saving numerous Chinese-related articles during AfDs. You can verify the sources by searching his name, 劉賽, in the 元憲集 via Ctrl+F. SongRuyi (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, I would like to share some facts and highlight a key point for future AfDs concerning ancient Chinese politicians or court officials. Please note that a governor or prefect of a Prefecture (州, zhōu)—the standard type of administrative division—or a Circuit (路, lù)—the equivalent of a province—held high-ranking positions within the imperial bureaucracy.
These were among the highest-level political divisions at the time. Unlike a modern province governed by a single official, a Song Dynasty circuit functioned as a supervisory region. The central government appointed multiple commissioners, each tasked with overseeing specific areas such as finance, justice, or military affairs. These officials reported directly to the central government, not to a single provincial governor.
Such roles clearly satisfy WP:NPOL, as these individuals held state or regional office and often had access to the imperial court. Even officials of the sixth rank (not ministerial level) satisfy WP:NPOL because they were permitted to stand at the imperial court—equivalent to a modern-day member of parliament or legislative assembly. Before initiating deletion discussions, I urge editors to research the historical administrative structure of imperial China, which differed greatly from modern systems. SongRuyi (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allow re-creation There was nothing wrong with the AfD itself, it was well attended with experienced editors who universally voted !delete. But a single AfD deletion alone typically does not prevent an article from being re-created if sources are found after the fact. JumpytooTalk01:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that "experienced editors universally voted delete," but that’s not accurate. The article received instant "delete" votes without much research or meaningful consideration. I opposed its deletion and still support reopening the AfD discussion. If we don't, this outdated AfD may be used in the future as a precedent for deleting valid articles about historical ministers. Some editors might cite this result as a weapon to justify further deletions, which would be unfortunate. SongRuyi (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately discussion is frequently absent if no one provides an argument for keeping. Since this DRV seems likely to be accepted based off your rationale it would be difficult for someone to attempt to use the original AfD as a precedent. As Cunard mentioned, I encourage you to watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China and provide your expertise in discussions that pop up, it can be just one editor that provides unique insight that can turn the tide of an AfD. JumpytooTalk03:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion, but Allow Re-Creation with additional sources. The title has not been salted, and should not be deleted as G4 if recreated with new sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore or relist given that there were substantial procedural errors given the language barrier and the lack of informed editors who edit this topic. Cunard's sources were not addressed by anyone and the single assertation that led to the deletion was simply incorrect due to lack of information. AfD is not a vote and in light of new sources this should have at least been relisted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn seems to me that the best thing to do is restore the page. It seems to me to be an unhelpful suggestion to rewrite the page given there is obviously good evidence it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. JMWt (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's... really almost nothing to restore. The initial nomination here contained about four times the encyclopedic information in the old article. I've temp-undeleted. —Cryptic16:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will rewrite and expand the article after it has been restored. I'm an expert on this topic. As an example, please see Liu Lizhi—it was a poorly written article by the same creator, and I expanded it with proper citations. Thank you. SongRuyi (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but restore Nothing wrong with the discussion--Cunard did not even suggest it be kept--no need to spend time at draft/AFC if the sources can be added now. A lack of interested/knowledgeable editors commenting is usually handled by soft deletion, which this kind of is except there were more participants, so I don't mind the review and sanity check coming here. As always, our goal is to have the content we should have, and revisiting decisions when new info crops up is part of that. Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse andAllow Re-Creation I think we are in agreement that the sources are sufficient to meet our guidelines for a stand-alone page. The only disagreement is how to get there procedurally. I think endorse and recreate is the best option to move forward. --Enos733 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow recreation. And perhaps the appellant could suggest an addition to NPOL to cover ancient Chinese government? JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the article is restored, I am ready to rewrite the entire content. However, I oppose creating a new article, as it may credit a new creator and fail to respect the original author’s work. The article should remain under the original author's name. Thank you. SongRuyi (talk) 08:07, 28 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.
My sandbox page was deleted, and when I asked why, a rule that is irrelevant to sandbox pages was cited(WP:FUTURE). This rule applies to normal articles, which need to have accurate information and cannot be future speculation. Sandbox pages however are for practicing editing, and there are no rules against including future/speculation in sandbox pages. It is quite obvious that the rules would be different for a sandbox page that only I would visit compared to a normal article which may be used as a reference for information. The rules say "Please do not place copyrighted, offensive, illegal or libelous content in the sandboxes." None of these things were included. Please restore my sandbox page. Otterballs3 (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was an infobox showing the results of the 2028 US Presidential Election in which, as we all remember, the Ocasio-Cortez/Beshear ticket historically curbstomped Vance/Hawley 308 electoral votes to 226. —Cryptic02:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Two observations. One, it's "just a sandbox". If the point of Otterballs3 creating it was to just practice with an infobox, they could recreate it and not use actual people in the infobox. However, they created it about a speculative future even that involves not only living people, but people involved in post-1992 US politics. While Otterbox3 has not been notified that this is a WP:Contentious topics area, that doesn't remove it as a lens to look at the situation through.The logged reason for deletion was U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. While that may be a little weak as a deletion reason, I have to agree that, looking at the user's contributions to that point, it was reasonable to conclude that they were using the sandbox page to host that infobox, rather than truly using it as a sandbox for something they'd do in an actual article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is borderline on the "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages" front. But I think it's on the right side of the border, and the content is clearly U5-eligible as Wikipedia is not an alt history site. Endorse. And consider blocking Otterballs3 as WP:NOTHERE since it seems like absolutely none of their edits have been constructive (the edits that aren't complaining about this sandbox are adding masses of unsourced cruft) * Pppery *it has begun...04:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse reasonable U5 as the appellant used Wikipedia to promote an alternate reality, clearly deviating from the purpose of a sandbox. Also I find Pppery’s suggestion to block Otterballs3 to be absurd. And even if there was a valid reason to consider a block, DRV is not the right forum to have that discussion. FrankAnchor12:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and block per Pppery. If the clearly politically motivated sandbox "experiment" wasn't bad enough, the audacity to waste the community's time by dragging a sandbox cleanup to DRV, the sealioning and the wikilawyering make it clear this user is WP:NOTHERE. Owen×☎15:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I happen to be wandering by DRV and since I have handled my share of CSDs (usually not U5s though), this is the typical outcome when editors create fictitious election results. We get a lot of these sandbox experiements from elections from the 19th century to the present to elections in 50 years. They are considered a form of alternate history and often the editors who create them primarily works in User space. We already have very experienced editors who create real election infoboxes for actual elections so it's not a skill we need a lot of new editors to be practicing. Just my 2 cents. LizRead!Talk!06:07, 24 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.
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.
Fixed. Left guide (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
