William David Volk (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My friend and legendary game designer had his whole page deleted. A 10 year old Wikipedia page just recently because the editor decided that a game he was briefly involved with had something to do with Web3 and I guess this person is anti web 3.

His career spans 40 years of industry changing moments. Can we restore this oage please, it seems out of character for Wikipedia editors to delete someone’s non-promotional biography page because of technology, especially since the game in question wasnt on the chain when he worked on it. He’s not my client, he’s a good guy who saw his whole 40 yr career get deleted overnight. Imagine how that must feel to older game developers who are being forced out for having grey hair. The editors comments are really elitest and agist to say the least.

Please protect our video game history and restore William Volk’s wikipedia page. Buzzspinner (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, WP:DRVPURPOSE #9. —Cryptic 03:35, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Good deletion back in June 2023. Don't know why this user thinks this happened recently. Endorse, and I'll also point to #9 like Cryptic. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the 2023 deletion. The title has not been salted, and the appellant can prepare a draft biography of Volk with real sources. I think Cryptic and UtherSRG mean WP:DRVNOT #9, which says not to abuse DRV by casting aspersions on other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was no error in that discussion. If you think he's notable, you can write a new article, but you must know he is not notable just for the games he's worked on - he has to have significant secondary coverage of his career. SportingFlyer T·C 11:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is for situations where the deletion process hasn't been followed correctly. It's not for situations where you simply disagree with the outcome. As others mention, casting aspersions on other editors is bad form. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Eric Ingram (aerospace entrepreneur) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am requesting review of the speedy deletion under CSD G11. The criterion was misapplied. The draft was a biographical article supported by multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, including coverage in The New York Times and multiple ABC News segments, as well as additional independent business and industry publications. The article was written in an encyclopedic tone and contained no calls to action, pricing, client lists, or promotional language. Even if tone concerns existed, they would be appropriate for Articles for Creation feedback or copyediting, not speedy deletion, as substantial encyclopedic content would remain after cleanup. I respectfully request undeletion and return of the draft to the AfC process for normal review. Flea15 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Flea15 has ignored my COI request on his talk page. The supposed independent sources are largely written by him, are interviews with him, or otherwise associated with him or his organisations. I accept that the unnecessary promotional article title disambiguation may be inexperience, but the general tone of the article, tagged for deletion by GPL93, is clearly promotional and inappropriately sourced. It's also LLM-written slop, so could have been deleted as G15 as well as G11. I don't know if he's notable, but that's not the basis on which I deleted. A response here to the COI query would be good too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have not seen the deleted draft. I am more inclined to rely on the judgment of an experienced administrator as to what is encyclopedic than that of a new editor. I was about to ask about conflict of interest, but I see that that has already been asked. I will ask about the use of artificial intelligence. I will also ask whether the petitioner really wants to have the draft restored so that other editors can agree with the tagging reviewer and the administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. From a quick sample of the 15 sources cited, they were either interviews, routine news blurbs, and articles written by the subject [edit: But I seem to have missed a couple; see reply from Cryptic below]. So while technically not exclusively promotional per G11, I can't see the subject surviving AfD. GPTZero confidently identifies the prose as AI-generated, while ZeroGPT rates it as "72.6% AI". Since the appellant was the only editor, G15 would have been a better choice than G11. I share Jimfbleak's suspicion of COI, but that doesn't apply to draftspace, where COIs are welcome to edit after disclosing their relationship with the subject, albeit without the aid of LLM. "Overturn to G15" seems like a pointless technicality, so I'd just leave this deleted, and suggest to the appellant they direct their editing efforts to a subject with which they are not affiliated. Owen× ☎ 17:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • First source I happened to click on in the hopes of legitimizing a G15 - which has specific requirements that have already become mostly obsolete - was this, which really doesn't fit in any of your source categories. Only other one that's close to usable is this, though, so no, this isn't going to get through AFD unless there's better out there that isn't already cited. Not a G11 or G15. Should be both. —Cryptic 17:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The appellant says, on their user talk page, that there was a COI disclosure on the deleted draft talk page. I haven't seen the deleted draft talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the deleted Talk page included the following:

  I am closely connected to the subject of this article. This draft is intended to be a neutral, encyclopedic biography based solely on independent, reliable sources. I welcome review, corrections, and edits from uninvolved editors. Flea15 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

  As a disclosed COI, they were allowed to edit about the subject in draftspace. Owen× ☎ 18:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Does the petitioner really want to have their draft restored so that it can be sent to MFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the appellant is unfamiliar with our processes, and simply wants to see an article about the subject, meeting our guidelines, published here. They sound willing to follow whatever route we plot out for them to achieve this. @Flea15: please correct me if I misstated your intentions. Owen× ☎ 22:25, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That is accurate, @OwenX Flea15 (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and send to MfD, on the basis of a reasonable objection. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and send to MfD as a contested speedy. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy restore. This was not a correct application of G11 or G15 so should be speedily restored regardless of anything else. No prejudice against MfD but it is not DRV's place to mandate that. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion and send to MFD. If DRV overturns a speedy deletion, it should treat the nomination and the deleting admin's overridden concurrence as an XFD nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh it was a draft, G11 isn't as relevant there even if this doesn't have a chance of surviving mainspace based on the discussion above. SportingFlyer T·C 11:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chūzumō title screen.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

File was tagged because it had the wrong template on it. I corrected the template and left a note on the talk page, but apparently the admin who deleted didn't review that or ask me about it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NFCC#8 is inherently subjective, and isn't appropriate as a speedy deletion rationale; its inclusion as a parameter in Template:Di-fails NFCC is illegitimate. In particular, this image's use in A Sumo Wrestler's Tail was entirely in line with what we use this sort of non-free content for. The usage in its previous article, Nezumi no Sumō, was more dubious; but that'd still be a matter for either FFD or normal removal via editing (and talk page discussion, if necessary) followed by an F5. —Cryptic 19:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, am I crazy, or didn't there used to be a dnfu variant of Template:Di-replaceable non-free use disputed? It's very, very easy for admins dealing with non-free-image deletions to miss a talk page challenge; during the year when I was handling the majority of these, I'd estimate no more than one in a hundred was disputed, and no more than one in a hundred of those challenges had any merit whatsoever. It's reasonably likely Explicit missed your talk page objection, and if he didn't, it's very likely that he didn't see that the target article and nfu rationale changed entirely between tagging and deletion. —Cryptic 20:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's my main concern: it didn't appear Explicit even looked at the history to see if anything had changed. I completely replaced the template that was previously there with the correct one. My note on the talk page (where the deletion tagging tells people to go) specifically explained that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to FfD as a speedy contested in good faith by an editor in good standing. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Send for FFD. Seems like an obvious error. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, don't send at FFD. Typical "human error", nomination shouldn't be here. — Ирука¹³ 09:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the option I'd prefer as it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore without FFD, the original nominator can send it to FFD themselves if they still believe the image should be deleted. Jumpytoo Talk 02:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Bionics (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

To create a redirect for the Advanced Bionics page to resolve to the page for Sonova, as mentioned in the deletion discussion. Kerri9494 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Busheska (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted in May 2023 following an AfD that concluded the subject (then an undergraduate) did not meet notability guidelines. Since that deletion, the subject has achieved significant new recognition that satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.

Key new developments include:

• UN Appointment (2025): Appointed to the United Nations Secretary-General's Youth Advisory Group on Climate Change (official UN press release available).
• Significant Awards (2024): Named a Glamour (magazine) College Woman of the Year (feature interview)
• Grants & Speaking: Winner of the Taco Bell Foundation's Ambition Accelerator (2024) and featured speaker at COP28 and the World Summit Awards.

Furthermore, there are substantial, independent secondary sources that did not exist during the 2023 discussion. Find some of them linked below:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]

I am requesting that the deletion be overturned to allow for recreation or restoration based on this new evidence. ~2025-42766-79 (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. There was nothing wrong with how the almost-unanimous AfD was closed, so nothing to "overturn". The 2023 deleted version was poorly sourced, but the prose offered a decent starting point. If the appellant wishes to continue from where the old version left off, we can REFUND to draft. Considering how soundly the 20 sources cited by the old version were rejected, we should probably insist the new version go through AfC. Owen× ☎ 00:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't have time to check more thoroughly at the moment, but sources 5, 6, 7, 16, 30, 33, and 34 appear in the deleted version with the exact same urls. Some more might be duplicated too accounting for presence of trailing slashes, www.* vs just *, etc. —Cryptic 01:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:REFUND the G13ed draft to allow appellant to work on it and then submit through AfC. Jumpytoo Talk 02:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure, but the appellant does not appear to be taking issue with the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Submission of Draft - The title is not salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The unregistered editor appears to think that a deletion must be overturned in order to recreate an article. They are not alone. There are many registered editors, some experienced, who think that it is necessary to request Deletion Review to resubmit an article that has been deleted.

File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

What we have is the deletion of a contentious file (for over 20 years we have been debating this) that happened over the holidays involving just 2 random editors in 6 days. This is despite previous talks that were properly advertised (1 and 2) invovling many more editors. Closer should have relized that a wider talk then just 2 new editors should have taken place. What we have here is a fast deletion that was not announced anywhere (even on the page(s) invloved) that overrides the consensus of dozens and dozens of other editors from the past 20 years. Should at the very least been relisted and advertised somewhere over what most will see as a sneaky deletion attempt by someone involved with arms debates in many places.Moxy🍁 15:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist to allow for a full discussion. This FfD did not reflect the volume of interest in this topic, as evident by prior FfDs and Talk:Canada. Whether it was intended that way or not, I agree with Moxy that this was sneaky. I've been keeping tabs on the coat of arms situation and I didn't know this was happening until it was deleted. MediaKyle (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist this is an issue that has been going on for 20 years. Process followed in this case makes it very difficult for me to AGF. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would just point out that you Moxy, as the nominator of this deletion review, were very much aware of the discussion and only added 'good luck', which could well be interpreted as support or indifference. Your participation would have indicated to the closer that this was controversial and you could have advertised the discussion more widely. If that had been my level of participation, I would be mortified to then raise it here. Dgp4004 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I assumed it was advertised normally....as mentioned many times now it was the holidays with most of us having things to do. As for being controversial that is made clear to anyone who clicks the links provided in the nomination. We are not here to hold others hands - we assume a closer would make themselves aware of the underlying situation (by way of links provied). Moxy🍁 17:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The nerve to have a crack at the closing administrator and the admittedly frustrating behaviour of the nominator but add that you're a very busy person with a sarcastic summary. The lack of self awareness is staggering. But you've remembered the most important thing on the internet — never back down, never admit any fault. I'll say no more. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have something to add to the topic at hand? Moxy🍁 17:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I have no issue AGFing and think the close was not technically incorrect, but this discussion needs more time given the history and holiday season. Star Mississippi 17:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as a clear result, especially if "good luck" is understood as opposition given the last discussions (however, this should have been a better crafted comment in retrospect.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to allow full discussion and account for failure to advertise with sufficient breadth or provide sufficient time to reflect the context of this one. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as we might for a contested soft-deletion. Trout to Moxy for not expressing opposition in the deletion discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Echoing the sentiment that a proper discussion did not take place given the depth of prior discussions. Leventio (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Could someone explain to me how the rendering of the blazon currently at Commons (c:File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg, which the bluelink here redirects to) is incorrect? I can see the problems explained in the 2013 deletion discussion - the image mentioned there is currently in the 2013 versions of c:File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg - but so far as I can tell they've been resolved with the September 2022 image. —Cryptic 02:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as per above discussion. Remember that assume good faith is a long-standing guideline and that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Not especially impressed at Moxy's behaviour in the matter, but reluctant relist due to insufficient contribution, holiday season, previous history, etc. No shame attributed to the closer who cannot be expected to infer anything from a drive-by "good luck" !vote in lieu of actually raising the concerns and advertising the discussion. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Bar box (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this as keep and WP:XFDC was unable to remove the tag from the module page, so I looked at it myself and realized after closing it that it was not tagged it seems. The consensus appears to be keep, but I am unsure if I should reopen to discuss further with a proper tag at Module:Bar box/doc or if the close is fine. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 03:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Technically, this can't get a definitive close until it's been open with an rfd tag on it a full seven days (barring an early WP:SNOW one, which doesn't seem quite merited). In practical terms, I can't see the result changing. Least disruptive way forward is to get User:Zackmann08 to agree to withdraw his nomination. —Cryptic 03:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as the what the problem is here... I maintain the redirect should be deleted as unused and not a plausible typo... But was out-!voted 3-1. So I'm unclear why this is subject to a deletion review. What am I missing? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I realized after closing this that the redirect had never been tagged with an RfD tag, so I wanted to review my own close to ensure that it was not an improper close. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 04:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being listed at a deletion venue without ever having gotten the deletion-discussion tag on the page itself is one of the few cases where Deletion Review always, without fail, reopens a deletion discussion (WP:DRVPURPOSE, currently #3 in the first list). However, in this case I can all but guarantee you that being listed at RFD for another week isn't going to result in this redirect being deleted; if anything, proper notification that it's being considered for deletion is likely to result in more keep !votes. If you, as the only person in favor of deleting, withdraw your nomination, that would cut through the red tape and gain you some social capital. —Cryptic 02:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the outcome of the discussion were to do something then I would agree with Cryptic, but I think that a discussion where the outcome is to do nothing isn't voided by the lack of tag so I would endorse this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if the nominator desires a relist then it would be proper to allow that upon request. However, since no one else suggested an action other than retention, and the status quo was maintained, then as a functional matter we are at the same place we would have been had the nominator simply done nothing. Thus, if the nominator does not wish to pursue the matter nothing is either gained nor lost by simply moving on. Noting for the record, I was a participant in the discussion. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a strong opinion. I do not think that the close as keep was incorrect, but there were procedural errors, so I just wanted to get a larger form of consensus on it. I don't mean to be overly bureaucratic (but it very much does look that way). Casablanca 🪨^(T) 16:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me at all in bringing it here. That was the entirely correct and proper thing to do. I was only offering some post hoc analysis that I thought others might find useful, nothing more and nothing less. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; I agree with Pppery that an auto-relist isn't really needed in situations where the close is keep. The RfD is basically a nullity and I have no objections if someone wants to immediately renominate, but if no one wants to do that, a relist would just be process for the sake of process. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Weinberg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to request the AfD relist or some form of discussion. My source assessment was called “false,” even though it was based only on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I believe it is unfair and dismissive to say so without justification. The discussion had very little participation, with only a small number of editors commenting, and this limited participation appears to have been treated as consensus, contrary to WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS.

I do not see any indication that the full set of over 20 sources in the article was reviewed. All my valid questions raised during the AfD were not addressed.

The subject meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV through sustained, non trivial coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. Some objections focused on interview based coverage, but under WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, interviews published by independent outlets remain independent when there is editorial oversight, narrative framing, and analysis. Independence is determined by authorship and editorial control, not by the presence of quotations from the subject.

The coverage goes beyond routine announcements and discusses the subject’s background, career, and leadership role over time. The close does not show that these factors were weighed, and a redirect outcome appears inconsistent with how similar notable founders are handled when GNG is met.

This request asks for a review of the close itself, including how consensus was determined and how the sourcing was evaluated, rather than a reargument of the article’s merits. I am not sure if I am making the request correctly. Apologies if there is a broken template somewhere. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link. I put it in the request, but above, it takes you to redirect and not this page- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Winston_Weinberg WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, there are also several books that include the subject as the leader in the field, citing their opinion on AI, and writing about their work and contributions, that are not included in the article, and were not overlooked and not addressed in ADF.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Some_Future_Day/LLUeEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=winston+weinberg&pg=PT248&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Human_+_Machine_Updated_and_Expanded/yGrNEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=winston+weinberg&pg=PT62&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Leading_and_Managing_Change_in_the_Age_o/h6yXDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=winston+weinberg&pg=PA191&printsec=frontcover

A similar case happened to another big ai company called Lovable, where I actively participated in the discussion. It ended up in 2 AfDs in the span of a few weeks. I would kindly request a re-listing for a proper discussion, to avoid making a new AfC.

Lovable (company)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovable

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovable (company) WestwoodHights573 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse only one user advocated for keeping the article, and the close was absolutely correct. Furthermore, I don't like to do this but since this seems to be "another bite at the AfD" DRV, I went further and analysed the sources to see if there was a clear error made by the participants. I can only conclude the sourcing is either primary, paid for, or not significant enough to warrant an article at this time, so I also would have !voted to redirect/delete if I had participated in this discussion, so the absolutely correct result occurred here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:53, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi! @SportingFlyer Thanks for your perspective and I do not agree with you. Can you point on what grounds and what sources are "paid for, or not significant enough? I think it is a bold claim, and it is important to establish that rather than presume. I do not see even one paid article in the mainstream media with the rigorous fact check. What sources are you referring to then? What is significant "enough" according to you? Should there perhaps be a source about person's childhood? That would be absurd and irrelevant, and not consistent with wikipedia rules. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the articles you said passed GNG only mention him by name once. A couple other ones are pieces where he gets interviewed, which clearly do not meet GNG, because they are not secondary sources. Of the sources I can access, I don't see a single good source. Also look at WP:BLUDGEONING as you have now responded to every single user who has disagreed with your source analysis. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer I believe I have the right to respond when my point is being dismissed, particularly since all sources listed in the spreadsheet are not mere mentions. My position is that the assessment is grounded in Wikipedia guidelines, not personal opinion, but established common practice.

  I am unclear why you are implying that 24 sources from some of the reputable outlets, all with rigorous fact checking standards, fail to meet GNG based on your own assessment. I saved a copy here - https://web.archive.org/web/20251227185340/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Weinberg

  You also suggested that the sources are paid, which is incorrect. These are high profile, independent publications. That approach is dismissive of the guidelines. It is simply factually wrong, and I say so coming from the journalist background.

  It is a fact that these sources represent a range of independent coverage that substantively discusses the subject and their contributions to the industry. Some of the sources are primary and some are secondary. Some are detailed, some go back a few years, and bottom line is that they exist. The guidelines for nomination clearly state to make an effort to find sources, which I believe was not done. Look at the whole references of the article itself. I did not include this form of secondary low quality content:

  https://www.df.cl/senal-df/winston-weinberg-el-cofundador-del-chatbot-juridico-que-atrae

  https://law.asia/generative-ai-for-legal-profession/ WestwoodHights573 (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer And just to add more, it is absurd to me as a journalist, seeing something like this to be overlooked in this way. It is simple goes against wikipedia guidelines to ignore sources like this, in Financial Times, one of the most respected magazines in the world, describing the subject in detail, with independent perspective too. It is factually wrong to say it is not significant coverage, when a simple Google search shows otherwise. I think it is a fair and reasonable point to make.

I am not talking about some made-up rules in my head WP:FINANCIALTIMES

• The article virtually starts with "Sep 14, 2025 — Winston Weinberg's company is making lawyers 'a lot more productive', but critics say it offers little more than ChatGPT." and is titled- "How a former junior lawyer created a $5bn AI legal start-up"

  https://www.ft.com/content/49d00498-9a15-4d26-b10c-938bd7e893c6 WestwoodHights573 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The article can be accessed here. I would say that it is mainly about the company. Content about the founder is roughly 200 words, or 100 if we remove quotes from him. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (edit conflict) Correct close. No one supported appellants argument at the AfD & 3 separate editors were against it. Jumpytoo Talk 21:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @JumpytooI believe the number of editors that made comments it is not the criteria, as none of my valid point referring to the current wikipedia were addressed by those same editors. I assume the rules were made with the purpose of following them and not disregard. It is not about sharing personal opinion. I was asking a simple question, on what grounds and guidelines it was appropriate to say that my source assessment is "false" - as the closing editor commented. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your connection to the article subject? —Cryptic 01:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not have connection to the subject. I dislike scam startups a lot, have a journalist background, and make contributions about tech and music. Why am I supposed to have a connection to the subject? The subject is a prominent figure in AI. Here is a bunch of topics I have been working on with another editor on my spare time. User:JSFarman/Women in the music industry (articles to be created) WestwoodHights573 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Even WP:AGFing User:WestwoodHights573 and everything he writes, it was a fair close, at worst “within admin discretion”. If anything changes, bring it up at Talk:Harvey (software). Expand coverage of the company CEO at the company page, and treat it as a WP:SPINOUT. That said, WestwoodHights573 features a number of signs of being an undeclared WP:PAID editor, things like rush and fervour, and the smell of AI in talk posts. Separately, the WP:Reference bombing is bad. Read some advice at WP:THREE. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can have any personal opinion you want. I spend time on the articles that have merits, and value the time I spend working on those. I do not ignore when something absurd happens or when reputable media gets overlooked or ignored. I always improve articles on wikipedia suggested tab, and all I see always is low quality content. I appreciate your suggestion about some WP:SPINOUT but it has no logic to me. To repeat my point- it inconsistent with how similar notable founders are handled when GNG is met. No articles about AI companies are spammed with founders' bios. Happy editing! WestwoodHights573 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does he meet the GNG. Reply at Draft talk:Winston Weinberg. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close of Redirect as reflecting consensus. I have at leasttwofive comments:
  • Deletion Review is not Articles for Deletion round 2, but the appellant hasn't raised an issue about the close, which reflected consensus.
  • The closer's closing statement was unnecessarily harsh, although not incorrect. The closer could have discounted the author's source assessment table and could have noted that the other editors discounted the author's source assessment table without saying it was grossly self-serving.
  • That doesn't affect the validity of the close, which reflects consensus.
  • The appellant is being asked about a connection to the subject because an appellant who bludgeons an AFD and then a DRV is often a conflict of interest editor. That is why they were asked.
  • If you don't want to be asked whether you are a COI editor, don't argue like a COI editor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Thanks for your clarifications. The page instructions for DRV say " 4. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged"

Based on this point 4, I made request here and raised points and content that were not addressed or reviewed in the AfD. I used WP:FINANCIALTIMES as example of content that was not reviewed. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what point 4 seems to be about. I requested a re-list the article and let people assess the sources that I added. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:WestwoodHights573 - Did you read the proviso in point 4, that says: provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged? Did you notice that the proviso is not applicable in your case because it is about undeleting the page to write a new version of the page, but the page does not need to be undeleted? The old text of the page is still visible in the history. You can add any new sources to the old text and submit a new draft for review. You don't need DRV to undelete anything. You may submit a draft based on the redirected content plus any additions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I was suggested by editor to make a request here from the page for requests for re-directs. I am not familiar with this process. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! @Robert McClenon I created the draft via the draft wizard, but there is a re-direct box that appeared there and no option to save AfC. Do you know how to fix that? I added the journals and books there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Winston_Weinberg WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the redirect. (You could have done that, but some things are easier to do than to explain.) Is there a Review (afch) tab on the draft? If so, it should display a blue Submit button which will submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Thank you very much! No, the tab is not there. I tried to do that myself, but could not really find the proper instructions. I only see the "move" option. It is already the draft. I am not sure if I should select "move to draft" again. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do not try to move it from draft space to draft space. That won't do anything useful. My advice at this point is that if you really don't have the afch review tab, to ask for advice at the Teahouse about how to submit your draft. You can ask someone here to submit it for you, but then, if it is declined, you might have to ask for a resubmission again. So ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The publish button is from the Template:Draft article Kelob2678 (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelob2678 Thanks! Do I just copy the code from the template you shared? I have never had this issue before. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll do that. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The draft has now been submitted and is waiting for review. Maybe this Deletion Review can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptoid (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is an old AfD I just stumbled upon (from 2012), and it seems very improperly closed. I count 6 keep votes, 4 merge, and the nomination which seems to default to delete. This was closed as merge with no rationale, which seems incorrect. This should be recreted, with no prejudice to another AfD, although frankly whas I see in the last version seems, IMHO, sufficient to estabilish notability anwyay (but anyway, here we are debating whether it was closed properly, not the article itself). PS. I found Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_July_16#Skeptoid, which seems to suggest that a merge occurred during the process, so the closure was likely fine (just affirming what happened); what likely was improper was the (as far as I can tell) undiscussed bold merger that happened during the AfD, done by a now-blocked editor (who in edit summaries claimed to have seen consensus at it in said AfD, which IMHO obviousy wasn't the case - but that's not the closer's fault). I intend to reverse the merger in the near future, restoring the article (no prejduice if someone wants to take it to AfD in the future again). I guess we can speedy close this DRV, apologies for wasting time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• You know what needs to be done, Piotrus. Just do it and close this DRV. Owen× ☎ 03:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @OwenX I don't know how to close it - could you do it for me? TIA _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Submit draft for review or Create Article subject to new AFD. The title has not been salted. It should very seldom be necessary to file a DRV request for something that happened 13 years ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Have the wild bells ringing out the past and ringing in the new awakened deletions that went to sleep in past years? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Room (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion was not in favor of deleting the article because of notability, deleted due to lack of further discussion, sufficient sources exist to demonstrate notability Update6 (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to N/C. A single participant !voting Delete is not a quorum, and once a Keep has been entered, it is no longer eligible for soft-deletion. Please note that the versions speedied six times in 2005 were all unsourced, single-paragraph, context-free blurbs, while the incarnation deleted at the 2024 AfD had 340 words of prose and cited seven sources, including the BBC and Forbes, albeit of questionable SIGCOV value. Owen× ☎ 23:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus: I agree with OwenX. There was not sufficient participation in this AFD to fully delete the article, and soft deletion was off the table since an editor !voted to keep it in good faith. Since this is a year old, I don't see the point in relisting the discussion, although that's what the closer should have done. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus but the title was not salted, and after one year, the appellant could equally well have submitted a draft for review or created a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Have the wild bells ringing out the past and ringing in the new awakened deletions that went to sleep in past years? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn clear administrative error - this should not have been deleted as a result of that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to “no consensus”, nothing is substantive either way. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Do not relist. It is too old. The AfD nomination statement is not very good. It was “no consensus”. For the way forward, read advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus per all above. Very clearly not a quorum. The closer should have either closed the AFD as NC or relisted it, relishing a year later would not be appropriate. Frank Anchor 19:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of the above flatly contradicts what WP:NOQUORUM actually says, the Forbes source is unambiguously unreliable and there is nothing questionable about whether this fifteen-word passing mention has any chance of passing WP:SIGCOV, and the idea that there was any administrative error - let alone a clear one - in discounting a keep relying on unpresented sources is absurd and insulting. (A keep that turns out to be erroneous, so far as I can tell. None of the coverage I can find in those publications about this forum comes anywhere near being usable. This passing mention is typical. But that's not a DRV argument.) If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include: ... closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. The article itself is blindingly obvious undeclared-COI product, if not quite reaching the G11 bar. Beeblebrox ought to be applauded for this close, not rebuked. At most we should reopen this discussion so the inevitable salting decision is less ambiguous. —Cryptic 20:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also noting that this version by a declared COI editor is actually in better shape, though still not acceptable. —Cryptic 20:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources you mention are not mentioned at all in the AfD. There is nothing substantive in the AfD. The quality of the AfD is so low that it must be overturned. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No sources are mentioned at the afd! They're the actual arguments above that the afd should be overturned! —Cryptic 21:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOQUORUM specifically says and no one has opposed deletion, not "no one has correctly opposed deletion." If I come across an AfD, there's two participants, one devoted seven words to their argument, the other devoted twelve words to their opposing argument, I strongly believe there's any other way to close that discussion than no consensus. I can't view the deleted article. Now if the article is so bad it should be deleted, there is nothing preventing the person who would have closed the AfD from voting,' especially because closers are generally very experienced. If you had !voted in the AfD with exactly what you had posted above, this would have been deleted. Perhaps it should stay deleted. If it's as bad as you say, we could probably keep it deleted. I just don't want to have the two-vote, drive-by-delete close AfD become acceptable. SportingFlyer T·C 04:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Your quoted text appears only in the fork of WP:NOQUORUM that instructs closers to soft delete. That is deliberate, not an oversight, not an accident, not in need of fixing. That paragraph postdates the central part of NOQUORUM, and was added specifically for the case where the article would've been proddable. RFC, diff. The no-opposition clause was a clarification to that paragraph. Diff.

  No, it wasn't a very verbose nomination. Yes, Beeblebrox would've been better off refuting 1keyhole's specific sourcing claim instead of relisting; it's hardly difficult, and relisting is almost never helpful in aggregate. I don't know whether it's acceptable these days to both relist an afd and later comment at it, as you say he should have done; I certainly wouldn't, even if I ever relisted discussions, which I don't. For that matter, he maybe shouldn't have both relisted and then later closed the same discussion. But none of that would have made the close any more correct, just less challengeable. —Cryptic 05:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus Didn't see the fact that it was a year-old discussion. Yes, this should just be turned into a no consensus result, and renominating it allowed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus with discretion to relist. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here are sources I found about The Student Room showing it meets Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria:
  1. Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa (2018). "Identity and metapragmatic acts in a student forum discussion thread". In Bös, Birte; Kleinke, Sonja; Mollin, Sandra; Hernández, Nuria (eds.). The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/dapsac.78.06tan. ISBN 978-90-272-6402-2.

     The article notes: "The material for the present study comes from The Student Room (TSR), which advertises itself as the “largest student community in the world – over 1.8m members” (thestudentroom.co.uk). The online community website comprises several sections, from “Applying to uni” to “Careers and Jobs” to the discussion forums, where you can “discuss anything – universities, health, lifestyle, relationships & more”. The description of the community indicates its participatory, interactional focus: the participants are responsible for creating most of the content. ... The Student Room upholds a moderation policy according to which posts submitted to the discussion forum may be edited or deleted and entire threads closed (TSR “Terms and coditions”). In order to avoid intervention by moderators, participants must follow six community guidelines: be friendly, keep it clean, stay on topic, no cheating, no advertising, keep it legal (TSR “Community guidelines”). There were no comments or other activity by the moderators during the Freshers Week discussion, indicating that the moderators felt no need to intervene and that none of the participants requested such intervention."

  2. Organ, Alison (2022-01-17). "Attitudes to the use of Google Translate for L2 production: analysis of chatroom discussions among UK secondary school students". The Language Learning Journal. 51 (3). Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/09571736.2021.2023896.

     The article notes: "This unique case study explores UK student attitudes to the use of Google Translate as voiced spontaneously to each other (rather than to a researcher) in comments submitted to The Student Room (https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/), a publicly available online forum, between 2010 and 2020. The Student Room is a UK-based community forum for students to ask each other questions about topics such as subjects they are studying, school and university courses, accommodation, finance and personal matters. ... This is particularly relevant to this study, as many of the students posting to the Student Room appear to be doing so as a result of a chronic lack of confidence in their ability. ... This is relevant to our study as it would appear from some of the posts to the Student Room that posters are ascribing their past failure to their own low ability, and are reaching for external solutions rather than attempting to employ better learning strategies. ... In the case of this study, consent from posters to the forum was not sought: the Student Room forum shows only their username and no other information which could lead to their identification. Although some comments reveal potentially controversial material such as ..."

  3. Osang, Francis Bukie; Nwaocha, Vivian (2018). "Bridging the Distance in Open and Distance Learning: Developing Student-Student and Student-Lecturer Collaborative Forum". LAUTECH Journal of Engineering and Technology. 12 (1). Ladoke Akintola University of Technology. Retrieved 2026-01-03.

     The article notes: "2.4.1. The Student Room. The world's largest student community, The Student Room have attracted students to the site for help with their studies, advice from their peers and, quite often, just to have a good conversation. It is ranked as one of the first 500 visited websites in the United Kingdom (Alexa, 2014). It is mainly for universities in the UK like University of East London, London School of Economics, University of West London, etc. It has also been noticed that every year after high school graduation, students start looking for the right university, often referred to as the Clearing Phase, where the traffic to The Student Room increases significantly. They have also been able to withstand the surge in traffic anytime the site is fully active (Gossamer Threads, 2013). A large part of The Student Room consists of the forum, of which the major sections are: ..."

  4. Herzig, Richenda (January 2017). The Role of Symbolic Capital in Digital Inequality: Lessons from The Student Room's Reputation System (PDF) (PhD thesis). University of East Anglia. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2026-01-03. Retrieved 2026-01-03.

     The PhD thesis notes: "The aim of this study is to ascertain the social meaning and function of digital reputation on the popular forum, The Student Room, which is widely used by young adults in the UK for practical support relating to University applications and academic work. My research aim was derived from two prior concerns. The first was that digital reputation might somehow be related to inequalities and power struggles among users of The Student Room. The second, subsequent concern was that existing empirical approaches to digital reputation were incomplete in their conceptualization of its function and meaning. ... This work focuses strongly on the digital reputation system used within The Student Room (TSR). www.thestudentroom.co.uk is a forum targeting UK students from ages 15‑25. Not only is it used by students to share information relating to learning and progressing through education, but it is also home to discussion areas for non‑academic interests, needs and concerns. The reputation system on TSR allows users to give positive ratings to the posts of other users. These ratings are visible on posts, and an aggregate of positive reputation received is displayed on users’ profiles wherever they post on the site. This feature has potential repercussions for the quality of experience that users enjoy."

  5. Darracott, Alexander James (January 2022). What can message analysis tell us about sustained, open debates within public forums? A case study of The Student Room (PDF) (PhD thesis). University of Warwick. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2026-01-03. Retrieved 2026-01-03.

     The PhD thesis notes: "The cases being examined were debates within a public online community called The Student Room. This was set up to provide a space for information sharing for the purpose of supporting existing and future students on a variety of topics related to University entry, exams, student loans, and coursework support. However, the focus of this study is the forum in which participants were able to debate topics. A key feature of the online debates in The Student Room is they are public (they are open to students across the country and do not lead to accreditation) and they are open in the sense that there is no expectation to arrive at a consensus or shared agreement."

  6. Less significant coverage:
     1. Staufenberg, Jessica (2014-09-29). "Pair Valley-bound after living up to Challenge". The Argus. Archived from the original on 2026-01-03. Retrieved 2026-01-03.

        The article notes: "Mr Delingpole is the founder of Brighton-based web business The Student Room, and used its £7 million annual revenue and other ventures to pour investment into an intelligent banking security system."

     2. Coulter, Martin (2019-07-02). "UK universities trial app to tackle mental health crisis on campus". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2022-03-27. Retrieved 2026-01-03.

        The article notes: "The Student Room group, the company behind the eponymous online community site, has designed the app, called “Enlitened”, with plans to target 40,000 students across five universities from September. ... Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour. https://www.ft.com/content/636f69b4-9be7-11e9-b8ce-8b459ed04726 The site, founded in 2002, receives about 10m visits each month from students in secondary and higher education. It offers a range of services, including study tips, university and careers advice, and discussions on sexual health and relationships."

     3. Tyler, Richard (2021-12-03). "We're fighting evil money launderers at ComplyAdvantage". The Times. Archived from the original on 2026-01-03. Retrieved 2026-01-03.

        The article notes: "Charles Delingpole has started three businesses. ... But his first company goes back to when he was aged just 16, boarding at Malvern College in Worcestershire. Having taught himself to code while studying for his international baccalaureate, he launched a website called studentcentral.co.uk. It was an early discussion forum for people aged 14 to 25, sharing advice on how to tackle the challenges of school and university. It is now called The Student Room and has 3.6 million members, writing 240,000 posts a month on such subjects as “Quadratic formula help needed”. Delingpole, 39, said it made revenues of about £8 million."

     4. Huggins, Donata (2011-12-05). "They hit the road for an idea that's on the money - Donata Huggins meets two men responsible for improving access to funding for small firms - by starting a company of their own". City A.M. Archived from the original on 2026-01-03. Retrieved 2026-01-03.

        The article notes: "Indeed, Delingpole founded The Student Room website when he was 17."

     5. Canning, John (2017). "Conceptualising student voice in UK higher education: four theoretical lenses". Teaching in Higher Education. 22 (5). doi:10.1080/13562517.2016.1273207.

        The article notes: "In order to go ‘off-code’ online spaces such as The Student RoomFootnote1 or Which? Magazine become the places where students views can be expressed about the quality of accommodation, sports facilities, etc. ... A glance at The Student Room website gives insight into a usually anonymous student voice, in which dissatisfaction is sometimes expressed. It is not always clear whether these students have attempted to get redress from the university and failed, or whether the public forum is the only place in which they have expressed their voice. At the time of writing a free to edit wiki profiling one university outlines poor teaching, poor careers advice and poor facilities. Grégoire, Tripp, and Legoux (Citation2009) explore the notion of revenge on a company, but revenge on a university seems problematic for the reasons outlined above. As an interesting aside, The Student Room is now working in partnership with the HEA."

     6. Corazza, Ornella; Simonato, Pierluigi; Corkery, John; Trincas, Giuseppina; Schifano, Fabrizio (March–April 2014). ""Legal highs": safe and legal "heavens"? A study on the diffusion, knowledge and risk awareness of novel psychoactive drugs among students in the UK". Rivista di Psichiatria. 49 (2). doi:10.1708/1461.16147.

        The article notes: "This was advertised on The Student Room’s website, the major advertising platform for higher education in the UK. Responses were kept anonymous. The survey questions were designed by The Student Room’s staff, which has expertise in providing consultation and advice on subjects ranging from education to health related issues to young people aged 13-26 years. The Student Room is the world’s largest student web community, with 30 million page views and 4.5 million unique users each month. This was considered a credible vehicle to use for opportunistic research that provided inexpensive, rapid and targeted access to a relatively large student sample in a short period of time."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Student Room to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Links would have been sufficient. Somewhat irritated that google didn't, and still doesn't, turn up 6.3 for me.
  I'd have no objection to an article based on those sources. It wouldn't look at all similar to anything that's ever been at this title.
  I still think the close of the afd as it stood was correct and previous overturns contradict policy, and OwenX's mischaracterization of the last revision's sourcing - five citations to the article subject's own websites, plus one to a Forbes Contributor piece and one to the passingest of passing mentions on the BBC - was particularly offensive. But I accept that practice is to keep astroturfing in mainspace so long as good sources exist, and it's not worth fighting that. —Cryptic 18:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Kinda whatever? A literal reading of discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to would seem to indicate the close is within discretion. Whether that actually reflects current practice is probably something best settled at WT:DELPRO but also, if someone actually wants an article on this topic it can just be recreated at this point, and if someone wants it gone it can be renominated again? Is there really any point in relitigating an AFD that had all of two participants and is just over a year old at this point? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Medrxiv (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is part of a series of templates, and not having it is detrimental to WP:CITEVAR and CS1-related maintenance. See a similar rationale at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_1#Template:OSTI. This should be speedily undeleted, but alas, bureaucracy is too important to overlook apparently. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation (I think): I don't have much experience with templates, but this TFD is a year old and only involved three people, counting the nominator and closer. If this was an AFD, it would have been soft deleted. I think any arguments for or against this template's existence should be given in a new TFD, hopefully one with more participants. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Disclosure: I've never participated in a TFD. If I'm missing something, please tell me.) Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Have the wild bells ringing out the past and ringing in the new awakened deletions that went to sleep in past years? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  New year, new rules I suppose Katzrockso (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation/restore The TfD was lightly attended, and I assume Headbomb wants to use the template somewhere so that would resolve the original nominators concern. Jumpytoo Talk 22:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Idowu Adebiyi Odugbesan (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't believe the discussion should have been closed this early. The MfD itself was only open for 2 hours, nowhere near the typical 7 days that should be allotted, nor was it in WP:SNOW territory, even if consensus was almost unanimous at the time it was closed. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and procedurally close as a waste of community time. The appellant !voted Keep, correctly citing WP:NDRAFT. The MfD was effectively closed as speedy keep, although the closer neglected to denote it as a speedy close. This is the correct outcome, since the nomination was faulty per WP:SK#3: The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. If the appellant's goal here is to reopen the MfD and encourage a pile-on to humiliate the nom for his meritless nomination, that is not what we do here. That is also why I don't want this DRV to stay open for a week of pile-on "Endorse" !votes. Owen× ☎ 13:50, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not my goal to humiliate the nominator, albeit I can see now how it can be interpreted that way. I don't agree that it was an appropriate close, however I no longer think this should be relitigated for what is effectively a zero-sum result. Thus I am withdrawing this. Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:07, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endore speedy keep as the correct closure, per OwenX. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sajid Akram (terrorist) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was deleted under G5 as a contentious-topic creation. I believe this deletion was in error because the article is about a specific criminal event in Australia (the 2025 Bondi Beach shooting) and is not related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. All content is supported by reliable sources such as Sky News, SMH, CNN, and The Guardian. The article maintains a neutral tone, follows Wikipedia BLP and crime article policies, and does not promote political viewpoints. I respectfully request that the page be reviewed for restoration. Cobaltx2015 (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The appellant themselves described the subject as Islamic State, Anti-Israeli, so it strikes me as industrial-grade chutzpah to come here and claim that it is not related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. For that alone I would reject the appeal, not to mention violating WP:ARBBER's "one third" restriction by joining the project specifically to create this page. That said, I wasn't able to find a clear CT/PIA statement about non-EC (but non-SPA!) editors working in draftspace on CT, seeing as they're allowed to request edits in article Talk space. Can one of the AE gurus point me to the relevant decision? Owen× ☎ 13:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (Involved, obviously), but editing in draftspace carries the same restrictions as in any other namespace. For topics with a mandatory EC restriction, the only edits a non-EC editor can make are talk page edit requests. CoconutOctopus talk 14:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ARBBER is a sanction that can be imposed on specific editors—it's not a default rule in this topic area. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional Endorse if the appellant was the author of the draft, because the appellant is not confirmed, let alone extended-confirmed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Was the appellant the originator of the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Robert McClenon, the appellant was the originator and the sole editor of the draft during the 8 minutes between its creation and its deletion. Owen× ☎ 17:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Though you didn't need an admin to answer that. (There are scripts to make looking at that easier, so I'm told, but I've had no reason to try them.) —Cryptic 18:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, User:Cryptic. I have installed the script and it seems interesting and useful. It sometimes tells more than I wanted to know, but that is often true of query and search tools. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]