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.

Before listing a review request, please:

1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
• Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

• *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
• *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
• *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
• *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
• *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

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.

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.)

• An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though it were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
• Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
• Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
• Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, a large language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".

Mo Shaikh (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi, I'm opening this to request review of the consensus to delete Mo Shaikh. The reason given to delete was that there was a consensus that the sources were not sufficient and that there was no rebuttal. However, there was a rebuttal here, in which the editor challenged the notion of disqualifying all sources with quotes as "interviews." (They were referring to the disqualification of sources like the New York Times and Fortune.)

Furthermore, there were 3 !votes to keep and 3 !votes to delete, which is not generally a consensus for deletion. There had been a 4th vote to delete, but that was explicitly based on a sock puppet's source analysis. Perhaps that factor was overlooked?

I appreciate the consideration here, as this does not seem to be a straightforward case of consensus to delete. Thank you. NBruns (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own deletion as an accurate reading of consensus. Two of the keep !votes were bare assertions "topic is notable" and "passes GNG", which deserve lesser weight. User:Scope creep's analysis as adopted by others prevailed. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator is a paid editor working for the article subject. They have properly disclosed this on their userpage, but I am mentioning it as relevant to this discussion. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Cortez (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have two main points as to why the close was not in line with consensus(or in this case, the lack of it). The two reasons are as follows: 1. Numerical: Strictly numerically, there were 2 delete !votes, 2 redirect !votes, and 4 keep !votes. That suggests a rough consensus of keep !votes, making redirection unjustified in this regard, as while it can be an alternative to deletion, it cannot be an alternative to retention absent consensus not to keep the article. 2. Reasoning: The keep reasoning is that Suzy Cortez clearly meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and the biography notability guideline (WP:BIO). She has received sustained, significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in reliable, independent secondary sources over many years, establishing long-term international notability. I can give you sources if you ask. The delete reasoning is that she did certain things that do not establish notability, ignoring the thing she did that do establish notability. The redirect !votes do not even have a reason other than as an WP:ATD, although as said before, while it can be an alternative to deletion, it cannot be an alternative to retention absent consensus not to keep the article. This makes their input WP:JUSTAVOTE, making redirection completely unjustifiable. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose undeletion - if I had participated in this AfD, I'd probably have !voted delete, with an alternative to redirect. It's pretty clear to any longtime editor that this person isn't notable. Being a candidate is not automatically notable. In fact, we routinely delete such articles. Redirect is just a kind way of deleting a subject, in the remote possibility that someday in the future the subject will become notable and it can be re-created by any editor, without getting an administrator involved, and as a cheap way to allow for our readers to find out a bit about the subject that's not really notable. The English Wikipedia community has become much more likely to delete poorly sourced BLPs. Part of that is because powerful people are trying to find any excuse to destroy us financially, and partly because defending against defamation lawsuits have become prohibitively expensive. In both cases, sadly, this is a financial decision. Sorry, but we have to cover our assets. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Like Voorts, I am not impressed by the four Keeps, two of whom are SPAs, and another was specifically created to vote at this AfD. Empty copy-pasted claims of "clearly meets GNG" or allegations of bias are meaningless without sources to back them up. The appellant was the only Keep in that AfD whose argument carried any P&G weight at all. His promise of, I can give you sources if you ask is an empty one. The time to provide sources was during the AfD, where he failed to do so. If the appellant had sources that establish notability, he would have submitted a draft to AfC with those sources, freeing us from the need for this DRV, instead of resorting to a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES appeal. Owen× ☎ 17:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually do have a source, but I could not present it as I found it from the Wikipedia Library. The claims are not empty; two sources were linked on the article and I have found a third, although I need technical help using it. Additionally, the claim that of the four Keeps, two of whom are SPAs, and another was specifically created to vote at this AfD is unfounded accusations, borderline aspersions and personal attacks. Nononsense101 (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually do have a source, but I could not present it as I found it from the Wikipedia Library. That doesn't make any sense. Of course you could have provided a link or any other citation information. Owen's analysis of the keep !votes is correct. It's not a personal attack to point out that two accounts have only edited about this particular topic and one was created just to post in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm serious. I couldn't link it as it wouldn't work, and I didn't know any other way that would make it clear which source I was talking about. Regardless of whether the decision of the AfD is keep, delete, or no consensus, it can't be redirect because both redirect votes were just votes, with the reason being as an WP:ATD, with no reason as to why it is an alternative to deletion(no justification as to why redirect would be preferable to delete, or even why keep is not an option). Nononsense101 (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Implementing ATD's over delete is standard practice, they are preferred over deletion so any viable reasonable one is usually chosen if there is no opposition to the ATD itself. Jumpytoo Talk 05:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That is true, but there is no indication why redirection, or even deletion, is viable in the first place. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources have references. the url might not work, so tell us the other details of the source so we can also look at it. Title, date, author etc. it’s not difficult. JMWt (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It is called "Brazilian Sex Muse Dresses in Paint to Celebrate Rio Olympics". It can be found by searching Suzy Cortez on the Wikipedia Library. When I searched, it was result 12. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It's clear from the discussion consensus was to not have this article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or overturn to keep. As much as having an article on this woman adds nothing (or at least, nothing good) to human knowledge, the Keeps have it: Multiple RS'es covering this woman in multiple contexts: twice winning the contest to which this was redirected, her Messi anal tattoo, Messi's wife taking issue with that, and her bodybuilding. Yes, she's Kardashianesque at best, but BLP1E does not apply and GNG appears to be met even if the sources do come across as sleazy and tabloidish. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The delete !votes argued that trivial coverage in tabloid-esque reporting is not significant coverage, and the one keep !vote that wasn't an SPA didn't contest that point. I found that argument had stronger grounds in the notability guidelines than the keep !votes, which just asserted notability based on dumping a bunch of said sources. If closers are no longer expected to use their judgment and analyze the strength of arguments in light of PAGs, but to treat any opposing viewpoint as equally strong, we should just change AfD over to secure poll and handle things that way. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We did not dump a bunch of sources; we showed 2 reliable, independent sources that provided significant coverage about her tattoo, her winning the Miss Bumbum contest, etc. thus showing notability. And you still have not explained your close. Both redirect votes just said as an ATD without explaining why to redirect or even why it is an alternative to deletion. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - After one week, with non-trivial numbers of Keeps and Deletes, it is better to relist than to try to tease out a rough consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The last 3 keep votes all seem to be written by LLM, so the closer is correct in discounting them. However, the discussion regarding the sourcing is lacking by the non-keep side as well, so relist to allow discussion of the sources. Jumpytoo Talk 05:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CRU Group (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi, I'm opening this to request review of the consensus to delete CRU Group. I'm not sure how this works - is there a way for people who are reviewing consensus to actually view the deleted article? Anyway...

First off, let's start to the word consensus. There is the documentation page WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus ... if an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but then an editor has added the missing references, that argument for deletion is no longer persuasive".

I !voted Keep, along with one other editor.

6 editors !voted Delete, including four who !voted before I added a bunch of sources - and they never circled back to respond. Of these editors, on the surface I am one of the ones with the longest tenure and most experience immersed in Wikipedia - having edited since 2007 w/ about 13k edits. Not saying that to brag but in comparison the nominator had 1.3k edits and 2 articles created, one of which was deleted.

The only editor to substantively analyze the article was @HighKing: who noted "I cannot see the full content of the subscription-only newsletter but the opening doesn't have anything". The subscription-only newsletter is a business periodical which was discussing M&A possibilities and CRU Group's force as a price reporting agency. The fact that it's subscription-only doesn't take away from its weight - in fact in some ways it increases it - as serious business publications are not free, and journalists do make a living supported by more than mass-market advertising. I'm not sure how to reconcile this lack of accessibility with its significance.

So when it comes down to it, we had one !vote engaging with the sources. I didn't have time to circle back around to respond to HighKing but I don't know exactly what he wanted - Wikipedia:One hundred words?. To be honest the newsletter checks the boxes but it's not even really the point for me. The point is consensus and also notability as a real thing in the world rather than just boxes checked.

Stepping back to the philosophy, this is an article I created back around 2009ish when I was working on mining - an article where I remain responsible for the much of content by added bytes (by far most by a single editor). This company is very prominent in the mining and fertilizer industry, which is why its consultants are often quoted in the WSJ [1] and NYTimes [2]. I wrote the article as I tried to understand this source and its credibility. And I want it to remain because I feel that our reader should be able to read the WSJ (or the many tens of thousands of other ways this company pops up in research across the web), wonder who the company cited is, and find a bit about them - good or bad. Our editors and readers also benefit from being able to quickly research the background of the publisher of `Fertilizer International Magazine`, which is one of very few sources covering this area in detail.

So this company, founded in 1969 by John Horam and a partner, publishing leading trade journals and running trade conferences on mining, metals and fertilizers for the last 50+ years, involved in a bunch of M&A, oft-cited by WSJ and deeply hooked into our international metals trading system as a leading PRA, cannot have an article. Meanwhile - and I don't mean to cast aspersions as I think it deserves an article - Hegarty's Cheese gets an article, despite being far less notable in the sense of being known by people in real life and impacting business across the globe.

This just reminds me of how nearly every bar and restaurant where I live in Oakland, California has a dedicated article or two from local journalists discussing their founding and whatnot because local journalists get paid a few hundred bucks to help drum business (random example). These check the WP:SIRS boxes. But in reality, detailed in-depth coverage does not mean notability. And the lack of such detailed articles do not mean lack of notability, because notable organizations do exist which are only covered by business trade periodicals or hardly even that, and their significance is evident by their tentacles throughout the world even if journalists aren't spinning up articles on them for ad-supported mass media.

Anyway, ultimately I understand that consensus is not unanimity, but in that discussion, I feel that my !vote (and the other editor) counts enough to say no consensus.

II | (t - c) 05:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC) -->[reply]

• Endorse to me, that's a clear delete close. We have clear standards for articles on companies to prevent promotional editing, and the best delete !votes came after sources had been found. After reviewing the consensus I checked the available sourcing just to see if an error had been made by the participants and I don't see any obvious error from the delete !voters. SportingFlyer T·C 07:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you substantively respond to my comment? We have two clear detailed significant articles covering this company in detail in a trade publication, in addition to the many other sources noting that it is a leading price reporting agency and it's 50-year history of publishing of the leading trade journals and industry conference for fertilizers.

Also, can you help me understand how 6/8 is consensus, especially given that only 1 of those 6 engaged with the sources and that person admitted they didn't read the most focused and detailed one? II | (t - c)

Since this is DRV, I'm only looking at whether the closer closed the discussion correctly, and for any error. This one is very straightforward. Essentially every delete !voter claimed that there was no identified coverage of the company which passed WP:NCORP, and this was not adequately rebutted by those wishing to keep the article. The !deletes also had a clear majority in the discussion after weighting votes. Furthermore, as I've mentioned, the identified sourcing isn't good enough. The way to fix this would be to find actual NCORP qualifying coverage and start a new draft of the company's article. I'd note I just did a quick search and can't easily find good coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 12:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: This article Will Fastmarkets get its dream PRA deal? is specifically focused on CRU - that's the dream acquisition. It's about 1800 words. It's not the only article. It notes there are 8 PRAs of note globally - CRU is not the smallest - and every single one of them but this one has a Wikipedia article currently. Are you able to see the content of the article before it was deleted? II | (t - c) 01:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• It's customary (and part of the instructions on this page) to discuss your concerns with the closing administrator rather than jumping directly to deletion review. Can you help me understand why you chose to omit that step, or if I have missed it, point me to where that discussion happened? Stifle (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Stifle: I missed that step, sorry. I don't spend much time around here. II | (t - c) 01:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The headline object appears to be that sources, which you claim meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, were dismissed without being read. Be aware that multiple sources are required (lets say the bare minimum of two) and the sources behind a firewill were from the same published, that is, a single "source" for the purposes of establishing notability.

You also make a number of other statements, some inaccurate. For example, you claim to have the "longest tenure" with the most edits. That isn't the case.

In my !vote, I asked you to point to the specific sections/paragraphs of the sources which contains in-depth "independent content" *about* the company which could establish notability. You didn't respond. You say you don't even understand what I was looking for - but I pointed you to the relevent sections of the guidelines, not sure what more you expect. So, if we're being totally honest, you are absolutely correct in that there was only one !vote (mine) which engaged with the sources. You, also, did not engage with the sources.

You point to Hegarty's Cheese as if you don't understand/accept why this topic meets notability criteria. I suggest it meets notability criteria because it has sources listed in the article which meet our criteria. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bottom line - if you believe a topic company/organisation is notable, once it reaches AfD then the onus is on Keep !voters to point to sections/paragraphs within sources that contain in-depth independent content. Things are are irrelevant are quantity of coverage, mentions by respected publishers, regurgitated/repackaged PR or company announcements or finances, high profile employees or people associated with the topic company/organisation or their products, and mentions in passing. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't provide the article by Fast & Flames, but I do have it and I'm happy to provide fair use level snippets and descriptions. As I noted above to SportingFlyer above, it spends a fair bit of time framing the 8 major PRAs across the globe, which are dominated by S&P Global Energy as pricing oil is where more of the money is - but Fastmarkets (i.e. Delinian) and CRU Group specifically focus on and dominate in metals, which is why the private equity owner is interested in buying CRU Group. Mentions some stumbles in the 1980s and significant growth in the past few years. Valuation estimated around half a billion. Not entirely clear if this is just the PRA side of the business or that + research/consulting. In terms of a second source, there are lots of blurbs on it when searching Google Books, altho many are from a decade+ ago and previews are limited. Still, does WP:NCORP say specifically 2? And many of the sources on Google Books and Google Scholar discussing the product - i.e. the research - are what I would consider significant. Something like Metal Supermarkets which calls it "world-renowned" is unseemly but that type of language is not uncommon in the discussions from the industry participants. II | (t - c) 01:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closer clearly judged the consensus correctly. This is not a venue to determine whether or not that was the correct decision. SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I often get petitioned by AfD participants to reopen or relist discussions, arguing that the evidence they presented was not adequately rebutted by the other participants. This can be a valid argument when they presented their evidence shortly before the discussion was closed. This was not the case here. The AfD was closed almost 16 days after the appellant presented their arguments there. Two of our most thorough AfD participants - HighKing and 4meter4 - had ample time to review the sources presented by the appellant, and their arguments suggest they did so, and found the appellant's sources insufficient. The appellant is essentially asking us to assign his minority opinion the power of veto. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @OwenX: to be clear, I pointed out a very in-depth source on the 12. HighKing responded and mentioned having no access to the article on the 14. Randykitty deleted on the 16th. It's a very busy time of year for me so I didn't circle back in time to explain more about what the source says. II | (t - c) 01:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The close was correct. Unlike the nominator, I see several editors engage with the sources that were provided in the article. Editors do not need to provide lengthy source analyses (although it certainly can be helpful). --Enos733 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a valid close and the right close. DRV is not AFD round 2, and the appellant appears to be disagreeing with the AFD participants rather than with the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Truncated triangular pyramid number (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am asking for this Deletion Review on the basis as identified from Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose - Criteria 3: if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion and Criteria 4: if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page.

My 3-critical points to contest this misplaced deletion are as follows:

1. This article was proposed for deletion on 2-Jan-2026 - after which as per the masthead that "... Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion..." - I continuously kept improving the article and addressing each Delete vote with reasons and context (including patiently ignoring snide and sarcastic ones too - which had no constructive objection or feedback on the article though) - hence, the article was "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus" on 9-Jan-2026 - thanks a lot to wikipedia for the process. Anyways, thereafter two more "voters" joined in with Delete vote - of which 1st was clearly conveyed that their vote feedback was misplaced as "Applications" for the article topic could be easily cross-verified by anyone by doing search on the web to find both AI and otherwise references, while the 2nd said in the vote "I think the consensus is clear" - but hey! please dont conclude a discussion - instead you were here meant to give your view on the article contents??? - but for that not a single word - whether of constructive criticism or feedback.

And so I still continued improving / editing the article more - including adding a new sub-section "Geometric Interpretation" on 15-Jan-2026 similar to "Tetrahedral Number" article - and finally just to cross-check my own confidence in the article contents, so did a AI search on 16-Jan-2026 - the outcome of which established - as also stated in my comment on 16-Jan-2026 that the article was quite well-supported even by AI on most counts - and hence, any well-meaning reviewer should go ahead and edit the article further to improve and add furthermore points too as identified - but then the deletion discussion was closed - which is what I consider "Procedurally Incorrect".

2. The closer of the Deletion discussion stated in comment that "Possibly" violation of OR - I appreciate that the closer atleast respected my efforts in answering every feedback precisely - so much so that the closer felt "Possibly" as themselves was not sure of violation !!! But then if you have even an iota of doubt, you don't go ahead and wipe-off an entire article constructed over nearly 15 months!!! - which is what I consider "Procedurally Incorrect".

3. Please note that this article is amongst the first few results shown in any web search - be it for "Truncated Pyramid Number" or "Truncated Triangular Pyramid Number" - and so if it was so grossly wrong then it would not have lasted even 15 days OR would have been completely contradicted by AI output too - but here we are talking about a 15 months old article on English Wikipedia. Additionally, even after the deletion closure, I was wondering where this was wrong when I then came across another article "Truncated Octahedral Number" on Wolfram Mathworld - and which is absolutely synonymous to what this article contained about "Truncated Triangular Pyramid Number" - and so I am bringing up this point as "Significant New Information".

Because even as of today, there is no article on similar topic on wiki - hence, a positive-minded collaborative review could have possibly identified this earlier itself - what I could also manage to find above now - and then who knows, maybe even a suggestion that lets rename the article to "Truncated Pyramid Numbers" - which can then include contents for all as sub-sections - "Truncated triangular pyramid number", "Truncated octahedral number", "Truncated tetrahedral number" etc. - hence, kindly please respect the efforts of 15 months and dont throw the baby out with the tub water !!!

I can contribute my bit too again to add furthermore - as I have done earlier too - when I encountered similar stiff opposition to another article "Polarisation (cosmology)" for nearly 6 months - until finally an experienced, positive reviewer suggested to change the article title from ""E and B modes (Polarisation)" to "Polarisation (cosmology)" - because the crux of my discussions and the article contents was not just "E and B modes" but more across the spectrum.

Hence, I am reiterating the undeletion of this article under "Significant New Information" also - as I am not here trying to put forth own works or any proofs, etc.

I hope this meets everybody's concurrence. Jn.mdel (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2026 (UTC) -->[reply]

• Making up your own definitions of procedural error or new information, let alone screaming at people, isn't going to convince anybody. —Cryptic 09:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cryptic I could not understand "screaming at people" in your remark - rest I would let you all decide as I did not try to make up any definitions - I only quoted review basis-related text because I thought that is the process and so did as per what I understood from the deletion review process page contents. I hope the "capitalization" is not being misunderstood - because I was only trying to highlight amidst a long note - and not to hurt anyone as I know that was absolutely not my intent even in the wildest imagination. Jn.mdel (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The appellant didn't understand screaming at people, but was emphasizing certain parts of their overly long post with ALL CAPS. The use of ALL CAPS on the Internet has been known to be SHOUTING since the Internet was invented. I wouldn't have said that they were screaming because I would have said that they were shouting. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon I sincerely thank you for understanding that I did not know the interpretation of CAPS words - it was more like when I write work emails all the time (just as an example "...am sending new files - PLEASE DO NOT USE OLD ONES... ") - hence, it was meant to be in that tone only - for emphasising only - no offence was meant even one bit. But, I have now immediately edited my submission to change all caps words to italics as I understand why it was wrongly understood by @Cryptic - my sincere apologies again - and I think I have learnt something new here to be helpful elsewhere too. Jn.mdel (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Deletion review is not to rehearse the arguments for keeping or deleting the article, but to review the closer's decision, which is very clearly correct in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there's no other way to close that discussion than delete. SportingFlyer T·C 17:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Is the appellant saying that the serious procedural error was that the closer did not relist the article a second time, because they had made changes to the article? If not, what are they saying was the error? If that is what they are saying, how many times is a closer required to continue relisting an AFD if the author of the article continues to make minor changes to it? Does relisting have to go on indefinitely, or is there a point at which the AFD can actually be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My submission or understanding behind this request for deletion review (apart from additional new informations bit) is that once the article was "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus" - after one full week of discussions and replies - it meant that both viewpoints probably had enough or equal amounts of reasonings respectively in the 1st week - and so I expected that the relist votes/comments should have been viewed independently - of which there were only 2 delete votes of which one's reasoning was found erroneous because there is enough information on "Applications" of the article topic available and the 2nd delete vote only had cursory "it seems consensus to delete" text - but no reasoning given by that reviewer at all. The only other "comment" was also "Applications" related - which is/was already addressed.

  All this took place on 10-11 Jan - after relisting on 9-Jan - whereas I continued improving / even added a new sub-section on 15-Jan, gave the AI websearch support points on 16-Jan - hence, I expected that the closing decision would have been based on current status of article - and not historical version (otherwise the mast head text that "... Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion..." might not serve much purpose).

  And thus, when the deletion discussion closed and I was left wondering, then I came across another new information - as quoted and explained in better detail in the Deletion Review request above.

  I only wish to conclude here that amalgamating knowledge into an encyclopedia is as much a learning process for myself - as much it is an opportunity to contribute towards the common purpose of building a reliable, accurate reference - and so not even for a minute I wish to reduce this to one vs the other - it would be happier if only it results in collaborative synergy. Jn.mdel (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close of Delete. I asked the appellant a question about the serious procedural error, and got a lengthy statement that doesn't answer my question in a way that I understand. So I still don't know what the appellant thinks the error was, and I don't see a procedural error because I see a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now italicised the key points for clarity in my above reply to your question. In nutshell, I thought a fresh assessment after relist as well as article updates was due because the two post-relist votes did not seem accurate as explained and hence maybe, article could have been retained or else relisted again. Jn.mdel (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't make sense. Another relist would have been valid, but was not required. There is no way that a close of Keep could have been in order. That would make even less sense than having the relisting go on until the year 2038. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. No procedural errors noted and no new information presented. Just an impermissible attempt to get a second bite at the cherry. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - With due respect to all participants till now, I wonder if or how many have managed to read the currently deleted article contents (as it stood on 16-Jan) - as well as the synonymous new content found for "truncated octahedral number" @ wolfram mathworld - because that is the "new content - point no. 3" raised in deletion review request above. Still, I am hopeful because atleast even one "endorser" has till now expressed that a relist would have been valid though not done was also fine - combined with original delete closer's own remark of "possibly" - thus letting know sincerely about ownself's nonsurety about OR conclusion. Also request to please keep in mind that "Serious procedural error" is text from the wiki process page and not my choice of words - instead what I am hoping for is procedural positivity with a "stepwise assessment" (especially if there is even an iota of doubt regarding a 15 months old article - which is fairly validated from other sources too) - because earlier relist's 2 vote remarks didn't stand up to scrutiny. Lastly, these efforts do not accrue any laurels or cherries personally - instead only happiness of compiling and contributing meaningful, valid content to wiki from where we gain almost everyday. Jn.mdel (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC) -->[reply]

  "Serious procedural error" is the threshold you need to meet to get the decision overturned. What "procedural positivity" is meant to mean, I do not know. With respect, our job here is to determine whether the AFD was closed correctly. It is not to be "positive" towards your content (nor negative, for that matter). Picking apart every word people say isn't going to be of assistance. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

K. Annamalai (I.P.S) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is in the context of the previous AfD and DRVs for this subject, timesinks which caused considerable frustration to the parties involved. I propose accepting Draft:Annamalai (BJP politician), and a DRV is apparently required for this. I want to establish, if not a GNG pass, at least a bare minimum, prima facie case for a fresh AfD since the one in 2020, as the most important sources post-date it, and in some cases post-date the DRVs, which in any case did not really discuss the sourcing. Here's some sources establishing the subject's notability, independent of the draft:

• Nath, Akshaya (28 February 2023). "Why Tamil Nadu BJP chief Annamalai traded in the quiet life he dreamt of for 'toxic' politics". ThePrint. Retrieved 16 January 2026.
• Shoba, V (12 April 2024). "K Annamalai: Tamil Disrupter". Open. Retrieved 18 January 2026.
• Chengappa, Raj (16 April 2024). "K. Annamalai: A singham in saffron". India Today. Retrieved 18 January 2026.
• Henry, Nikhila (14 April 2025). "What next for Annamalai? Speculation rife in BJP over future of party's outgoing Tamil Nadu chief". The Indian Express. Retrieved 18 January 2026.

Additionally, there's further coverage from the same outlets, such as this one from Open, dozens of articles from The Hindu covering his statements and activities, more of that from other outlets, political analysis featuring him in outlets like Newslaundry. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - He is the news because of his association with BJP, he does not meet independent notability. The mentioned sources are pro-government. They dont meet the definition of WP:IS. Zalaraz (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  These media organisations are obviously independent of the subject. Zalaraz seems to be operating under an awful misunderstanding of policy where the sources are required to have a political viewpoint opposite that of the subject to count as "independent". They also demonstrate a lack of understanding of WP:BIASED, here and elsewhere. And their assertion is straight up false, as anyone familiar with Indian media and political landscape understands. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "Independent notability" isn't found anywhere in Wikiiedia pcies or guidelines. Katzrockso (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and leave SALTed/titleblacklisted and listed at DEEPER. This is the third time the 2020 AfD is brought to DRV. The subject has been listed at DEEPER since March 2024. The previous DRV close included the following directive:

  To anyone who might start a future DRV about this: Do not do so unless: (1) you are an AfC reviewer who wants to accept the submission because, according to your independent reasoning, the draft is ready for mainspace, but you can not for technical reasons (if you do not think that the draft is ready for mainspace, there is no need to come here); (2) you are an editor who believes that the draft should be accepted and you feel capable of starting this process with a concise statement how the draft is prima facie worthy of a review and how it is ready for mainspace.

  I suggest we amend this requirement to eliminate Option #2. That is, future DRVs about this subject may only be filed by an AfC reviewer who has determined a draft to be ready for mainspace. DRV is not the right forum to assess sources, and enough time has already been wasted on appeals and re-appeals. Owen× ☎ 14:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If DRV is made the prerequisite for accepting a draft, it will have to be place where sources are assessed. I'm not sure how further bureaucratisation by requiring an "AfC reviewer" (I've been one in the past) is supposed to do the project any good. Anyone who feels a draft is ready can move it to name space, being a formal AfC reviewer has never been a requirement as far as I understand. The place to challenge an article is AfD, and the sane option would be to just hold another one (in five years!), rather than what feels like holding grudges for past disruption and inviting more DRV. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No grudges are being held here. By adding it to our titleblacklisted and DEEPER lists, the community has spoken loud and clearly about its reluctance to spend any more time on this subject. We left the door open for a draft that offers a meaningful improvement in sourcing. The requirement for passing AfC in this case isn't bureaucratisation; it's an anti-nuisance filter. I have no reason to cast aspersions on your skills as a former AfC reviewer, but I trust the assessment done by RangersRus, who declined the last rev submitted for review. The draft, in its current form, is not accepted by a reviewer. Your attempt to circumvent that by taking it to DRV for a third round isn't cutting red tape, but wasting community time. Had RangersRus accepted the draft, we would not be having this conversation. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation subject to a new AfD, as before. The reason people bring this to DRV again and again is that he is obviously notable, as the nominator here does a fairly good job of explaining. The 2021 AfD predates his most prominent role and has been followed by almost five years of near-continuous coverage in India's most reliable national newspapers. I worry we've ended up in a sort of cognitive-bias doom loop here (à la User:JzG/And the band played on...), where the history has made it difficult to see even a very cogent appeal from an experienced editor as anything other than more evidence of disruption. DEEPER can be a valuable tool, but it's never a reason not to look at the evidence critically and objectively, and I think when you do that it becomes clear that a new AfD is the only sensible outcome here. (If it helps, I'm happy to put my AfC reviewer hat on and say I would accept the draft as submitted.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:JzG/And the band played on... is a good explanation of what is happening here. Based on the sources I found below, the subject was already notable when the March 2024 deletion review led to his getting listed at WP:DEEPER. If a search for sources happened during that deletion review, the article should have been restored. Cunard (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This draft had been resubmitted, but was submitted using only the surname and disambiguator, which was a blatant attempt to game the title. I have renamed the draft to the full name of the subject, and have reviewed and rejected the submission. The draft is written from the viewpoint of the subject, and does not speak for itself because it does not refer to significant coverage by independent sources. I have not reviewed the sources, because the draft has been reference-bombed and the draft does not refer to significant coverage by independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the previous blacklistings. Submission with only the surname and a disambiguator was further evidence of gaming the title and indicates that the blacklistings were appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore since I would accept the current version of the AfC draft to mainspace. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamalai k was closed as "delete" in May 2021. Since 2021, K. Annamalai has received a massive amount of news coverage from reliable sources such as The Hindu (generally reliable according to WP:THEHINDU) and The Indian Express (generally reliable according to WP:INDIANEXP). Like Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs), I would accept Draft:Kuppusamy Annamalai at AfC. As a experienced editor who has had no prior involvement with K. Annamalai (I.P.S), I consider the article to be fairly balanced since it has statements like:

  Annamalai became known for his combative public rhetoric, particularly in his criticisms of the DMK government. While supporters within the BJP have viewed this as an effort to sharpen the party’s political positioning in Tamil Nadu, critics have argued that his rhetoric has contributed to heightened political polarisation in the state.

  It has been over 4.5 years since the last AfD. If editors still think he is not notable, that should be discussed at a new AfD.

  Through having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources

  1. The Hindu articles. According to WP:THEHINDU, the newspaper is generally reliable.
     1. "Former IPS officer K. Annamalai joins BJP". The Hindu. 2020-08-25. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.

        The article notes: "Former Karnataka cadre IPS officer K Annamalai joined the BJP at the party’s national headquarters in New Delhi in the presence of national general secretary P Muralidhar Rao and Tamil Nadu unit chief L Murugan. ... A mechanical engineering and an MBA graduate, Mr. Annamalai cleared civil service and joined the police force in Karnataka in 2011. His first stint was as additional SP, Karkala, for a few months before he was promoted SP, Udupi. During his stint as SP, he earned the reputation of being a tough officer for taking up measures to resolve students' issues, communal problems and criminal activities. In 2018, Mr. Annamalai was transferred as SP, Ramanagara district. He was transferred to Bengaluru soon after the B.S. Yediyurappa-led BJP government took over, to head Bengaluru South division where he served till May 2019 before he resigned."

     2. "IPS officer Annamalai resigns from service citing personal reasons". The Hindu. 2019-05-28. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.

        The article notes: "After serving for nine years in various posts in the State, IPS officer K. Annamalai tendered his resignation on Tuesday. He was last posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), Bengaluru. A native of Karur in Tamil Nadu, Mr. Annamalai is a 2011-batch Karnataka-cadre officer. ... Mr. Annamalai was popular in the IPS circles as well as among the general public, and is remembered for his stint as Assistant Superintendent of Police at Karkala, Udupi district, as well as Superintendent of Police in Udupi and Chikkamagaluru."

     3. Kumar, S. Vijay (2023-01-14). "T.N. BJP president K. Annamalai accorded 'Z' scale security". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.

        The article notes: "The Ministry of Home Affairs has accorded the ‘Z’ scale of security to Tamil Nadu BJP president, K. Annamalai. According to police sources, the security scale of the IPS officer-turned-politician was increased from the ‘Y’ scale to the ‘Z’ scale after a threat assessment was done by the Intelligence Bureau. ... The MHA had, in April last year, enhanced the security of Mr. Annamalai from ‘X’ scale to ‘Y’ scale with Personal Security Officers deployed from the Central Reserve Police Force. While no information is available on the details of the specific threat perceived by the intelligence agencies, police sources said Mr. Annamalai has been actively voicing opinions against “religious fundamentalism” in Tamil Nadu, particularly after the car bomb blast in Coimbatore on October 23, 2022. ... Mr. Annamalai, who has been making allegations of corruption against the Ministers of the ruling DMK, had announced that he would undertake a padayatra to cover all the 234 Assembly constituencies in the State in April."

  2. The Indian Express articles. According to WP:INDIANEXP, the newspaper is generally reliable.
     1. Janardhanan, Arun (2023-04-17). "Tamil Nadu BJP chief Annamalai: A loose cannon, or secret weapon?". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.

        The article notes: "In the two years that he has been the Tamil Nadu BJP chief, K Annamalai has never been far from news — often stepping on own party’s shoes. While the former IPS officer’s aggression has ensured the party’s visibility, many BJP leaders feel it may not be the best strategy in a state where it must balance several sensibilities given its second-fiddle status to more dominant allies. In the latest instance, Annamalai has not just invited a “Rs 500 crore” lawsuit from the DMK over a corruption long list, his potshots at ally AIADMK — urging the BJP to break ties with it — have drawn a sharp response from the latter. The 39-year-old has also taken on the media and rubbed BJP leaders the wrong way with his brusque manner, leading several in the past few months to leave the party."

     2. Janardhanan, Arun (2021-07-08). "Murugan in cabinet, BJP's new TN chief is 36-yr-old ex-IPS officer who joined last August". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.

        The article notes: "The BJP has appointed former IPS officer K Annamalai, 36, as its state chief, a day after the incumbent L Murugan was sworn in as a Union minister. Annamalai, who quit the IPS in 2019, joined the BJP last August. A confident and articulate leader, he was already holding the post of vice president. ... The former IPS officer is from the powerful Gounder community in Western Tamil Nadu. Though he contested unsuccessfully from the Aravakuruchi constituency in the Assembly polls, he helped the party win two seats in the western region. This helped in Annamalai’s rapid elevation. He is also known for his spirited speeches, often bordering on communal agendas, to take on Dravidian parties. ... In April, the police booked Annamalai for his alleged remarks intimidating DMK’s Karur candidate during a poll rally."

     3. Janardhanan, Arun (2022-06-09). "Newsmaker | Divisive & abrasive, the former cop keeping BJP in play in Tamil Nadu". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.

        The article notes: "He has sceptics both within his party and outside. But, unlike his predecessors, Tamil Nadu BJP chief K Annamalai has managed to increase the party’s visibility in media in the past few months, so much so that the principal Opposition and BJP ally, the AIADMK, recently accused it of being “anti-Tamil” and “stealing” state revenue. The 38-year-old former IPS officer was appointed at the helm of the state BJP last year and has managed to remain in the media glare by attacking the DMK, hitting out at journalists, for his brusque manner of speaking, and for alleged links to people caught up in financial frauds. On June 5, he levelled corruption allegations against the DMK-led state government and the family of Chief Minister M K Stalin."

     4. Janardhanan, Arun (2024-12-27). "Self-flagellation puts Tamil Nadu BJP chief Annamalai back where he wants: in the limelight". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.

        The article notes: "After a brief interlude, including a surprise sojourn in distant UK, the irrepressible Tamil Nadu BJP president K Annamalai has barged his way back into the news. Seizing on an alleged sexual assault incident at Anna University in Chennai to take on the DMK government, Annamalai on Friday flogged himself six times as a mark of protest – like he said he would. His other vow, announced Thursday, was that he would not wear footwear until the DMK was ousted from power – and, accordingly, he was barefoot during his self-lashing. While Annamalai has made dramatic statements earlier – with the brashness of the young leader giving the BJP just the right kind of visibility in a state where it was non-existent – few expected him to go ahead with the flagellation, which holds powerful symbolism as an act of penance."

  3. Chandrababu, Divya (2023-09-26). "K Annamalai: Police-officer-turned politician blamed for AIADMK's exit from NDA". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19.

     Most editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 491#Is there a consensus on the reliability of the Hindustan Times? consider the Hindustan Times to be reliable. The article notes: "AIADMK viewed Annamalai as an uncontrolled political greenhorn even as the BJP sought to project him as a sincere leader who quit IPS for clean and corruption-free politics in Tamil Nadu. Born in 1984 in Thottampatti village in Tamil Nadu’s Karur district, Annamalai studied engineering in Coimbatore before receiving a Master of Business Administration degree from the prestigious Indian Institute of Management Lucknow. He was the Bengaluru South deputy police commissioner when he quit IPS in June 2019 around the time Rajinikanth launched his party. A BJP leader, who did not want to be named, said Annamalai has finally brought the BJP to the mainstream in Tamil Nadu. With his almost daily press conferences, Annamalai has ensured that the party is regularly in the news. His statements including against AIADMK grabbed eye-balls. He has critics within the state BJP unit too."

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

  Cunard (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation if a draft passes AfC. I am not that knowledgeable about Indian politics, but based on a quick review, I agree with @Extraordinary Writ that the subject is pretty clearly notable, and the sources provided by the nominator here appear to be sufficient to establish it if there was any doubt. It is sad that some years ago there was misbehaviour about creation of this article, and quite possible the subject was not quite notable then. This justifies caution and (per @OwenX) some degree of nuisance projection. However, I think the nominator here has done exactly what was required by item (2) in the directive quoted by Owen. We must remain capable of entertainting the possibility that notability may have emerged and that an encyclopedic article can be written. While I agree with @Robert McClenon that that the current draft suffered from refbombing, that is not unheard of with drafts, especially where there has been feedback about inadequate sourcing previously, and remaining issues could have been dealt with by judicious editing (including adding the sources identified by the nominator here). I think Robert's strongly worded rejection of the draft is overzealous; this draft should have been accepted (with recommendations for further improvement) or maximally declined with constructive feedback instead, since it is not unpromising. Our processes must be robust enough to protect the encyclopedia and community from gaming and tendentious resubmission, but also robust enough to evaluate drafts on their merits rather than based on the sins of previous editors. Martinp (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict with Cunard)[reply]
• Send to AfD Looking at the article and sources at a glance they seem OK. The AfD's and DRV's in the past have all been lacking (AfD was mainly "per nom"'s, one DRV just threw Google links, the second DRV only requested review without providing any argument to overcome the previous issues, the third got poisoned from political POV pushing), which caused the testing the patience's of editors. This has been the most cohesive argument, and I think it's good enough to give it a chance.

Now if the AfD does not keep the article, I would support Owen's proposal for the next time around to be required to be from an AfC reviewer (I'd go a bit stricter, and require two reviewers to concur) Jumpytoo Talk 05:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am interpreting the statement by User:Extraordinary Writ as saying that this is a Battle for Dream Island case, and I mostly agree. I agree with User:Martinp that recreation should be allowed if a draft passes AFC.

I acknowledge that I probably should have clarified in my rejection of the draft that I did not mean that the subject was not notable, but that the draft should be blown up and started over. Another draft, written from scratch, may be able to be accepted. The current draft that I rejected is, in my opinion, not suitable for rework. It needs to be replaced with a new draft that speaks for itself by focusing on significant coverage by independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification, @Robert McClenon. Would you be amenable to vacating your Rejection of the draft and replacing it with a Decline? While the draft does suffer from tone issues and has been refbombed, the appellant (an experienced editor and frequent successful article creator) here has provided a handful of better sources, and Cunard has provided more. There are enough experienced users !voting some form of "good enough, or close to good enough" for mainspace/AfD here that I think we are quite close to a big win here: A article about a notable subject, based on quality sourcing, and ready for continued improvement in mainspace; successfully digging its way out of a hole created by inappropriate shenanigans by other editors in the past. To allow this to proceed to its natural conclusion, it would be helpful to remove the additional roadblock placed by a Rejection. You've clarified here that you didn't mean that the subject was not notable, however that is the primary argument you used in your rejection. It seems your primary concern was actually WP:SPEAKSELF, but that essay itself says that an AFC drafts that fails to speak for itself ... should be declined without the need for further review; it does not recommend rejection. Martinp (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for interceding to bring this to a constructive conclusion, Martinp! I, for one, would be perfectly happy un-SALTing and having a draft moved to mainspace once Robert McClenon accepts it. @TryKid: my apologies if my comments above came across as unnecessarily harsh. We've just un-DEEPERed Battle for Dream Island three months ago... Owen× ☎ 16:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think that there is a lesson to be learned, which is that salting in draft space seems like a reasonable response to tendentious resubmission, but is actually very seldom a good idea, because it encourages more blatant gaming of titles that is less obvious as the titles deviate more. I am not discouraging salting in article space or title blacklisting in article space, but salting in draft space can be self-defeating. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems better to constrain the editing on these tendentious topics to a particular draft and then move protect the draft pending editorial consensus that the article is ready for mainspace Katzrockso (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I disagree with sending the current draft to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation subject to a new AfD per Extraordinary Writ. Whether this article should exist in the mainspace should be decided via consensus and not by an individual AfC reviewer. In 2020, the article was created and deleted on the basis that he was the vice-president of a state branch of the ruling Indian party. Since then, he was the president of that branch from 2021 to 2025 and has likely become notable. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have changed my rejection to a decline. I do not plan to accept the draft. I will leave that for another AFC reviewer, and I still disapprove strongly of the gaming of the title, but will leave that to another reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - WP:NPOL is very clear. Undoubtedly, the subject still fails it. Wisher08 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The draft Draft:Kuppusamy Annamalai has been substantially rewritten with independent, secondary sources providing analytical coverage of the subject's role as state president of a major national party (2021–2025), alliance dynamics, and public political impact. While there are differences whether WP:NPOL is met, notability is at least arguable based on current sourcing.

TamizhanEditor (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Failing WP:NPOL does not mean the subject is not notable, it only means they have to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO through the normal means of having significant coverage in reliable sources. Do you also belive the subject does not meet either of those criteria? Jumpytoo Talk 17:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For a politician, it is important to meet WP:NPOL. I dont see if the subject is meeting WP:GNG either because simply being a face of a country's most popular party is not enough. The coverage should be more than just about that. Zalaraz (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I agree that merely being a party face is not sufficient for notability. My point is not based solely on the subject’s position, but on the presence of multiple independent, reliable sources that provide analytical coverage of his role in Tamil Nadu politics — including alliance dynamics, the AIADMK–NDA split, statewide political campaigns, and assessments of his strategic impact as state party president.

As noted at WP:NPOL, failure to meet its specific criteria does not preclude notability where WP:GNG is satisfied. Given the breadth and depth of secondary coverage discussing the subject beyond routine announcements, I believe notability could be better assessed via community consensus rather than AfC alone. TamizhanEditor (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01 e.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I created and uploaded File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01 e.jpg. Administrator IronGargoyle copied it and uploaded it as File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01.jpg. Then they deleted the file I'd uploaded as a copy. On their talk page they explained that they did this for "to maintain continuity with the original file name". This is for context. — Ирука¹³ 10:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the action you want DRV to take here, and why? Stifle (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse and speedy close due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Do what OwenX said below. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and speedy close. No substantive reason given for this vexatious nomination. Deletion was both in the letter and spirit of CSD F1. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment and suggestion, if I may answer Stifle on behalf of the appellant. I agree with IronGargoyle that blurring a portion of the image doesn't entitle the uploader to any kind of attribution. Anyone may copy it, re-upload it as their own, and delete the original. I don't know why IronGargoyle chose to do that instead of simply moving the file to the correct name, but in doing so, he effectively erased any record of the appellant's contribution, which is all the appellant is asking for. Whether copyright laws require attribution or not, we all expect some form of recognition for our work here, even if it's just a line in a page history dump.
  Personally, the appellant lost any sympathy I may have had for them with their rude, Karenistic Restore my file immediately demand. But for the sake of expediency, I think this DRV can be speedy closed to everyone's satisfaction by adding a dummy edit to the file's history, with an edit summary denoting the appellant as the file originator. Not because they deserve it, but because it's the correct, minimally disruptive way to resolve this nonsense amicably. Owen× ☎ 11:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the explanation. That all sounds good to me. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no problem with that solution. I thought the file name was important in case Philippine freedom of panorama law changed. A more permissive change would affect the history and reimportation of this file to Commons (which might be important to import a blurred version, depending on the context of the revised law). It simply didn't occur to me to move it. I have moved a tiny handful of files in the last several years and uploaded thousands. I have no problem with Iruka13 getting credit and I have said as much on my talk page. It was a helpful edit. I question whether that is what this is about though. Iruka13 has a long history of wikilawyering confrontation and is indefinitely blocked from three projects. This request seems more about winning an argument as opposed to actually improving anything on Wikipedia or gaining credit. Indeed, if Iruka13 cared so much about credit for a creative solution, why was there no notation citing Iruka13 for the blurring edit in the revised file description at File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01 e.jpg?— Preceding unsigned comment added by IronGargoyle (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If I understand you correctly - Anyone may copy it, re-upload it as their own, and delete the original. - I can re-upload "my" file again and place the F1-template on the IronGargoyle's file, right? — Ирука¹³ 08:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear purpose to maintaining the original file name, which I have explained. The only purpose to doing what you propose would be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Creating a copy yourself to then apply F1 is clearly aberrant, not in the spirit of speedy deletion, and should not be condoned. The complaint is completely appropriate. Separately, I dispute the idea that there is something wrong with the name of this file. Adding the "e" means edit, the name of the deleted file is fine, and there is no reason to "maintain continuity with the original file name" on Commons. Overturn this wrong speedy deletion and delete IronGargoyle's duplicate.—Alalch E. 16:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above about the importance of maintaining the file name in case this ever needs to be reimported to Commons. Calling this aberrant is hyperbolic and only feeds into the confrontational mindset of this nomination. Quite honestly the file in question should have been uploaded over the original file as a file revision and then the original file revision deleted, but I lost track of the FFD over the holidays and forgot to suggest that in the FFD. When I went back to check on the discussion, the original FFD had already been closed. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Alalch E. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think a lot of people need a nice cup of tea and a sit down. There's a lot of overreaction going on. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Speedy deletion shouldn't be used when there's a feasible alternative to deletion, and in this case moving the file would have been just that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List with serial comma (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was not a participant in this TfD, but I came across it later in a follow-up discussion, and after reading it, I came to the conclusion that a persuasive case for deletion was never made and that the template would likely have been kept if subject to broader discussion. In particular, the deletion side made three arguments:

1. That the template's functionality was covered by {{enum}}. Grufo refuted that point in this comment, showing that {{enum}} cannot actually properly handle serial commas, although some later !voters may have missed it. (He explained it in more detail here; in short, it's because using {{enum}}'s parameter |and=, and to add a serial comma would cause it to erroneously output A, and B in an enumerated list with only two items.)
2. That the template is unused. This is a weak argument because, per WP:TFDREASONS #3, a template must also have no likelihood of being used, and that was never demonstrated/the use case here is perfectly plausible.
3. General opposition to serial comma use. This is a fine personal preference to have, but is not an argument for deleting the template. Given MOS:VAR, an article that uses an enumerated list template might well have an established style of using serial commas, in which case an option to do so in the template would be needed.

I take no issue with the judgement of the closer, Izno (who suggested coming here), in evaluating the consensus at the TfD at the time. But given the limited participation in that discussion and the issues I highlighted above, I believe the template should be restored and kept. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 03:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow restoration per above as nominator. Sdkb ^talk 03:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow restoration per Sdkb. --Grufo (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist to provide the additional discussion that the appellant is requesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was incomplete pinging of users here, in that I mean, that the only person pinged was the only person that wanted to keep this template, I will ping all participants of the TfD as well. @User:Zackmann08 @GhostInTheMachine @Pppery @Alalch E.. Gonnym (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted per TfD and RfD. Even if this was the most important template on our site (which is not even remotely the case), at this stage, I cannot assume good faith in its existence. It was deleted, then the template restored to create a redirect (instead of creating a redirect), then sent to RfD in the hopes of getting it restored, then trying to get it restored in an unrelated template talk page, then trying to backdoor restore it at Izno's talk page, then sent here without pinging the people that would be against its restoration but pinging the only one in favor of it being restored. At some point you have to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Gonnym (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“I cannot assume good faith in its existence”: How about we try a different narration, and maybe even introduce the idea that at this stage there cannot be good faith in opposing the template, at least not from you? The template was created because there are no ways to create a list with serial comma on English Wikipedia (unless you want to do it by hand). Then it was deleted arguing that {{Enum}} would allow serial commas. After several users have realized that it was actually not the case, someone invited to explore the possibility of supporting serial commas as an option of {{Enum}}. Although I believed that having things like {{Enum|A|B|C|serial=yes}} would never be ideal, I thought it was an acceptable compromise and so I implemented it, I also solved a current bug, and I opened a discussion about the new implementation. But then you opposed even the {{Enum}} option on the ground that you don't like Module:Params. You had already manifested the wish to orphan that module only for the sake of doing it; how about we introduce the idea that at this stage there cannot be good faith in your opposition (because your actual goal is that of orphaning Module:Params, as you have said it yourself)? --Grufo (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym and Grufo, this is not the appropriate venue to discuss behavioral issues around the dispute you have with each other. Please stick to discussion of whether or not having {{List with serial comma}} restored would benefit the encyclopedia, as that is what the closer will be looking to evaluate the consensus around. Sdkb ^talk 20:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sdkb. It is fine by me. --Grufo (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted we've been through this. This is not a venue to rehash the same arguments. WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. I appreciate the ping by Gonnym and am also troubled by the fact that only person pinged was the one who supported keeping the template to begin with. That is essentially WP:CANVASSING. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question about the statement that the Oxford comma is not supported by {{enum}}. It appears from the documentation that and = ", and" will do that. Can someone explain how the and = option of {{enum}} is not sufficient? I may change my vote based on the answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon: Imagine you have a template called {{Foobar}}, and this template contains the following code: {{Enum|{{{one|}}}|{{{two|}}}|{{{three|}}}|and=, and }}. When you write {{Foobar|one=apples|two=oranges}} you get “apples, and oranges”, and it will be unnecessarily hard to remove that comma. It is actually not so rare for templates to call {{Enum}} in this way (but without the |and= parameter)—see for instance {{Underused external link template}}; these templates would have no easy way to use a serial comma if they wanted to. --Grufo (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. I understand that you are saying that the problem with the {{enum}} template and the and=", and" parameter is that it introduces an Oxford comma between two elements.

  So it seems that the reason for this request either to restore the deleted template or reopen the deletion discussion is that the template was deleted based on an incorrect assumption that {{enum}} would provide the same result. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. But that is not all. In that discussion only two editors argued that this template would allegedly be redundant to {{Enum}} (although one of the two switched between multiple arguments). One editor actually argued that serial commas are not needed in general (but that would go against MOS:VAR), and the last editor only wrote “Unused template. Theoretically useful, so perhaps recreate when it might be deemed to be practically useful”. --Grufo (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Ignoring TFDREASON#3 for a second, do we have a documented case where the enum template's lack of support for Oxford comma broke an edit, caused a display/style issue, or caused some other technical problem? Jumpytoo Talk 07:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jumpytoo, there are plenty of other templates that use enumerated lists within them. There are also plenty of articles that have an established style of using an Oxford comma. Any article that uses such a template and also has an established style of using an Oxford comma will be unable to maintain that style (an issue per MOS:VAR) without functionality to add an option to use an Oxford comma. It is difficult to run a query to fetch the list of such articles given that we have no {{Use Oxford comma}} tags on articles the way we do e.g. {{Use British English}} tags (perhaps we should). Sdkb ^talk 18:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see, looking at the below discussion as well, I will support allowing recreation, but recommending finding a usage for the template first before doing so Jumpytoo Talk 08:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I was aware of everything discussed above when I !voted and I still !voted delete. The same is true for other participants, I'd say. A template being unused is not a weak reason to delete. Recreate and immediately use it; this will overcome the reason why the page was deleted.—Alalch E.

  @Alalch E.: Correct me if I am wrong, but the template can be recreated only if it is deleted on the ground that it is unused, but not if it is deleted on the ground that it is redundant. That fact that you say it is not redundant (I agree btw) and can be recreated if used might meet the opposition of others who voted delete for other reasons. --Grufo (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you were to recreate the template and reasonably immediately implement it, any admin who would G4-delete would be making a mistake. That mistake would be correctable in a DRV, for example. This DRV is not useful, as there's no mistake to correct. —Alalch E. 11:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright. Then it seems pretty easy. Although some might hate the serial comma, it can easily become mandatory in English to avoid ambiguity:

  • I saw my two brothers, Robert and Karl.

    (i.e. I saw two persons, whose names are Robert and Karl, and they are my brothers)

  • I saw my two brothers, Robert, and Karl.

    (i.e. I saw four persons)

  --Grufo (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which article is that from? —Alalch E. 09:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh that was just the first example that came to my mind. Asking about ambiguous examples from articles is a bit unfair, because if editors identified possible ambiguities while they were writing they also found the solutions already, either by not using {{Enum}} or by using different words. So the research you are implicitly asking will necessarily suffer from cherry-picking (and I know you know that already). However, by looking at how {{Enum}} is most often used in articles (#1, #2)—see for instance Tyrol Schistose Alps—it is not hard to come up with made-up (yet possible) ambiguous examples:

  • {{enum|Croatia|Slovenia|Bosnia and Herzegovina|North Tyrol|South Tyrol}}

    ↳ Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Tyrol and South Tyrol

  Without serial comma I have no idea how many people will undestand that North Tyrol and South Tyrol are two different regions that belong to two different countries (Austria and Italy). Moreover, consider that the example above belongs to those cases in which the serial comma is either mandatory or almost mandatory; yet some people might want to use the serial comma just because they like it, and that is also fine. --Grufo (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps people click on the link? The Banner talk 17:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you, Grufo, that this is a valid real example of where a serial comma is needed and is missing due to how the enum template works by default. In the TfD it was noted that the enum template can produce a serial comma. Participants did not believe that another template is needed, functionally similar to enum (irrespective of similarity or dissimilarity of implementation). I'd take this to the talk page of enum and try to enact a consensus to change the template code to one that retains no serial comma by default but has more robust support for the serial comma than enum, so that it's resistant to the "A, and B" (B being the second and only other member of the list) scenario. I'm going to keep my !vote as endorse here, and I continue to oppose two templates. —Alalch E. 21:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alalch E.: Thank you for your reply. As you might have noticed, I emphasized in my previous message that we were talking about usage in articles, because there people will always find a way to write things, in a way or another. But as I mentioned earlier, the real problem (unsolvable via {{Enum}}) happens in templates. In my opinion {{Enum}} should not support the |comma= and |and= parameters at all (we already have {{Separated entries}} if you want to specify those), and instead all these courtesy templates like {{Enum}}, {{Hlist}}, etc. should do only one thing and do it well. We even have {{Comma separated entries}}. That is also why I still prefer a separate template for serial commas. That said, supporting the serial comma via {{Enum}} will be better than not supporting it (even though not ideal if you ask me). --Grufo (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted Superfluous and at present unused. What issue does it solve? The Banner talk 15:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted no error by the closer was identified here. This entire discussion is mere TfD-round-2-ing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have struck my Relist. We have had the discussion that the appellant requested, and it has not been persuasive. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This was a poorly attended discussion which did not address any of the points brought up here, and if they had been brought up this would have been kept in the absence of additional consensus. I'd change this to no consensus and allow an immediate renomination. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  5 people at a TFD is not a poorly attended discussion. It's probably not even so for any other deletion forum at this time either. Izno (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow restoration, unless {{Enum}} can be fixed. I see nothing wrong with how the TfD was closed. But the bar for keeping a template is even lower than that for keeping a redirect. Grufo's explanation more than suffices to pass that low bar. I understand why those dealing with such issues are passionate about them, but this just isn't worth the time we've spent on it here. Zackmann08's advice to WP:DROPTHESTICK applies to everyone. Owen× ☎ 10:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There's two options here:

1. Recreate the template; maybe simplify the code if that's the problem since I hear from many other of TfDs (that resulted in delete) against Grufo that a major concern was overcomplication.
   1. This could probably be a wrapper template around Enum.
2. Fix Enum so it can say both "A and B" and "A, B, and C".
   1. I do not think simply modifying existing behavior with the "and" parameter is an option. The key here is "existing behavior"—I'm fairly sure there should be existing templates that rely on the "and" parameter being applied consistently as long as the number of list items is more than one. (Changing the output just for the case of "and=, " is IMO too bespoke and counterintuitive.)
   2. We could make a different parameter that would have this behavior, but besides being a little bespoke, I believe adding on new code for this specific use case far less common than Enum's 11,140 is overkill and unwieldy to maintain, with such a low-use feature affecting such a high-risk range.

Hence, I lean weak restore per Owenx. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Appellant inappropriately attempts to reargue their case on the merits. This board is for procedural errors, which the appeal does not allege. Sandstein 15:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sandstein: That might not be completely correct. It is true that the closer found the (little) consensus required by WP:TFDCI to close the discussion, so there was no mistake from them. But a procedural error lied in the fact that consensus was based on a false premise concerning {{Enum}}'s support for serial comma, which might even have held back others from commenting in the template's favor. The very reason a redirect was kept afterwards and Sdkb initially did not want to remove it was the belief that {{Enum}} supported the serial comma. --Grufo (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not an error by the closer, which is what we are here to review. That deletion discussion participants make mistakes is routine and not grounds for deletion review. I suggest seeking consensus to amend the Enum template to support serial commas instead. If that succeeds, all should be happy, and if that fails, it confirms that this deletion reflects community consensus. Sandstein 21:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Errors by the closer might not be the only thing worth the attention of this venue. That would be point #1 of Wikipedia:Deletion review § Purpose, whereas point #3 mentions “substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion …” (emphasis is mine). Whether we like the template or not, that discussion was pretty terrible. That might also explain why the topic was felt still pending afterwards (#1, #2). --Grufo (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem with your quote is that the only errors alleged here are substantive and not procedural. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How should we draw that line though? Imagine an extreme scenario: imagine someone nominated for deletion a template similar to {{See also}} and the majority argued that it is redundant to {{Strong}} (of course it isn't, they are very different templates); as such it gets deleted; would these not be considered procedural errors in the deletion discussion? Where should that discussion be challenged? --Grufo (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "Procedural" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and in most places with debate rules. A procedural problem is a mistake in how a decision or process is carried out (rules, steps, timing, notice, authority, documentation, etc.). What you mentioned is a substantive debate, a disagreement about what the decision or outcome should be (facts, judegments, or merits of the issue). Aaron Liu (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Where should this be argued? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In an appropriate template or project talk page, as suggested above. Sandstein 21:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've mentioned why I believe amending Enum to be a bad idea (maintenance). On which project talk page should the recreation of the template be argued? I unfortunately can't find one. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've commented somewhere else, Module:Separated entries, which is the base module for this and other templates, should just have a |serial=yes option added to it. It's that simple. Gonnym (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Though modules don't have the PEIS concerns adding text to templates does, what I've said about risk applies twohundredfold more to SeparatedEntries's 2,647,141 transclusions. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Because this TFD concluded that Wikipedians don't want a separate template for this purpose, the only remaining options are to amend an existing template or not support lists with serial commas, which is an entirely unimportant issue to begin with. Sandstein 19:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, if you look into what this TFD concluded, two editors said serial commas are already supported by {{Enum}}, one said that serial commas are bad, one said to recreate this template as soon as it is needed. Nobody in this TFD said we have to amend an existing template. --Grufo (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop addressing me. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody is talking with you, nor addressing you, nor mentioning you. --Grufo (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a reason recreation, as many here support, should not be an option when they believe we want a template for this purpose? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely disagree with the premise of this endorse. DRV is a forum for challenging deletions, not for challenging actions of administrators. This was a lightly attended discussion, and if the rationale for deleting can be overcome, this is absolutely the correct forum. SportingFlyer T·C 03:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not so. We regularly dismiss DRV nominations that treat DRV as a second round of XfD. Our instructions provide: "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." Sandstein 08:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree we regularly dismiss DRV nominations that treat DRV as a second round of XfD. I do not think this petition falls into that category at all. SportingFlyer T·C 01:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I fully concur with SportingFlyer here. This is basically the platonic ideal of why WP:NOTBURO is a policy. It boils down to this: If the template benefits Wikipedia, it should exist, and if not, it should not. It's one thing for those opposed to the template to make arguments that it should not exist. But it's another thing, when those arguments start being refuted, for them to turn to wikilawyering to try to create a situation in which there is no possible reasonable venue to contest and overturn the decision. A pedantically narrow interpretation of DR's remit does nothing but bolster that disingenuous tactic. Sdkb ^talk 04:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It hasn't been refuted. The current template handles serial comma, and has before this template was created with the |and= parameter. A better solution was proposed and you didn't want it. The community was against the template you wanted. And finally, this was never the venue to relitigate everything again. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The current template handles serial comma @Gonnym, then show us how. I previously asked you to do so, and you responded dismissively with an example that ignored the A, and B issue that had been pointed out to you already (and that I stated again in opening this review). When called out on that, you disengaged. If there is a method that you have for some reason been keeping in your pocket, now is the time to lay it out. If not, and you are just repeating your claim while ignoring the A, and B issue with it, then be advised that a deliberate failure to get the point is behavior could lead to sanctions against you. Sdkb ^talk 19:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A good exercise would be that of pasting below a version of {{Underused external link template}} that uses the serial comma (possibly trying to stick to {{Enum}}, without Byzantine solutions, and guaranteeing the correct output for every empty parameter). --Grufo (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  For the umpteenth time (and it would actually be helpful if you literally take a look at the code instead of ignoring anything you don't like). Here is how you can do A, and B:

  • {{enum|A|B|and=, and{{space}}}} -> A, and B

  This is without any changes to the current template. As I said previously, and previously and previously, changing the base module can make this cleaner, but you didn't want that.

  I'm pretty done with this discussion, but I just wanted to make sure to any closing admin that the "refuted" claim is factually incorrect, yet keeps being repeated, even when shown otherwise. Gonnym (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  “For the umpteenth time”: Indeed you keep repeating yourself again and again, without listening to what is being replied to you n + 1 times, often with fresh new arguments on top of the previous ones. Please, try to pay attention this time:

  • Everywhere but in templates, when we want to have A, B and C we don't write {{Comma separated entries|A|B|C|conjunction= and }}; instead we write {{Enum|A|B|C}}. Using an even stronger argument (the previous code does not change depending on the number of items, but the following does), when we want to have a list with the serial comma it makes sense that we write {{List with serial comma|A|B|C}} instead of having to distinguish manually {{Enum|A|B|C|and=, and#32;}} from {{Enum|A|B}}
  • In templates, as I mentioned earlier, there is simply no solution. I invite you to address this comment—and it would actually be helpful if you literally take a look at the code instead of ignoring anything you don't like.

  “As I said previously, and previously and previously, changing the base module can make this cleaner, but you didn't want that”: I am not aware of Sdkb refusing anything of what you are claiming (can you please reference this?). What I saw happening instead is that you refused your own favorite idea of amending {{Enum}} to support serial commas, even though multiple users are telling you that amending {{Enum}} to support serial commas is not the best thing to do. --Grufo (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The TfD was properly run and closed correctly. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• About The Banner's block: Recently, The Banner, one of the participants in this discussion (#1, #2), was indefinitely blocked (for related reasons). --Grufo (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Why have you stated this? This is irrelevant to the discussion and just smacks of grave dancing. Please stop it. Canterbury Tail talk 13:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Canterbury Tail: Please forgive me, but I do not understand what you want me to stop doing. Could you please explain yourself more thoroughly? --Grufo (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There was absolutely zero reason to bring up The Banner's block here in this thread. It adds nothing to the conversation, and can come across as you're revelling in the fact they were blocked. There's no reason to mention it. Canterbury Tail talk 14:14, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh I see. Hoping that this clarifies: here is where an uninvolved editor (not me, not you) will need to decide about striking out their comments and !vote. --Grufo (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely; Grufo, either this is WP:GRAVEDANCING or just trolling.

  Also there's zero reason for anyone to strike anyone's vote, and this is also out of order. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: This is a relatively relaxed discussion and we normally assume people's good faith (I invite you to lower your tone). A block per se does not automatically invalidate a vote, but a vote that was likely the result of a hounding and only consisted in boilerplate arguments can be happily attacked (writing in a discussion about a deleted template “at present unused” does not make much sense). Since you mention it, I invite you to give a look at § What isn't gravedancing—especially where it says that the following isn't: “Describing factually, solely for the information of other editors, disruptive activities that resulted in a ban/block or preceded retirement under a cloud”. Please do not discuss here how I respond to people who ping me in their talk pages. --Grufo (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If you "normally" assume good faith (but why not always?) then you will have no need to either bring up editors' sanctions in a discussion unrelated to their behavior, you will have no need to delete !votes except under the limited circumstances described under WP:TPO, and a highly selective reading of WP:GRVDCNG does not alter the fact that your comment unnecessarily focusses on a contributor; this is unhelpful personalisation. I invite you to recaliberate your approach (now you've been twice advised against your current line).

  Do not ping me again. Cheers, —Fortuna, imperatrix 15:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Grufo: I concur with Canterbury Tail. Unless you have evidence that The Banner was editing in violation of a block (of which there's none to my knowledge), there was absolutely no reason to mention their block. !votes are not nullified by blocks otherwise. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 12:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi XtraJovial. In cases like this—since the block in question is closely related to this discussion (and to other similar discussions about templates, which altogether have caused it)—informing is quite normal. That may or may not influence how the blocked user's arguments are treated (on Wikipedia we don't actually vote). --Grufo (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]