Lenny Castro (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Sources have come to light that supports his inclusion in Wikipedia based on No. 1, 6, 8, 10 of WP:BAND. I have listed around sixteen or so sources on Lenny Castro's talk page, and I can search for more sources if necessary. (Ironically, his inclusion on so many albums makes it hard to search for significant coverage versus just personnel listings, but I've at least collected more sources than the original, deleted page had, judging by the state of Lenny Castro articles on other-language Wikipedias). Unfortunately, this page was SALTED after many people kept recreating it, but I believe that just means that there's at least some sort of audience interested in this musician. He easily meets the bare minimum for WP:GNG. At the very least, his inclusion on several hundreds of albums means that he should not redirect to Toto. Just searching his name on Wikipedia features several hundreds of articles mentioning him. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hypothetical sources? You haven’t listed them. Write a draft stub and include WP:THREE notability demonstrating sources.

SALTED? Have you asked anyone to de-SALT. The protecting admin, or at WP:RfPP? DRV is a review forum, not a desalt forum. It is well used to review an unreasonable refusal to de-salt. A good proposal to de-SALT also will benefit from a draft stub with WP:THREE good sources.

Endorse the AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe I listed the sources on his talk page. Please check them. I feel like it would be better to recover the page and add the sources to them, rather than restarting another draft article. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe This better?: Draft:Lenny Castro. There are currently 343 links on Wikipedia for Lenny Castro. There's a demand for a page that doesn't redirect to a band he was never signed to. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Mainspace the draft. NB. This gives no protection for the new article, and anyone may AfD it. I would AfD-!vote “keep”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your patience. Now we just wait for an admin to move it to the mainspace. (Unless others still endorse the AfD and reject the draft, which I obviously hope doesn't happen.) Why? I Ask (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The disadvantage of bringing this to DRV is that it has to wait for the DRV discussion to be closed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to WP:WINAB and WP:BB, I have moved Draft:Lenny Castro to Lenny Castro. If anyone now wishes to AFD it, they can; as for this DRV, I think we're done. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HAVEN Helpline (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

each party who created the organization has a block quote, that describes the organization differently. The most that can be said is the deleter should have requested a delete of allowable quotes. #MeToo 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So this was a Speedy deletion as a copyright infringement. I'm not clear what you're asserting as an error here--was the text donated via a compatible license? Appropriately cited/fair use quotation? Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse with full leave to re-start an article of substantially original work. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse apart from the one sentence History section the entire article consisted of copyrighted material in block quotes. Quotations from copyrighted sources are allowed here, but they have to be brief and they have to be used to illustrate a point (Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text). Quotation marks aren't a magic bullet which makes copyright problems go away, and you can't just copy loads of material from copyrighted sources and slap quotation marks around it. Removing the quoted material would have left the article as a one sentence stub with no context, so I think deletion was reasonable. If the OP wants that sentence back I'm sure we can oblige. Hut 8.5 07:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleting all the quotes would have left an article so short it would have been speedied under A1. Endorse without prejudice to creating a new copyright-compliant article. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The only part not quoted is On 1 June 2019, ACTRA and the Directors Guild of Canada jointly launched HAVEN Helpline for members in Canada, with 24-7 support, out-sourced from Morneau Shepell, with additional financial support from AFBS and Telefilm Canada.^[1][2], one wonders if it even qualifies as A7 [no claim of significance]. But yes, basing almost all of your article on text quoted from elsewhere is probably a copyright infringement, and quote marks do not make it OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Dubious promotional article , in need of major rewriting but not deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We cannot draftify copyright violations, and the only line that was not a copyright violation has already been quoted above. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Culturehall.JPG (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

File:Viangchanbank.JPG (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Files were deleted because of no acceptable FOP in Laos, which is true. However, enwiki can host unfree buildings through {{FoP-USonly}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't restoration requested at REFUND? Both of these files were deleted via nominations that received no comments. Courtesy ping for @ShakespeareFan00 -FASTILY 07:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrected the links to the deletion discussion. Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion has a giant notice saying that deletions pursuant to deletion discussions can't be appealed there and the deletions weren't marked as "soft deletion", either. So I can see why this was brought here. Anyhow, yes, enwiki only considers US copyrights and freedom of panorama applies here. So restore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect, that sounds a lot like pointless bureaucracy, which has no business being on Wikipedia. -FASTILY 21:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree, but the fact of the matter is that under these circumstances people are going to come here rather than at REFUND. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• JWilz12345, did you attempt to discuss the issue with the closing admin as WP:DELREVD instructs? Cases like these can be resolved a lot more quickly and don't require DRV at all. ✗plicit 15:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Explicit: I might get another note from there saying that such restorations must be made here as the files were deleted through a discussion page, notwithstanding the level of participation in those deletion requests (FFD/PUF), like the case of a Le Corbusier building from France (which I requested to be restored via Deletion Review recently). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As per requesting admins, I cannot determine who are still admins today and who are no longer admins, unlike Commons that has the feature to mark admins with "A" designation just beside their usernames (which I activated last year). I cannot tediously check on the deleting admins' current user rights statuses as I had been busy compiling deleted enwiki files at this userspace page of mine for reference. (P.S.: I found such FFDs via [1].) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would imagine the number of people deleting is relatively small, so checking if they are still active (admin or not) and asking doesn't sound like a big tedious process, if they are no longer an admin or not willing to undelete they will tell you, doesn't sound like a massive drain to me, certainly no more effort than a listing at DRV. At a worst reading you are suggesting your time is too valuable, but time of DRV participants isn't. Notwithstanding a solution such as Hobit suggests below is probably the right way to go. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @81.100.164.154: you don't know my real life schedules. I am a college student that has experienced some mental stress and breakdown lately, yet I was still able to make this tabular list of deleted files due to no FOP (now mostly via FFD, I will add deleted files via PUF around next month). But I may need to do my usual real life (off-wiki) errands which will slow down my expansion of that tabular list. Be more cautious in your comments, you may not know the real life errands and also off-wiki stress of users like me that conflict with my contribution to that userspace tabular list of mine, which I created in my belief that someday in the future some of no-FOP countries will introduce commercial FOP, and to ease the burden of other users of tediously searching the FFD/PUF deletion requests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly you have no idea about all the other users here, what priorities, stresses and otherwise they may have, so it's not clear why you'd be adverse to taking a different approach when queried, which in the end may be less burden all around. You didn't answer how it would be more onerous to group and ask the original deleting admins (who may either may say "no" for some reason (in which case DRV is still an option), or I suspect in many cases, if explained you intend to tag the undeletions correctly, will just do it) would be such a huge burden on you compared to listing them one by one on DRV. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JWilz12345: The English Wikipedia does have some user scripts that can make admin identification easier. One example is User:Amorymeltzer/crathighlighter, which highlights admin usernames in blue—you can install it by adding the text {{subst:iusc|User:Amorymeltzer/crathighlighter.js}} to the bottom of your common.js page at User:JWilz12345/common.js. Mz7 (talk) 02:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Mz7. I'll add it now. Though I am final in my withdrawal of these two requests. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JWilz12345: I hope you reconsider. The IP above was definitely out of line in suggesting that you were considering your time as more valuable than other editors. The reality is that it seems like you've already put in a lot of time and energy into investigating these files, which would improve the encyclopedia if we could restore them. I would hate to have it all go to waste. Mz7 (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw my request for deletion review/undeletion: after some discouraging inputs by an IP user (which simply isn't true!), I felt the lack of appetite to pursue this deletion review / restoration. Therefore I withdraw my request. No more mood to continue this request for restoration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stade de france.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Same reason as above. File was erroneously deleted despite the presence of a consensus since 2012 that unfree buildings can be locally hosted here even at their highest/fullest resolutions through {{FoP-USonly}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I am starting to request such architectural-FOP-related restorations via Deletion Review instead of UNDEL, after my request there to restore one file of a French building by Le Corbusier was denied on the grounds that UNDEL does not apply to pages deleted after a deletion discussion, FFD or PUF for instance. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No strong opinion on this from me. Courtesy pings for @Salavat & ShakespeareFan00 -FASTILY 07:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• No issue with restoration from me. Salavat (talk) 10:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, same argument as above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Should we update WP:UNDEL with this specific case (things which clearly fall under {{FoP-USonly}}?) Hobit (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hobit: I'm in favor of that, plus add another case: if a country finally introduces commercial-applicable FOP (which is suited for Commons), and eligible deleted files can be restored in a quicker manner. But I believe this is not the right forum for such proposals: it might be at enwiki's version of Commons:Village pump or other forum for proposals. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree it's not the right place for the discussion. I just want to see if the notion has support here. Hobit (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hobit: I now started this proposal at WP:Village pump (proposals). Hope I went in the right forum. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw my request for deletion review/undeletion: after some discouraging inputs by an IP user (which simply isn't true!), I felt the lack of appetite to pursue this deletion review / restoration. So I withdraw my request. No more mood to continue this request for restoration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Campbell (footballer) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Out of process early closure after only 2 days. Would probably have been closed as keep regardless due to the sheer amount of votes, but the sourcing was still being discussed after the last relist, and the closer's recent record doesn't inspire confidence that his snow keep was the best decision. This should be allowed to run its course normally. Avilich (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist as the discussion since the last relist was not moving towards a consensus, but instead reiterating the prior disagreements. Best to let the process play out. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously overturn and relist — have no idea what the closer could have been thinking. Discussion was ongoing, and at least one participant (me) was waiting for more thorough discussion of sources before !voting. JBL (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Pointless to overturn, it's a keep anyway. Govvy (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist because the relist was only one day prior to the close, and because consensus at that point was that there was 1 GNG source ([2]) but not 2, and GNG requires multiple sources (so, at least 2). Thus, the outcome (if applying WP:NOTAVOTE) was not clear at the time of the close, and !votes were still coming in. It should have been allowed to run longer to see if consensus formed. Levivich 15:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically this should be Overturn and Relist, but since they're obviously notable anyway, that seems to be pointless, so Endorse. We don't need to waste anyone else's time. Black Kite (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's obviously notable then ar1gue it in the AfD once it's reopened, not here. Avilich (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well that would a bit difficult unless I had the ability to time travel, since the AfD is closed. Together with that and your "dumb closing statement" comment from below, perhaps you need to think about WP:CIVIL, because you're giving the impression of someone who is being unnecessarily unpleasant. Black Kite (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that was an edit above to add "once it's reopened", with a edit summary of "duh" [3]. Excellent work. Black Kite (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting would just be a waste of time, the consensus to keep was clear. Endorse. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse clear consensus in that AFD that WP:GNG was met. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - clear consensus, and also the AFD was open for 9 days, not the 2 that the OP claims. It was only re-listed for 2, but that is not the same, and also does not matter when consensus was so clear. GiantSnowman 16:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I'm with Black Kite on this one. There's no way a non-admin should have been overriden User:Fenix down's relist 48-hours later without much new happening. At the same time, I can't understand why Fenix had relisted this after dozens of references, some meeting GNG, had been added to the artice before they relisted it, and was already discussing that with them on his talk page. I'd have brought the relist here or an appropriate forum, except that seemed POINTy, and the situation would resolve itself within a week. There's no point restarting an almost snowing keep on a significantly improved article that even User:Ficaia, who nominated it, had tried to withdraw 48 hours after it's nomination. Nfitz (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist as it had been relisted only couple of days prior, discussion was ongoing and it looks like there was only real consensus of 1 GNG source. Whatever the outcome will be, I feel it would be best to let the process play out and close this properly. Alvaldi (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps best, that an administrator had closed the AFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article was listed on AFD for 9 days, not 2. The relist rules clearly state that a relisted AFD may be closed as soon as consensus is clear, without the need to wait for a further 7 days. Stifle (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No prospect of consensus to delete. Poor AfD nomination. Pointless comment-free relist. If you think it should be deleted, see advice at WP:RENOM. If you think the discussion was becoming productive, continue on the article talk page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The relist should have been observed, so this close was out of process. Additionally, controversial closes, such as ones where the closer must actually weigh !votes rather than count them, should absolutely not be performed by non-administrators. I also share JayBeeEll's concern that the majority of keeps were entirely ignorant of the new (and old) NSPORT guidelines and should have been disregarded. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over 2 dozen references were added to the article, User:JoelleJay, after JBL first asked that; even JBL admits that one of them is good, meeting the minimum requirements of WP:SPORTCRIT (there's been no indication he's assessed all of them). And he's chosen to ignore Gale A84518769 from 2001, which also meets GNG. What's your issue with that reference? Nfitz (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's like a 300-word article published in The Advertiser (Adelaide) about a signing. It's even categorized by Gale as a "brief article". Not in-depth and thus not WP:SIGCOV. I've never understood how editors will point to something that short, that local, and that routine, and call it a GNG source. But, thank you for being the first person to point to a specific second source. Still, I think if that's the second-best source (and it is), then this subject doesn't meet GNG.
      Oh, and of the 346 words of that article, only 156 words are actually about Campbell, because half that article is about someone else. [4] Here is literally everything that article says about Campbell:

      City Force has made its first signing for the new season - 21-year-old New Zealand international Jeff Campbell. The highly-regarded midfielder from the Kingz soon should be followed with two more signings which coach Zoran Matic is confident will again make the Force a top-six finalist. "When we played the Kingz last season he (Campbell) gave us more problems than anyone else," Matic said. "We targeted him from the start and it's pleasing to know he's now an Adelaide City player. He will give us more steel in the midfield." Campbell has made 10 appearances with NZ but missed the World Cup qualifiers against Australia through injury. He also has represented NZ at under-20 and under-23 level. Campbell last season played in a wide position but preferred central midfield. "This is a good move for me because I feel playing in Australia will help my development," Campbell said. He is expected to arrive in Adelaide next month.

      The thing is, a closer should look at that, and say "this is not SIGCOV, no matter how many editors say it is, because WP:NOTAVOTE". And then the closer should say, "There are not two GNG sources here, no matter how many editors say there are, because WP:NOTAVOTE." Then the closer should close this as delete (or draftify, which is what I'd have !voted if I had voted).
      I remember this from the days when I regularly participated in FOOTY AFDs. People would put forward a paragraph and claim it's SIGCOV and meets GNG. I guess that hasn't changed. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich 16:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      And only 93 words are independent -- the quotes from the coach must be ignored since he is not independent of Campbell. Routine signing cruft. JoelleJay (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      The thing is, a closer should look at that, and say "this is not SIGCOV, no matter how many editors say it is, because WP:NOTAVOTE". And then the closer should say, "There are not two GNG sources here, no matter how many editors say there are, because WP:NOTAVOTE." Then the closer should close this as delete... That is the very definition of WP:SUPERVOTE. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dumping a bunch of trivial mentions/prosifying stats is the definition of WP:NOAMOUNT and WP:REFBOMB.

    SPORTCRIT presumes notability only if there are multiple SIGCOV sources. The single SIGCOV source requirement is for preventing automatic deletion of articles that are not under AfD discussion, it does not obviate the ultimate requirement of meeting GNG. And as Levivich said, that Gale article is clearly routine signing hype and does not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist- so that the actual requirements based on what the notability guidelines actually say can be adequately assessed. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse all the issues about WP:GNG/SIGCOV had been addressed with the article improved by that point. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It's clearly a keep, both in discussion and in looking at the current version of the article, and while procedurally incorrect, consensus was clear and relisting won't delete this article. SportingFlyer T·C 15:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus seems clear and I don't believe relisting would change anything. Calidum 16:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It's not clear that the first relist was necessary or proper. Per WP:RELIST "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." Thus, since consensus was clear before the relist, no further input was necessary for any editor to close the AfD. However, two additional keeps were logged in the two days of relisting, so it was abundantly clear that the outcome was not trending towards no consensus, let alone deletion. NAC was specifically proper for this reason. Avilich's arguing to reopen a decision based on non-existent policy, when he acknowledges that the appeal here is moot, is most consistent with WP:BURO WP:BATTLE behavior and this outcome should be internalized and not be repeated. Jclemens (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said it would probably be closed as keep due to the vote count (as it was), not that it should. But there was no consensus that the sourcing was enough for GNG. Avilich (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't have the authority to overturn numerical preponderance because that outcome is not compliant with a guideline, which notability is. Read WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS and WP:NHC: each references policy, not guidelines, and the former enumerates core policies and does not include notability anywhere in there. I don't know where people get the idea closers can discount !votes based on guidelines, since there's simply no policy allowing it: the ability to override by local consensus is what differentiates policy and guideline. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you overlooked the second last paragraph of WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area. BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Most admins will ignore rationale-free WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE !votes, and by rationale-free I include things like "Has enough sources" or "not enough sources". However, it's far more difficult to determine when you have disagreement about how good those sources are, as then it's not a binary notable/non-notable issue. Black Kite (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist - This one requires a thorough assessment of the arguments and whether or not the sourcing actually meets the requirements, not just a vote count, and is a poor candidate for NAC. I would also hope for a closing statement that explains their reasoning, since we're setting a precedent for edge cases like this. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Was listed for 9 days, consensus is clear. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse:
  • The AFD was open for 9 days. It was open on the relist for 2 days, and the rule to wait for 7 days does not mean to wait for 7 days after a relist.
  • The closer's statement that there was a consensus to keep is correct.
  • The closer should be cautioned about eager-beaver non-admin closes of AFDs.
    • The admins say that there isn't a significant backlog of AFDs, so that NACs are not essentially, only permitted.
    • Sometimes overly eager NAC closures come to DRV. Usually, the close was correct but the XFD was contentious, and so should not have been closed by NAC.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Endorse Per same reasoning and points described by Robert McClenon in the post just above this one. The discussion and results were problematic, but the close was correct. Any different close would have been a supervote. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse NAC are not to be given any less weight than admin closures, and discussion had been open 9 days, a "consensus keep" closure is clearly within the remit here. --Jayron32 12:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse clear consensus to keep.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist As consensus is based on strength of argument, not votes asserting (falsely) the inherent notability of footballers. AfD is not a vote. The multiple keep votes suggesting automatic notability of footballers should be disregarded as clearly violating community consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mervat Rashwan (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The no consensus close is based on the premise that "policy is uncertain" on the notability of footballers and any deletion nominations should be postponed until discussion is completed at WP:NFOOTYNEW. While I agree that we should be cautious about deleting articles that could be notable under new guidelines, the presumption of notability has been removed from all NSPORTS SNGs and NFOOTYNEW, if adopted, would only tell us whether the required significant coverage is likely to exist. There's no need to wait until a new guideline is adopted, as it wouldn't change the outcome for an article that has no SIGCOG sources whatsoever. I request that the discussion (which was relisted just yesterday by Fenix down) be reopened, allowed to run for a full week and then closed based on consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 01:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist A strange closing decision. The new notability rules are quite clear and were changed several weeks ago at this point. So the close should be made one way or the other and not be put as "No consensus" as some sort of supervote on "we just don't know". Silverseren^C 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn Out of process early closure. Dumb closing statement; the policy isn't uncertain, as SPORTCRIT is obviously the applicable guideline. Nonexistent guidelines like NFOOTYNEW have no bearing on present discussions. Avilich (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Early closure is for nominations that are withdrawn, speedy kept, speedy deleted, or snowballed - not for no consensus results where the relisting admin stated that would close as delete based on strength of arguments if significant coverage is not found. Further, closure should be based on current guidelines, not hypothetical future guidelines - and these hypothetical future guidelines will not overrule WP:SPORTCRIT #5, which requires articles with no significant coverage be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn. This was a bizarrely out-of-process close with zero grounding in current P&Gs (or old ones, for that matter). JoelleJay (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close - User:Dlthewave started this DRV already aware that the closer (User:力) had self-referred his own recent Football closes to AN (at WP:AN#Football-related AFDs, where this page was already being discussed. This is WP:FORUMSHOPing, and the AN discussion surely takes precedent. Nfitz (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly doesn't. Deletion decisions are reviewed here, not on the AN.—S Marshall T/C 07:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that 力 directly said to take the closes to DRV in that AN thread. Silverseren^C 07:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Somehow I missed that the AN reference was just about insults, not the close itself; most of the following discussion there has been about the close. My apologies. Nfitz (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, too controversial for NAC at this point in time.—S Marshall T/C 07:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. A non-admin over-riding an Admin just isn't on, especially when things are controversial. That said, I'm concerned about User:Fenix down's threat to supervote - which may bring us back here again soon. Nfitz (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and re-list purely because it should not have been closed the day after re-listing. GiantSnowman 08:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist because, as stated above, the point of relisting is to give more time for a consensus to form, and closing the day after is contrary to that purpose. XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist — obviously. JBL (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, though I suspect the outcome will end up being the same. Black Kite (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps best that an administrator had closed the AFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (revert the close) WP:Supervote and WP:BADNAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Inexplicable premature close if the outcome is "no consensus". Let the relist(s) play out. Any discussion at WP:NFOOTYNEW is independent, as it is not an accepted guideline at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, per all of the above. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist on procedural grounds - I would have endorsed if there was a week between relisting and the close as I agree with the close. SportingFlyer T·C 15:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl-Erik Nilsson (footballer) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The no consensus close is based on the premise that consensus cannot be reached until discussion at WP:NFOOTYNEW is complete. While I agree that we should be cautious about deleting articles that could be notable under new guidelines, the presumption of notability has been removed from all NSPORTS SNGs and NFOOTYNEW, if adopted, would only tell us whether the required significant coverage is likely to exist. There's no need to wait until a new guideline is adopted, as it wouldn't change the outcome for an article that has no SIGCOG sources whatsoever. I request that the discussion (which was relisted just yesterday by Fenix down) be reopened, allowed to run for a full week and then closed based on consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 01:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist A strange closing decision. The new notability rules are quite clear and were changed several weeks ago at this point. So the close should be made one way or the other and not be put as "No consensus" as some sort of supervote on "we just don't know". Silverseren^C 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn Out of process early closure. Dumb closing statement. Nonexistent guidelines like NFOOTYNEW have no bearing on present discussions, SPORTCRIT is what matters. Avilich (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Early closure is for nominations that are withdrawn, speedy kept, speedy deleted, or snowballed - not for no consensus results where the relisting admin stated that would close as delete based on strength of arguments if significant coverage is not found. Further, closure should be based on current guidelines, not hypothetical future guidelines - and these hypothetical future guidelines will not overrule WP:SPORTCRIT #5, which requires articles with no significant coverage be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn. As with the other AfD, this was a completely inappropriate close both procedurally and based on P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 06:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. A non-admin over-riding an Admin just isn't on, especially when things are controversial. That said, I'm concerned about User:Fenix down's threat to supervote - which may bring us back here again soon. Nfitz (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I was the only one who felt a redirect was the best option, I can't honestly see enough evidence online that demonstrates GNG, regardless of the player, playing for the most notable club in Sweden. Govvy (talk) 08:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and re-list purely because it should not have been closed two days after re-listing. GiantSnowman 08:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist on the grounds that closing the day after a relist, when the two new !votes being a "keep" and a "delete", is just a strange thing to do. XOR'easter (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist — obviously. JBL (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per the above entry. Black Kite (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, per above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps it would've been better, if an administrator had closed the AFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per above Hhkohh (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Inappropriate close. Supervote. BADNAC. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Inexplicable premature close if the outcome is "no consensus". Let the relist(s) play out. Any discussion at WP:NFOOTYNEW is independent, as it is not an accepted guideline at this point.—Bagumba (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, per all of the above. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn on procedural grounds, though it's probably the correct result in this zeitgeist. SportingFlyer T·C 15:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Games (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article Dream Games was deleted on the 24th of March, 2022 even though there were reliable sources and the latest decision was Keep. The article was added to the Articles_for_deletion/Dream_Games because someone on Wikimedia stated that the article was a company creation. However, this user has never done any edits to this article. This link also shows that the company is a legit one developing mobile games. There are also many articles in many independent sources that passes according to WP:NCORP WP:NCORP like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 H5r2n (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The filer of this DRV placed it in the wrong section with the effect that it was reverted by a maintenance bot. I am restoring it here. Stifle (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue where failures to follow deletion process are handled. It is not a venue to argue or re-argue points about the quality of the article; the time and place for this was the AFD. Stifle (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there is currently a draft for this here Draft:Dream Games. Avilich (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The articles presented here don't seem like a clear error was made in deleting the article, though I have no problem if someone wants to create a draft if sources were better. There were promotional and NCORP concerns but also delete !voters who didn't think notability was that far off, but the overall deletion appears correct from the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 15:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 21:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus was too delete. Respect that decision, for at least six months. If you really think consensus was wrong, try draftspace and the advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse See both WP:THREE & Articles_for_deletion/Dream_Games. LittleNirvana (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Bukhman (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am now writing the missing billionaires from the latest Forbes ranking (see my page). Some already have articles about them in non-English versions of Wikipedia. Igor Bukhman is one of those. I only see that Igor Bukhman was deleted by Ged UK because it was created by a blocked editor.

As of 2022, the Bukhmans are ranked #3 and #4 on the list of the richest Israelis. There is a good article (ru:Бухман, Игорь Анатольевич on Russian Wikipedia. And I have created short stub (User:Rotterdamned/Igor Bukhman). His biography does not equal the history of the company, it cannot be pushed into an article about Playrix. Rotterdamned (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow creation of draft or article but no action at DRV is required for that purpose because no judgment was made as to notability. The G5 does not prevent creation of a new article by an editor in good standing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rotterdamned: I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for with these requests. If you want to move your draft version to mainspace then you don't need to come here to do it. In general you don't need to get permission before recreating a deleted page, regardless of the reason for deletion. If your version also qualifies for deletion for some reason then it can be deleted, but that would be true if you weren't recreating a deleted page. These pages were deleted because the author is banned, which doesn't stop any editor who isn't banned from writing an article about the subject and doesn't mean the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Deletion review is only really necessary if you want the old versions of these pages to be restored, but that doesn't sound like what you're asking for. Hut 8.5 18:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Unnecessary request/wrong venue. If you want to move the article into mainspace, just do it. If you want to submit it for review, put {{subst:submit}} at the top. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, I got it! The problem was that the articles about the brothers were originally created by the blocked editor and not that they did not have enough significance. And if there are no restrictions, I will recreate the article. --Rotterdamned (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not in scope for DRV. People should not think that DRV is a gate that needs passing, or that approval at DRV gives any protection.

The article has been created at 5278 bytes in a single edit, and attribution is a concern. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So? Attribution is only needed to attribute the content to the author, the article was created by Rotterdamned and consists entirely of material written by Rotterdamned in a sandbox, so the attribution requirements are satisfied. Hut 8.5 08:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. All ok then. Still, advise Rotterdamned to note in the edit summary where the text came from. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Bukhman (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am now writing the missing billionaires from the latest Forbes ranking (see my page). Some already have articles about them in non-English versions of Wikipedia. Dmitry Bukhman is one of those. Now the article Dmitry Bukhman redirects to the Playrix. I did not understand from the edit history what happened there, but I assume it was deleted for about the same reasons as Igor Bukhman's article was deleted. It says it was created by a blocked author.

As of 2022, the Bukhmans are ranked #3 and #4 on the list of the richest Israelis. There is a good article (ru:Бухман, Дмитрий Анатольевич on Russian Wikipedia. And I have created short stub (User:Rotterdamned/Dmitry Bukhman). His biography does not equal the history of the company, it cannot be pushed into an article about Playrix. Rotterdamned (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow review of draft

. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The userpage draft can be submitted while it is in userspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand the procedure... Isn't the draft in my userspace? Rotterdamned (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unnecessary request/wrong venue. If you want to move the article into mainspace, just do it. If you want to submit it for AFC review, put {{subst:submit}} at the top. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you very much for the comments! Replaced the redirection with a new text. --Rotterdamned (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I worry that Rotterdamned (talk · contribs) has not met WP:Copying within Wikipedia and is creating copyright violations. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no copyright violation here, the material was written by Rotterdamned in a sandbox and the edit adding it to mainspace was made by Rotterdamned, so the content is correctly attributed to Rotterdamned as required by the licence. You only have to provide additional attribution if you're adding material written by someone else. Hut 8.5 08:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Storonsky (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am now writing the missing billionaires from the latest Forbes ranking (see my page). Some already have articles about them in non-English versions of Wikipedia. Nik Storonsky (or Nikolay Storonsky - I'm having trouble telling how to spell his name correctly. He seems to have decided to shorten it). The article was also merged with the Revolut article in 2018, since it had no independent relevance. I think it would be right to separate Storonky from the company. But then again, a company does not equal a person. And he is now on the list of the richest people in the UK (7.1B). I prepared a draft (User:Rotterdamned/Nik Storonsky). Rotterdamned (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow review of draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The userpage draft can be submitted while it is in userspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Unnecessary request/wrong venue. If you want to move the article into mainspace, just do it. If you want to submit it for AFC review, put {{subst:submit}} at the top. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, I will move Storonsky to the main space. Thank you very much for your help, it's really not all obvious. --Rotterdamned (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Rotterdamned, your wrote “move” but I am not sure you appreciate the important difference between WP:MOVE and copy-pasting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)User:Rotterdamned[reply]

• There is no problem here, the material was written by Rotterdamned in a sandbox and the edit adding it to mainspace was made by Rotterdamned, so the content is correctly attributed to Rotterdamned as required by the licence. You only have to provide additional attribution if you're adding material written by someone else. Hut 8.5 08:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'Oréal HQ.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted as unfree file (no FOP in France). However, this should be OK here and add {{FoP-USonly}}. File log seems to indicate it was originally a freely-licensed file before morphing into an unfree file. If so this should be reverted to original full resolution upon restoration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It was tagged, by the uploader, as both {{cc-by-2.0}} (because it was) and {{non-free fair use in}} (out of an abundance of caution, since it's non-free in its country of origin); {{FoP-USonly}} didn't exist at the time of upload. That interpretation was tested and upheld at ffd. The speedy tag - {{di-replaceable fair use|date=13 November 2020|1=Non-free photographs fail [[WP:NFCCP]] #1. If it is the uploader's work, as they claim, the original file should be transferred to Commons instead.|help=off}} - was preposterous, and the image unspeedyable due to surviving an ffd that examined the specific reason it was later speedied for. I submit that neither the tagger nor the deleting admin so much as looked at what they were tagging and deleting. Overturn. —Cryptic 20:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps I'll ping the uploader Tangopaso, deleting admin @Explicit:, and admin @King of Hearts: who is (if I'm not mistaken) one of the pioneers(?) of {{FoP-USonly}}. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JWilz12345: I didn't get this ping, but I happen check DRV every few days and saw this now. Per Template:Reply to, "The notification will work successfully only if you sign your post in the same edit in which you use this template." Worth noting for future use. ✗plicit 02:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore. The original FFD describes the situation regarding FOP in France leading to no possibility of a free image being possible (Personally that is one which I might have wanted to challenge more, since it's possible that the copyright holder of the building could release a free image, though that leads to other questions as to what they'd be releasing... but that's a digression, as FoP-USonly now exists it is moot). Not sure what attempting to opine on how the tagger and deleter might have missed the mark achieves. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. The CSD:F7 deletion was clearly invalid; a page that has survived XFD cannot later be speedied for that reason. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Stifle. CSD#F7 isn't one of the speedy deletion criteria that can be used after an XFD that didn't result in deletion. Hobit (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For context, this image was deleted on the basis that a freely licensed image on Commons had existed for two years prior to deletion: File:Extension siège L'Oréal (43707042205).jpg. The idea that a page can not be speedily deleted due to a previous XFD is certainly not true, the fifth paragraph in the lead section of WP:CSD even states this. File:L'Oréal HQ.jpg was marked with {{Non-free fair use in}} when it was uploaded in April 2010, though Template:FoP-USonly was not created until May 2011. On its face, it violates WP:NFCC#1. If the uploader intends to license it entirely under a free license, then restoration could have been done by request. WP:DRV#Instructions step one, anyone? ✗plicit 02:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This seems wrong to me. The file would only fail NFCC#1 if it was non-free in the US. It's impossible to take a photograph of this subject unless you're standing in France, and France has no freedom of panorama, so exactly the same problems apply to the so-called "freely licenced" image as to the deleted one.—S Marshall T/C 05:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "The idea that a page can not be speedily deleted due to a previous XFD is certainly not true"

  But it is for this page; F7 is not one of the criteria which allow a previously-kept file to be speedy-deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Procedurally the speedy deletion was invalid for the reasons explained above by Stifle. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Stifle and S Marshall. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As Stifle states, it's not a criteria listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Religious community (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please restore the history to this article, which is now a disambig page. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 02:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks like the page history of this article has all been restored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I will withdraw this request. --evrik ^(talk) 04:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Long Face Jack Manifold (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The reasons provided for the deletion of the article do not apply in the slightest. The reasons given were G3 and G10, and the reasons they are invalid are given below.

- It is not vandalism, a hoax, or misinformation

- It does not disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass Jack Manifold, his supporters, or those close to him

- It does not attack any of the aforementioned groups

- The article is not unsourced, as claimed in the deletion, as the oldest source of the image online was provided

- The image that the article centered around was not meant to mock the man in question, as the image was both taken and posted by someone that personally knows him, with the posting having his go-ahead

Tealyt - I agree on reflection that G10 doesn't apply, as I've pretty much said on my talk page. I maintain that G3 just about does, however it is probably borderline and am entirely open to being convinced otherwise. How about this - I can restore the content to your userspace / draftspace for you to work on there? firefly ( t · c ) 11:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn G3/G10 deletion and redelete as clear A7 (non-notable individual). Stifle (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: An effort appears to be in progress at Draft:Jack Manifold where this content could, in theory, be placed if it were shown that the individual in question is notable. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The individual has a very large social media following and is a member of the Dream SMP, which in my opinion qualifies as being notable. Tealyt (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know or care about MineCraft but have no issues with a compliant article being written and added. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of whether this meets G3 or not, it's clearly not an appropriate article. The subject is a distorted picture of a YouTuber we don't even have an article on and it was referenced exclusively to a couple of Twitter posts. Even if it is restored here it is guaranteed to get deleted one way or another in that state. Hut 8.5 18:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Comité 1973 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer interpreted as “reasonable argument” to keep the page of a self-published, non-notable digital magazine because some automated Google Book that scraped Wikipedia content mentioned it. The article in question was created by a huge amount of single-purpose accounts that were unmasked by French Wikipedia editors, one of which attempted to impersonate me by copying my userpage content but would immediately fail a checkuser test. It blatantly fails all five criteria in WP:BOOKCRIT, come on. Born2bgratis (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete I don't see a no consensus there - I see a lightly attended AfD with two delete !voters and two keep !voters, one of which makes an incomprehensible argument for keeping and the other makes an argument for keeping that is not only rebutted, but the voter even agreed with the fact they were rebutted. I'd probably be a "weak overturn to delete" due to the low participation but it also appears the argument to delete is fairly strong as the sourcing isn't there (which should have been made in the discussion) and it's been scrubbed from other wikis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. The closer fell into error in ascribing value to keep votes which were based on sources that were mirrors/duplicates. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete of the two keep comments one doesn't make any viable points at all and focuses on attacking the nominator, and the other one relied on sources which were Wikipedia mirrors. These aren't strong arguments. Furthermore the nominator's point that "There are no third-party, non-user-generated sources anywhere to be found" was not addressed. WP:V requires that article subjects must have third-party reliable sources, and per WP:DGFA AfD closes have to be consistent with the verifiability policy regardless of the opinions of the participants. Hut 8.5 12:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. The nomination perhaps doesn't lay out the argument the best, and the delete voter likewise, but the keeps are an SPA apparently setup to attack the nominator and the other is rebutted. Their follow on point that the subject may not be related to the problems is a non-argument as it doesn't address sourcing or notability issues at all, and I'm not aware of any criteria which specifies not being involved in fakes leads to inclusion, so how the closer concluded they had some reasonable point seems weird. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepColef recently invited their community to participate with the magazine. The publication is already included in an important enciclopedia in Mexico. Please help to improve the article. Ninadents (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC) — Ninadents (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Endorse - I don't see a consensus to delete. I certainly see that concluding that there was no consensus is a reasonable conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete- One keep argument was verifiably rebutted, the other was a borderline incoherent rant against the character of the nominator that I do not care to reward. Reyk _YO! 23:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to delete I'm not seeing a valid argument for keeping in the AfD. And I can't find one in the article either. The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is the language barrier. I'd rather be more sure here, but... Hobit (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrongly closed, but relist The new sources listed below seem like enough to have a further discussion. But I do think that the closer misclosed based on the discussion as it existed. Hobit (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I also don't see a consensus to delete. You can read here several academic articles that mention the magazine. The user that originally proposed to delete the article has made vandalism, he is in a crusade to erase anything related with the publication. --Sizesdefoes (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC) — Sizesdefoes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• You're not fooling anybody. —Cryptic 01:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct. Quite obviously the same person who made the inarticulate personal attacks against the nominator in the AfD. Reyk _YO! 07:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I closed this discussion at AfD, so I'm entering no declaration. Upon re-reading it, I agree with the above arguments that the "keep" !votes carry little weight, and I did not examine their evidence closely enough. However, I would point out that of the two !votes to delete, only one (the nominator) engaged with the substance directly; that simply isn't enough for a consensus for deletion, and I stand by the "no consensus" assessment overall. Today, I would likely close as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer did exactly what is expected: evaluated what was before them. The discussion appears a mess and it was relisted twice; I cannot see any other option than no consensus and no prejudice against a speedy renom. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and relist as a new AfD. The closing admin was within their discretion to close the discussion as "no consensus". Both the "keep" and "delete" arguments did not discuss the sources enough. The "keep" participant Dr.KBAHT began their comment with these two sentences: "The discussion should be focused on the subject, not the users. I see good sources. For example, the 1st one is perfectly valid." The first source in the article was:
  • "El Comité 1973 - Detalle de Instituciones - Enciclopedia de la Literatura en México - FLM - CONACULTA". www.elem.mx. Retrieved 2019-08-15.

    This is an encyclopedia entry about El Comité 1973. The entry provides three paragraphs of coverage about the magazine. From Google Translate:

    The magazine El Comité 1973 is a Mexican, digital and bimonthly magazine produced since July 30, 2012 by the literary group "El Comité", dedicated to dissemination, criticism and literary creation. Its mission is to spread literary texts and visual works of different creators in order to increase the culture of people around the world. As for the year that is part of the name, 1973, it alludes to the date of the death of the poet Pablo Neruda, which, in some way, tries to be a tribute to this Nobel Prize winner, whom Gabriel García Márquez called: "the greatest 20th century poet in any language”."

    According to a translation of es:Enciclopedia de la Literatura en México, "The Encyclopedia of Literature in Mexico (ELEM) is an encyclopedia on Mexican literature edited by the Fundación de las Letras Mexicanas, supported by the Ministry of Culture and the National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature of Mexico."
  I did not see this source addressed by the discussion's "delete" participants, so I am basing my endorsement of the "no consensus" close on this point. The rest of Dr.KBAHT's argument for retention was weak as it was based on sources "probably rephrased using AI".

  I am giving no weight to the "keep" argument from AYSO60, who did not provide any policy-based arguments for retention. The arguments from Born2bgratis and Whiteguru were policy-based but they did not address the first source cited by Dr.KBAHT when Dr.KBAHT wrote, "For example, the 1st one is perfectly valid".

  There was another source in the article that is potentially reliable but that I cannot find online:

  • Guzmán Pérez, Mario (October 3, 2017). ""Buena literatura independiente difunde El Comité 1973"". El Sol de Hidalgo (México). p. Sección Cultura.

    This article was published by es:El Sol de Hidalgo. From Google Translate: "El Sol de Hidalgo is a local newspaper from the city of Pachuca de Soto, in Mexico. It is one of the newspapers with the highest circulation and sales in the city and in the state, one reason is that its cost is low compared to other newspapers. It is owned and a member of the Mexican Editorial Organization, the largest journalistic company in Mexico."

  I support a relist to allow for in-depth discussion of the sources since the AfD under review did not do this. I support relisting as a new AfD since the AfD under review was closed in July 2021.

  Cunard (talk) 09:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If we weren't totally sure this was an "overturn to delete", the relisting that Cunard suggests should be as a semi-protected AfD.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The AfD likely reached the wrong conclusion, but closers are not expected to engage with the arguments and sources presented to such a degree that they are to be able to form their own opinion about who's right (this creates the risk of supervotes). They must only make a prima facie assessment of the arguments so as to be able to discount obviously meritless ones, and prima facie there was no consensus here. If desired, a new AfD can be started. Sandstein 07:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but immediately relist/reopen - endorse per Sandstein's argument, but no need for us to wait for someone else to nominate when it appears we should indeed be having a different discussion. Should the DRV nom indicate that they will do so, we can just endorse and leave it to them. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; relist as a new AfD. I can't really fault the closer here: even if we heavily discount the keep !votes, the low participation makes it very difficult to justify closing as delete, per Goldsztajn et al. The best option here is simply to start afresh, particularly since there are now new arguments (e.g. Cunard's) that need to be considered. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Country, Cornwall (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted in 2015 because it was apparently a housing estate without official recognition as a hamlet, village, or town however it is an OS settlement[5] and is even an ONS BUA with its own population data. I'm not sure if being an ONS BUA makes it a legally recognized place per WP:GEOLAND but IMO is is probably at least strong evidence it is. It was later created as a redirect to Redruth its parish but should probably be a separate article. I suggest at least the edit history should be restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a "built up area" with a population of less than 1,000. I know of nothing geologically or historically significant about it. What is there to write?—S Marshall T/C 23:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Nomination misrepresents the AfD. Topic failed GNG. It couldn’t have been closed any other way. If the reasons for deletion have not been overcome, and you want to try anyway, then use draftspace. You may request a WP:REFUND to draftspace to get started. If you want to get serious, read advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Do not restore history behind the redirect. I am considering RfD-ing the redirect due to the term not being mentioned at the target. Keep the history intact, either behind the deleted article, or in draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is another DRV request where it is not entirely clear what the appellant is requesting or what the issue is. Are they saying that the closer should have kept the article, or that the editors in the AFD should have given different answers, or that they want the deleted article restored to mainspace, or that they want the deleted article restored to draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Nothing because it isn't clear what the appellant is requesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's pretty clear that he wants to turn the redirect into an article with the edit history restored underneath.—S Marshall T/C 09:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can’t see any evidence that this would be a good idea. He should be sent to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore edit history which seems like a reasonable request, although having actually seen it I don't think it's going to be much use to the OP. The deleted article was two sentences long, apart from a generic citation to "Google Maps" all of the references are talking about a Methodist chapel in that location rather than the housing estate. I'm not convinced that the subject meets GEOLAND, which says that "census tracts are usually not considered notable", but a sparsely attended AfD from 2015 shouldn't get in the way of another creation. Hut 8.5 09:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The term is not mentioned at the target, and so the redirect should be deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Deleting an otherwise harmless redirect with an edit history which someone thinks would be potentially useful strikes me as counterproductive. Hut 8.5 12:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not a census tract, it is a named population centre. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You said that you think it passes GEOLAND because the ONS lists it. I think that's a similar situation to what we would have with census tracts - merely being used by an official body for statistical purposes isn't enough to constitute legal recognition. Hut 8.5 12:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It may pass GEOLAND if being a census settlement makes it "legally recognized". It is not similar to a census tract, a census tract is generally a random area of land as opposed to a named settlement. An example of a census tract is E00095472 with a population of 335 compared with 773 for North Country. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore edit history I agree with Hut's analysis. Hobit (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore edit history as explained. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore edit history per above. There's a chance this would be deleted again at AfD but there's a reasonable chance it could survive, and even though there's not much there to restore, this could easily be adopted again. (I will note that there are signs at the entrance of North Country informing you that's where you are per Google Street View, which I'd take - while obviously not conclusive - as a good sign for GEOLAND.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This should not even be a redirect, there is no information on North Country at the target page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well yes that would be something for RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the AfD in question was for deletion, not redirection, I think that's a determination that can be made while we're here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Take no action. The entirety of the deleted article was: "North Country is a village in Cornwall, England." Crouch, Swale is wasting the community's time by requesting deletion review to restore something as trivial, and I consider this disruptive conduct. Sandstein 07:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the article's history under the redirect. Even though the article history contains trivial content as described by Sandstein, the DRV request was reasonable since non-admins like the DRV nominator do not have access to the deleted history so are unable to see what it contained. I support restoring the article history so that it is available to non-admins.

  When there is an alternative to deletion, I always support keeping the article's history accessible to non-admins if there are no BLP violations or copyright violations or anything else that should be publicly inaccessible in the history. The article may contain useful content for a merge or useful sources. The article may have unreliable sources that cannot be cited. But the unreliable sources may have information that helps editors find reliable sources that can be used. Without having to ask an admin to restore to draft, a non-admin who is interested in recreating the article with better sourcing and content can immediately view the prior state of the article to see if anything can be reused.

  North Country, Cornwall currently is a redirect to Redruth, which does not mention North County, Cornwall. This would result in deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion if not addressed. I still support restoration as this concern is surmountable. If it would be undue weight to mention North County, Cornwall, in Redruth, another option is to retarget the redirect to List of United Kingdom locations: Ni-North G, where it is already mentioned.

  Cunard (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Reagrding undue weight its normal to redirect (and mention) other settlements in a parish if they are considered not notable, see Kersey Tye>Kersey, Suffolk for example. In this case it could perhaps be mentioned further down if not in the lead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plus (film) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed on the basis of no sources. There are multiple reliable reviews here, here, here. The film is as one of those rare sci-fi films in Sandalwood (Kannada cinema). Notable sources here, here and here. Article should be restored. DareshMohan (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied to User:DareshMohan/Plus (film). I can happily restore any deleted article that is not vandalism, libel or copyvio to user or draft space. There's no need to drag this out at DRV. In any case, the AfD in question had nobody requesting anything other than deletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Soroka (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As the author of this joke AfD, I ask for its G7/MfD (I participated in both discussions) be overturned to userfication. Although I will disagree with the MfD's reasoning that the April Fools AfD aren't funny (I think they are), I believe that userfication would be harmless enough that it would not disturb the consensus too much.NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NotReallySoroka I'm not sure why I was notified on my talk page as I had nothing to do with this at all. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWeather, you closed the MfD involving my AfD. I will notify the deleting admin soon. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd disagree on the grounds that userification would encourage continued disruption in the name of "humour." SportingFlyer T·C 13:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see a problem with userfying it. The result of the MfD was to move them to a subpage of Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021, so moving it somewhere else shouldn't be a big deal. Hut 8.5 18:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Help me out here. This appears to have been deleted by G7. Was the G7 correct? And why isn't this at WP:REFUND per the statement by the deleting admin at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Soroka&action=edit&redlink=1? Hobit (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still unclear on why this is here, but assuming the nom was the one who requested a G7, I'm fine with restoring it--ideally where the rest of that MfD were restored to, but userfication is okay too. Hobit (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Like the others above, I can't imagine why this went straight to DRV instead of REFUND. Noting for the record that I was not consulted/contacted prior to this DRV nomination. -FASTILY 02:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hobit and Fastily, I am sending the page here because my decision to G7 the page has to do in part with the MfD. Had I sent it to REFUND, I might have been referred back to here. The deletion entry even included a link to the MfD page. Lastly, I am not sure whether I am obligated to notify anyone except the closer. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a peculiar logic because it *might* have happened I came here, yet here *might* have just bounced you to REFUND. Given the deletion log specifically directs to REFUND (it even includes a link), and the deletion discussion doesn't result in a deletion, I'm really doesn't seem likely it would have been directed here. The point in using REFUND and/or talking to the closer/deleting admin is that it tends be a quicker resolution in simpler cases (which this appears to be), rather than going to a multi-day discussion here, though I guess since this is april fools from a year ago, time isn't really of the essence. The instructions say notify the closer, because that's whose decision is usually being discussed, in this case it was someone else who did the actual deletion so it's their decision, the pre-instructions also suggest discussion where the closer, who I'm sure would have directed you to the right person if that had happen. Of course none of this really matters now, since we are here and discussing it. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy per request. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow undeletion subject to consistency with the result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Unfunny AfDs from April Fools 2021.

Don’t come here because someone *might* say something at REFUND. Go to REFUND, and If rejected, then consider coming here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline userfication. Joke AfDs and DRVs about them are all a waste of community time. Sandstein 15:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Endorse G7 deletion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assisi Convent School (Noida) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was about the only convent school and one of the first schools in the whole town called Noida and have been deleted (I think in prejudice) without properly looking into the article, especially its notability. There were many links outside of the schools own website used as reference. Its possible that many of the links would have become dead or archived, but it should not result in the deletion of the article as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 06:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment)Comment: Suggesting that the article may have been deleted in prejudice implies that the deleting administrator was acting in consideration of his own personal interests instead of the interests of Wikipedia. Is that the argument you really want to make here? Have you already tried to discuss your concerns over the article's deletion with the deleting administrator? Although such a thing isn't required, it's generally considered courteous to do so, often leads to clarification and even a quicker resolution in some cases. Anyway, you're correct that Wikipedia notability is not temporary, but it's also just as correct that Wikipedia notability requires verifiable evidence. Are you suggesting that new sources can be found to establish the Wikipedia notability of the school, or that the sources cited in the article at the time of deletion were already sufficient for that purpose. In the case of the former, perhaps you can clarify what these sources might be for the consideration of the deleting administrator and anyone else participating in this discussion. If, however, you're arguing the latter, then those sources were assessed by those participating in the AFD for the school and the consensus reached was that they weren't sufficient. Based on what was discussed in the AFD, the close doesn't appear to have been improper in any way, and a different administrator most likely would've closed the discussion in exactly the same way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strikeout sentence about article being deleted in prejudice since the OP has clarified what they meant in a subsequent post. -- 21:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)][reply]

• Commentuser:Marchjuly By prejudice they probably mean salted, and are mistaken. McClenon mobile (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• They've already clarified what they meant below and that's good enough for me to strike that bit from my post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dismiss with prejudice is a legal term which means to dismiss an action with a prejudgment against filing it again. Deleting an article with prejudice means salting it, so that it cannot be recreated. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it necessarily implies the deleting administrator was biased as the project struggles with topics from certain geographical regions, including the topic of schools (though you are correct that it does assume bad faith on someone's part.) However the discussion with the closing admin would have been helpful here - it was a pretty easy close for someone since it was unanimous, but also a light discussion and on a topic where outcomes can sometimes be a struggle. I can't see the article but if there are salvageable sources, I'd be fine restoring to draft, and if not I'd be fine with a re-creation, assuming there are sources available. SportingFlyer T·C 08:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't imply that the deleting administrator had something personal against the article. Sorry if it comes out like this. I was just trying to say that a little more deliberation could have been done especially regarding notability. Also that the sources cited in the article at the time of deletion were already sufficient for notability in my opinion. Moreover more references would come out subsequently in time, perhaps from notable sources also. If the consensus is still resulting in deletion, I think there should be atleast some proper way to retrieve the contents of the article so that it can be improved for future ~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 11:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Those in the discussion saw the sources and concluded differently, why should DRV substitute your opinion that they were already sufficient? Likewise how long does a discussion need to last before you determine enough deliberation has been had, we can't leave discussions open forever. On the point of future sources appearing, that's not a reasonable way of doing it, on that basis we should create articles on just about everything on the basis that in the future there might be sources. Do you have additional sources (of suitable quality i.e. independant, non-trivial etc.) that weren't available at the time of the discussion? --81.100.164.154 (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those in discussion did conclude differently, I agree, but to be frank, I feel the Notability criteria can be a little subjective. I mean, since its almost impossible to clearly and objectively define notability criteria for each type of article topic, its the reviewer's own subjective interpretation of the Notability guidelines which finally defines the outcome. So I think a little more time could have been given to the deliberation so that all editors of the article would have a chance to give their opinions & options (clearly one week is not enough I guess). On the point of future sources appearing, WP:NTEMP suggests that an article maybe recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article. Since most of the references about this article would be in Hindi sources (there were already a few third party reliable Hindi news sources as references in the article), and searching in Hindi is not as easy as searching in English, I am hopeful of many new sources coming up in future. If it still does not merit a standalone article, WP:GNG suggest that it can be a sub section of another article. But for that we need the content of the article and instead of AfD, the article should have been requested for merge or something similar. In general, I would also say that, any article that is being deleted should have some way of retrieval of contents, atleast to the article creator, so that it can be improved. So I request Allow Recreation of Draft atleast~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 07:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How much time would you have considered it appropriate for the discussion to run? You were notified of the AFD on your user talk page on October 27, 2021, but you never commeneted in the AFD at all. Delsort notifications were added for three WikiProjects and it still only received a couple of !votes. The discussion was closed a week later which seems short, but there was no indication of any more time being needed. Even if the close had been relisted another week for further discussion, it doesn't appear that the outcome would've changed. Should the close had been postponed until you commented in it or until a certain number of users commented in it? According to your contribution's history, you didn't make any edits between September 2, 2021 and March 9, 2022. After you resumed editing on March 9, you didn't edit again until a month later on April 12 when you opened this DR. That's fine because we all get busy or we all decide to spend our time in other ways, but I don't we can expect Wikipedia to wait to do what it feels it needs to do until the timing is better for us. In addition, Wikipedia isn't going to wait on deleting an article just on the hope that more sources might possibly show up in the future; they either exist now or they don't, and if they don't then it's most likely WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article created. Furthermore, since nobody requested that the article be merge or something similiar, there was no reason for the closing administrator to consider such a thing. If, however, you feel that content about the school can probably be added to another article, then you're free to do so. You don't need the article to be recreated as a draft to do that; just find reliable sources that discuss the school and incorporate content that reflects those sources into the other article. Then, if the school does start receiving more singificant coverage in reliable sources (like you hope will happen) to justify a stand-alone article, the content about the school could probably be split of into its own article. There are five reasons listed in WP:CLOSE#Challenging a deletion for which a close might be challenged. The only one of the five that might possibly be applicable in this case is (in my opinion) #3. So, if you're able to provide significant information which wasn't considered at the AfD, then please do so. However, you can't just say that such information might maybe someday exist, you have actually show that it already exists. Even if this new information is in Hindi, you can still point it out so that it can be considered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not very active during the deletion discussion due to real life matters and have been away from wikipedia for a long time. However I agree with what you say as a way forward. As far as I can get, These are some of the resources I could find [6], [7], [8], [9] ~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 07:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As the only opinions were to delete and no one had commented in a few days, I don't see what deliberation was going on that extending time would have changed anything. As you note such decisions are never "forever" views, so holding on just in case someone comes up with some decisive alternate view point, wouldn't really achieve much. To one degree or another notability is subjective, and that sometimes helps with a bit of flexibility in the greyer areas, if we did somehow decided on a set of comprehensive, bright line, un-gameable set of criteria, someone would always be unhappy that the line is where it's drawn and not an inch different one way or the other. The point about future finding of course is purely that keeping everything in the vague hope that sources may be found in future is not a sensible way to proceed from my point of view. I have no real opinion on if draft of this is sensible or not, though I personally wouldn't bother unless I was actively seeking out sourcing etc. S--81.100.164.154 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Temp undelete A lot of ink here when we could just ask for an undeletion to see if the participants missed on this one. SportingFlyer T·C 13:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as the correct closure of the discussion. If the appellant is relitigating the AFD, that isn't what DRV is for. If the appellant is saying that the closer should have supervoted to keep the article, without even having read this filing, then that is silly, but that probably is not what the appellant is saying. If the appellant wants to submit a new draft with new sources,
  • Allow Recreation of Draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Properly deleted. AfD is not limited WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. If you want to try to improve a deleted article, go to WP:REFUND and ask for refund to draftspace. Read advice at WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As you advised, I have asked for refund of the page in draftspace, as I dont think I could successfully be able to convince people for the undeletion of the article. I think we can close this discussion now. I request the admins to do the needful. ~~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 04:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You need to wait for this DRV discussion to close SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Vargas González (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Passes WP:POLITICIAN. Vargas has held the position of Regional Councilor (equal to a state parliament) in O'Higgins Region since 2018 (before the article was actually deleted), having been elected in 2017 and 2021 to such position. Meeting the first criteria, this person is notable enough for inclusion. Personally I believe the criminal cases against him also were noteworthy, but this person easily passes NPOLITICIAN for being a regional councilor, not for being the mayor of Pichilemu. Bedivere (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing obviously wrong with the afd, and being a regional politician with under 20000 constituents - which the deleted article said during the afd, so it can't claimed it's new information - doesn't by itself show any more notability than being a mayor of about 14000. An afd's enough to rebut the presumption of notability a SNG like WP:POLITICIAN provides, so unless you can point to better, WP:GNG-meeting sources, endorse. —Cryptic 23:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest I came across this deleted article as I am interested in the geographical area. I am not particularly familiar with this person but he was elected as a member of the O'Higgins Region Council (or board, however you call it) which governs the whole O'Higgins Region along the governor, recently elected, Mr. Pablo Silva Amaya. Although it may be true Vargas was not elected with many votes (5788 to be exact, in 2021), his constituency (one of four that make up the regional board) has only 42.676 inhabitants according to the 2017 census. And 22997 voted. I think the deletion of this article only happened because of systemic bias. Vargas is a Chilean, is not an English speaker and probably will not interest many English speakers as a result. In contrast, for example, an article about Angelia Williams Graves, member for the 90th district in the Virginia House of Delegates, elected with only 3.691 votes, actually exists and nobody has questioned its existence (I am not questioning it anyway; yet that article only contains some news reports about her announcements of candidacies, while Vargas' article had plenty of material regarding his criminal cases and they were included in a National Biography Dictionary, authored by Emilio Philippi). Bedivere (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore If the Spanish-language articles are correct (and no reason to believe they aren't, but they don't have English-language equivalents) he was the member of a regional government in Chile, a first-order regional government (similar to a state/provincial government member) which means WP:POLITICIAN would be met. I still don't think deletion was incorrect or the discussion defective as it doesn't look like the article had been updated, but it looks like this should be restored, and I'm typically critical of WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion based on the AFD. But is the appellant questioning the closure, or requesting to submit a draft?
  • Allow recreation of draft Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it should be restored. The article, as it seems in the Wayback Machine, looks fine. As of 2019, the article still wasn't updated to reflect the fact they were elected to a regional office. Deleting it was easy IMO. Bedivere (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's in both the lead and the infobox, though not in the body of the article. —Cryptic 07:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's correct. I was reading the 2016 archived version. Bedivere (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment NPOL's presumed notability for subnational politicians applies to state/provincial legislators in federal systems (Switzerland, Canada, Nigeria etc) or those from parliaments of autonomous territories (eg Faroe Islands). Notwithstanding current constitutional discussions, Chile at present is not a federal state (or even quasi-federal like South Africa), the regional councils are not legislatures. FWIW, AfD discussions have not accorded presumed notability to members of the French regional councils (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno Subtil and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Binder), which perform similar roles. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  At least since last year, Chile has a semi-federal system with the popular election of regional governors. Regional governments exist since 1993. Bedivere (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  An elected body/position is not synonymous with legislative/executive power. Many states have engaged in processes of regionalisation and decentralisation, however, this does not mean they have devolved legislative/executive power to lower levels (as opposed to devolving administrative power). See discussions here around devolution and presumed notability in relation to NPOL. Happy to discuss Chile, certainly quite likely to evolve with a far more autonomous regional structure given the current constitutional convention. In South America, Brazil and Argentina are the two clear examples with presumed notability for subnational legislators, there's also Bolivia but personally I'd question whether actually it has the same status. Chile in its present constitutional structure, and certainly what applies to the case of González, is far from any of those three. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate your input, Goldsztajn. Certainly, the new Constitutional draft (if approved) will provide more autonomy to regions (they are actually dubbed Autonomous Regions). Certainly, too, Regional Boards currently do not have legislative powers as they do in the US, for example. However, I think Chilean regional councilors should be presumed notable because they are part of the regional government; the regional boards are relatively small (O'Higgins has about 20 members since last March; previously only 16) and they mostly represent densely populated areas. I know Cardenal Caro province, represented by Mr. Vargas, is not the most populated area in the world but they are still the member of the regional government of a densely populated region. Additionally, as I said before, in this particular case, the controversies they've been into, and the criminal cases against him, which received national coverage (including El Mercurio, considered Chile's newspaper of record) certainly makes this person noteworthy. Bedivere (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Clear consensus to delete. If you want to dispute a past decision to delete, read advice at WP:THREE. Show us three sources that demonstrate notability. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an essay, not a policy. But I will follow your advice. Here are some national news media sources related to Vargas, particularly to his bribery charges back in the 2000s.
    • Radio Cooperativa: https://www.cooperativa.cl/noticias/pais/judicial/corrupcion/juzgado-hallo-culpable-de-cohecho-a-alcalde-de-pichilemu/2006-03-28/162645.html
    • La Cuarta: https://www.lacuarta.com/cronica/noticia/juicio-por-supuesto-viatico-mula-podria-dejar-a-alcalde-de-pichilemu-sin-el-sillon-municipal/52737/
    • El Mercurio online (Emol): https://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/2006/03/28/214851/alcalde-de-pichilemu-fue-condenado-a-541-dias-de-pena-remitida.html (three articles here: https://www.emol.com/buscador/?query=%20jorge%20vargas%20%20pichilemu).
  • They appear also in a couple of books. For instance, in Emilio Filippi's La clase política chilena there is a biography of Vargas. Unfortunately it is unavailable online. --Bedivere (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this, es:Jorge_Vargas_González, the native language Wikipedia article? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup. Bedivere (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Allow re-creation. A new proponent, after three years, is welcome to try again. Advise them to read the AfD. Note that the request did not need to come to DRV, and DRV allowing recreation gives it no protection. On re-creation, any editor may renominate for deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. I didn't know I could have requested for the undeletion of the article to work on a draft, without having to come here in the first place. Goldsztajn gave me some advice and I thank them for that. I would work later on this article, perhaps starting it from scratch based on the original, it may definitely need rewriting. Bedivere (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics of animal research (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

protected by admin who created own page and made original page a redirect to animal testing. I cannot reply to the user who asked me questions (comes up with an 'only admin can edit this page') nor do they seem like they are an admin anymore. I would like to take this project up again, if I can. Someone tried to pick up the page, see below. Page seems to have a restriction on the name?

1. REDIRECT [10] ExistentialMariachi (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No action. To quote the closing statement at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 November 11#Ethics of animal research, "The article has been undeleted so there is nothing for DRV to consider. Discussion regarding the redirect can take place at Talk:Animal testing." That remains good advice: if you want to split off a stand-alone article on this topic, it would be best to get consensus first at Talk:Animal testing. You can also make a request for unprotection at WP:RFUP, but I imagine they'd want you to get consensus first as well. Animal testing#Ethics already discusses this topic at considerable length: is there a good reason why a separate article is needed? In any event, there's nothing for DRV to do here: since there's no actual deletion to review, this issue is out of scope. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You need further formalities and additional consensus-building efforts in order to lift a blatantly inappropriate protection. Indefinite full (!) protection of a page without any visible history of edit warring or conflicts, just in case an editor who's barely past the auto-confirmed threshold doesn't try to recreate their article in the future? I don't think it can get any more bizarre than that. – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Uncommon, but hardly bizarre - it's no more out of line than salting it as a redlink would have been, and we do that in similar circumstances all the time. If DRV has any place here at all, it's in whether the A10s prior to the redirection and protection were correct. —Cryptic 22:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Uanfala, DRV will review blatantly inappropriate protection that prevents content, but to begin with you have to point to the unacceptable WP:PFPP discussion/ruling, and Ping the admin from there that you are disagreeing with. DRV is a process review forum, not a first port of call for solving all problems. The nominator’s, ExistentialMariachi (talk · contribs), failure to engage on the talk page Talk:Animal testing, or indeed anywhere else, is a good reason to speedy close this DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt while discussion is conducted at Talk:Animal testing. The indefinite admin-only lock on the redirect was probably excessive at the time. In any case, it can now be at least downgraded to Extended-Confirmed Protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot I don't think DRV was necessarily the wrong place to take what's essentially a salted discussion at first, but given the previous DRV discussion, that close and the opinion arising from that close is still valid. Would not unsalt. SportingFlyer T·C 23:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read that DRV? The only participant apart from the nom disagreed with the initial deletion and criticised the protection. – Uanfala (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure how that matters. The page was restored, the content is not deleted, and the closer signpointed to a place for further discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 00:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I doesn't need to matter here, but the wording of your comment seemed to imply that the old discussion somehow endorsed the protection (or at least can be seen to justify it). – Uanfala (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the confusion and lack of clarity. I'm trying to say this isn't the correct forum to discuss whether to un-salt the page and would not change the page's status based on this discussion, as it is now a content issue, not a deletion issue. SportingFlyer T·C 08:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It was an unjustified spinout. The place to make a case to re-create the WP:SPINOUT is Talk:Animal testing. The place to request UNSALT is WP:RFPP, but the reason for protection is sound, to prevent forking of content, and discussions. Go to Talk:Animal testing. This is not for DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Endorse the protection of the redirect. It should not be boldly edited, not without a clear consensus at Talk:Animal testing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi guys. Since January 2021 and our deletion, Boursorama has become the first neobank in France, same as Revolut in UK. The bank recently bought ING France. A long History (started in 1998), plenty of sources available as it is now the main (number one) online bank in the country, I think we have enough material now to write an article. RutoSu (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the deletion was a very clear outcome of the AfD discussion. I suggest you create a new draft, with the more recent sources, and submit to articles for creation. Tone 15:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two « delete » and one « keep » is not a very clear outcome for me. But does not matter. Now it is the biggest online bank in the country. As soon as we restored the article, we will be able to provide the sources required in accordance with our rules. RutoSu (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. If you think there are enough sources, you can ask for the article to be restored as a draft, but I'm a bit worried about you not providing specific sources you'd be using. What you've described here isn't enough, you need to meet WP:CORP. Do you have sources that do? Hobit (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am surprised. As I said, it is the first neobank in France, like the Eiffel Tower is the number one tower. Again, not the second online bank, the first bank. 3,3 millions customers in February 2022. To answer your question, yes plenty of sources : https://www.challenges.fr/media/boursorama-recrute-ses-clients-en-cartonnant-avec-l-info-eco_800193 ; https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/05/09/les-banques-en-ligne-defient-les-enseignes-traditionnelles_5459947_3234.html ; https://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/plus-de-500-000-clients-d-ing-pourront-rejoindre-boursorama-20220405 ; https://www.lefigaro.fr/economie/boursorama-entre-en-negociations-exclusives-avec-ing-pour-lui-racheter-son-portefeuille-de-clients-en-france-20220201 ; ; https://bourse.lefigaro.fr/actu-conseils/boursorama-banque-conserve-son-titre-de-banque-la-moins-chere-20211216 ; https://www.challenges.fr/vie-pratique/banque-en-ligne/boursorama-signe-un-accord-definitif-avec-ing-pour-sa-banque-de-detail-en-france_807867 ; https://www.moneyvox.fr/banque-en-ligne/actualites/72358/banque-en-ligne-boursorama-banque-plus-que-jamais-leader ; Basically you can find as many sources as you want, as it is now part of the daily life of the country. --RutoSu (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Being the first at something generally doesn't matter when it comes to inclusion here. What matters in this case is WP:CORP. I can't read French but hardly and can't evaluate the sources very well. But at least the Le Monde one looks good. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake, I was not clear. When I say the first, I mean the biggest. Like Peugeot for automotive in 2021. RutoSu (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Create a draft and provide new sources. You say new development is after January, which is when the article was deleted. So, all this will be new. Tone 19:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem. As soon as the article will be restored, I will develop and add new sources. And everyone will be able to help. RutoSu (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A reversal of the deletion is not necessary to do this. There's a reason WP:DRAFT is a thing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Job done : Draft:Boursorama. --RutoSu (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Proper deletion here and not one that should be overturned. Correct thing to do would be to start a new article from scratch, preferably a draft. SportingFlyer T·C 23:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I have done it : Draft:Boursorama. --RutoSu (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion If there are now enough sources to write a proper article, then the correct course of action is to write a new, better article that meets the notability criteria. Deletion Review is not designed to simply be a second bite at the apple. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. That is all done : Draft:Boursorama. --RutoSu (talk) 07:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur that the deletion discussion was correctly closed, and I also concur that the draft is appropriate and may be moved to mainspace by an AfC reviewer in due course. We haven't yet pointed out that the AfD nom was a sockpuppet. Tone wasn't necessarily to know that while closing but it does weaken the "delete" consensus.—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Premature to come to DRV. If the reasons for deletion are overcome, you may re-create. If you are not sure, use draftspace and AfC. You may optionally request WP:REFUND of the deleted article to draftspace or userspace. DRV is for responding to to something done wrong, or a re-create requesting being wrongly denied. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spider eater (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A little dab page that I thought I had created, but now I've found out, much to my surprise, that it got deleted per WP:G7 a month ago. I was told by the deleting admin that I had not in fact created it and that it was not an appropriate dab page. If my recollection was wrong all along, then I'm really sorry to everyone for all this silliness. However, at least from the explanation I was given for why the dab page wasn't needed I can infer that it had two appropriate entries and so should be viable. – Uanfala (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was the deleting admin. Here was my response to on my talk page to Uanfala: You were not the page creator, User:Zxcvbnm was and they asked for the page to be deleted. The rationale was "Nothing left to disambiguate now that the D&D monster article was soft deleted". It looks like Spider eater (Dungeons & Dragons) was the only article on this disambiguation page and it has been turned into a redirect. The other listing was simply "an organism that feeds on spiders" and was linked to Arachnophagy so I don't think the page really fulfilled the purpose of a disambiguation page once the D&D page was gone as an actual article. I hope this answers your question.

It looks like what happened is that Zxcvbnm created a redirect after moving a page. Then Uanfala changed that redirect to a disambiguation page. But when Zxcvbnm tagged the page for G7 deletion and I looked at it, they were the page creator and I honored their request to delete the page. I should have looked at the page history more closely. I have no objections if folks here decide to restore the page but it barely functioned as a disambiguation page. I'm no expert on MOS, and WP:MOSDAB in particular, but a disambiguation page containing two redirects, one to an article unrelated to "spider eaters" doesn't seem to function appropriately as a disambiguation page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There doesn't seem to be a valid reason to reinstate the disambiguation page given that the monster article was soft deleted. As the one who created it, it was literally just because the title at the time would result in WP:SURPRISE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn per below. I was not aware that this type of page was ineligible for speedy deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirects created by page moves are never valid G7s unless the mover was also the only substantial contributor to the moved page. This is not the case.
  Pages substantially edited by users other than the creator are never valid G7s either. Here, Uanfala not only substantially edited the dab that was deleted out-of-process, but was its only substantial editor.
  Disambiguation pages not ending in "(disambiguation)" are not G14s unless they disambiguate zero pages (not articles, not non-redirects, pages). This disambiguated two.
  This speedy deletion was flagrantly incorrect, and the attempts to justify it after the fact are appalling. Speedy overturn. —Cryptic 02:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All right, I wasn't really aware of that part of G7. Since it appears to be accidentally against policy I will absolutely be fine with it being restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Apalling"? Can't you just disagree with my action without laying on the vitriol? I thought it would be useful in a Deletion review to come here and explain my action, what action I took and why I took it but I know most admins don't participate in these discussions and I think I can see why. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the outrage was unnecessary, it was purely accidental on my part so there is no need to assume bad faith over an obscure one sentence rule that is easy to miss. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not some strange bureaucratic twist in the text of the policy. It should be obvious why any criterion titled "author requests deletion" would not apply here. What's strange to me is how two experienced editors apparently believed than a user who renames a page should get the special "creator's right" to speedy delete anything that other people do at the old title afterwards. – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Even if Zxcvbnm was the sole editor prior to the page move, this page was automatically ineligible for speedy deletion in accordance to G7 due to Uanfala's substantial edit in November. This follows a pattern of the typical gross negligence I have come to expect from the deleting admin who routinely fails to adequately examine page histories. ✗plicit 13:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overflowing with civility and good faith as always, Explicit. I know whenever I make a mistake, you'll be right there, putting it in the worst possible light. It's good that I'm the only administrator who ever makes a mistake. Now back to work! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have approached you on several separate occasions for this very same reason. You put very little effort in properly checking page histories when deleting pages, ranging from G13, PRODs, AFDs, and now G7, arguably the easiest criterion we have. The most recent incident occurred a mere month ago. The fact that someone else—fellow administrator Cryptic—is just as equally criticizing your actions should be an indication that you should stop trying to villainize me when the issue lies with you. Anyone can make mistakes, but you make them incredibly frequently for something that takes a few extra seconds to confirm. At this point, one has to wonder if you unwilling or are you unable to learn from your mistakes. ✗plicit 07:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making a mountain out of a molehill. Just because someone missed a highly obscure rule that I am sure was obvious to about 5 people in the universe does not mean they should be removed for "gross negligence". Rather, it is the people who are blatantly uncivil who are the real problem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: I don't think it's an obscure rule and really Liz should understand better as someone who often deals with csd (in my experience), however I agree that this is becoming something bigger than it needs to be and I am disappointed with the tone this review is taking. Explicit may have genuine concerns and perhaps some frustration is understandable if there seems to be a recurring pattern, though I think it could have been conveyed more amicably (and I don't think he called for Liz to be "removed"). There is no permanent damage done and Liz made a good-faith mistake, though I think overturning is probably best. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So I did do that dab after all! And there I was beginning to doubt my own sanity. Anyway, if the page is undeleted, could someone then restore Spider Eater (which must have been a redirect), and possibly also have a look at the deletion of Rock reptile just in case (I haven't edited that page, so I don't know what was there)? – Uanfala (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G7 clearly didn't apply. That said, I've nominated Spider eater (Dungeons & Dragons) for deletion at RfD since it redirects to a page that does not mention the term at all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn, not able to see the history of the deleted item, but itIt appears from the discussion that the deleted administrator made a good-faith mistake. The participants in this discussion who are scolding the deleting administrator are reminded that they are also making at least one mistake, which is a breach of the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, which also includes civility to admins who have made mistakes. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I have restored the page so that you can see the page, its page history and also the CSD tag left by the page creator. I hope this helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What I see is what I inferred. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It's important that deletion review should be a welcoming place where both complainants and closers feel respected. If we're hostile to closers and make them feel defensive, then we won't get openness and reflection from them. At DRV we are explicitly a drama-free zone, and I think that in practice this means it's our role to talk about decisions, not decision makers.—S Marshall T/C 12:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per my comment above and on the basis that this was an invalid CSD rationale. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and redirect to Insectivore. Shoulda been speedy done. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mikheil Lomtadze (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Good day!As the author of the article, I think that its removal was wrong, since those who participated in the removal discussion misinterpreted the consensus. During the discussion, two more participants, except for me, found that this article was in the interests of the encyclopedia. The references to authoritative sources that were presented in the discussion were not taken into account. But the erroneous belief some participants have that I am a ‘paid editor’ was formed because my edits come from the good intentions related to my sincere desire to improve the article. I am asking the community to participate in the discussion on whether it was correct to remove the article. Deviloper (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address failure to follow the deletion process. We do not re-examine arguments from the deletion debate; it is not "AFD round 2". Stifle (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was no error by the closer, who correctly interpreted the consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 17:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - No error by the closer, and a correct close by the closer. Length of argument by the appellant was not a substitute for strength of argument. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The result is an accurate evaluation of the consensus. A whole bunch of things were asserted by the appellant, but few of the points had any connection to notability and even fewer were documented by reliable sources. The only other support for keeping the article consisted of more undocumented assertions. Show, not tell. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Star Mississippi, the closing admin, concluded: "So in evaluating each of those in the second section, I landed on a stronger weight for those in favor of delete because they went into a depth on why the sourcing was not acceptable that generally was not matched or countered by those in favor of keeping the article."

I thank Star Mississippi for their very detailed rationale. Closers almost never go into this level of detail to explain their closes, so I really appreciate their taking the time to do so. I agree with the closer's conclusion that some of the comments should be discarded or given less weight since they are not policy-based or do not discuss the sources. However, I think several the "keep" participants (specifically, GoldMiner24, Heartmusic678, and M4DU7) and Jumpytoo (who said "the article is also in a poor state so I'm not inclined to cast a hard vote") made a sufficiently strong case that the company had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline that the discussion should have been closed as "no consensus" instead of "delete". Although most of the "delete" participants went into substantial detail, some of the "keep" participants went into detail too.

Two sources that these editors presented at the AfD were:

1. An entry about Meesho in the 2021 edition of the St. James Press-published International Directory of Company Histories (link) amounting to three pages of coverage (pages 295–297). Harvard Business School says that the book provides "Comprehensive histories of 8,500 of the world's largest and most influential companies".

   The closing admin said, "The book could be good, but no one was able to access it to verify that it was in enough depth." I do not have access to Meesho's entry in the 2021 edition of the directory, but I do have access to the 2014 edition of the directory which is available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. This extensive profile about "Gilt Groupe, Inc."^{Internet Archive} is an example of the depth of coverage the directory goes into. Each entry I've seen in the International Directory of Company Histories goes into substantial depth about the company, so I think three pages of coverage about Meebo should have been enough to contribute to notability.

2. Sharma, Nishant. "Meesho Is Turning Housewives Into WhatsApp Entrepreneurs". BloombergQuint. Retrieved 2022-03-08.

   Jumpytoo wrote, "There is 5 paragraphs of independent & in-depth coverage of the app by expressing concerns about how the app is vulnerable to competition though aggressive expansion into underserved regions and that the quality of the products of poor impacting sellers earnings, which is supported by information from Priyanka who is a Meesho seller and two expert analysts: Ankur Pahwa from Ernst & Young, Satish Meena from Forrester Research."

I did not participate in this AfD. I found this AfD a few sections up when I asked the closing admin on their talk page about another AfD close they had made. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closer reasonably evaluated the arguments and found that the notability challenges made by the delete side had not been adequately rebutted. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not weighing in to formally to endorse my close as that's covered above. (Thanks, Cunard, for all the paperwork). Just wanted to say that I support this DRV as it's a complicated discussion with a lot of input and more does not hurt especially if it helps us come to a stable conclusion. I also just wanted to thank Cunard for their approach and discussion. We both want the same result: the correct decision. Star Mississippi 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A tough AfD but I think the close was reasonable as it was well-argued that NORG did not appear to be met. In terms of additional sourcing, I have doubts about whether the International Directory of Company Histories is truly independent based on a quick visit to their website - they receive information directly from companies per their website. Good close, but also not that far off from an article - just needs a few NCORP qualifying sources. SportingFlyer T·C 19:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the Delete side did a better job of rebutting the other side's arguments. While several Keep participants did mention specific sources which showed the subject met the GNG (which should be WP:CORP in this case), people on the Delete side posted lengthy rebuttals to these and there wasn't much attempt to refute them in turn. Hut 8.5 18:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer on strength of arguments, with which I disagree, but acknowledge to be valid and clearly reasoned. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no effective counter-refutations to the arguments regarding the weaknesses of the sourcing (churnalism, lack of independence etc). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• One further comment. Excellenc1 is working on this in draft space. If closer thinks their revised draft should go through another DRV, would be helpful if that's clear. From my POV, AfC is fine to avoid a G4. Star Mississippi 15:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Meesho

File:Columbus Developmental Center.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Improper reasoning to judge there to be no free equivalent of this photograph that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. No photographs exist where you can discern the level of decay in this building that prompted its demolition. This building has been dramatically altered since its construction; nothing except this single image will show that. ɱ (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The claim by the nominator is disingenuous. A free version is available: File:Columbus, Ohio c. 1897 02.jpg. -FASTILY 21:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A free version is not available. This does not portray the building in the later years of its history, its decline. ɱ (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: the file in question appears to have been used in Columbus Developmental Center#History per this and I'm not seeing how any of the concerns raised in the FFD about it were incorrect. If the building's decay made it appear vastly different at some point, then adding sourced critical commentary about those changes to the article might've helped justify a case for the file's non-free use; however, there doesn't appear to be anything close to that in the article that require the reader see such an image when the FFD was closed. Moreover, there's FOP for buildings in the US and the building is still standing (at least as of October 2021) according to File:Columbus Developmental Center 01.jpg (also uploaded by the nominator); so, a comparison to how the building at the time of main infobox photo and present day seems more than possible and additional free images could be taken for further comparison purposes. Although I'm willing to assume this DR was started in good faith, I don't feel the close was improper and should be overturned given the arguments made in the FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as others mention, a suitable free image has been presented. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The non-free rule here was clearly correctly applied. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse simply pointing to differences between the free and the non-free image isn't enough to make the non-free image irreplaceable. Whether it's replaceable or not depends on whether the free image can serve the same purpose in the article. For example the OP pointed to the fact the central tower's roof was removed in the non-free image. If the article had some sourced coverage about the removal of the tower's roof then you could reasonably argue that this makes the non-free version isn't replaceable, but there wasn't. Same goes for all the other points the OP raised. The image was just being used in the article to illustrate what the building looked like, and the free version serves the same purpose. Hut 8.5 12:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It's not clear to me why File:Columbus, Ohio c. 1897 02.jpg cannot replace the deleted file; the only thing missing is colour and maybe a part of the building. And even so, since it's an extant building one could make a new photo of it and thus the non-free one fails WP:NFCC#1 - nobody has explained why one cannot go there and make a free image. So, endorse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, @Fastily: @Marchjuly: @Stifle: @SportingFlyer: @Hut 8.5: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: how not a single one of you can understand how these are dramatically different photographs? It's like comparing an image of the Roman Forum in 1 AD versus 2020 AD. The building in the deleted photo is a ruin of its once grand structure. It shows how deterioration and deferred maintenance led it to become a good candidate for demolition. I laid out all the specifics in the FfD. These photographs barely even show the same building, nonetheless an equal free version. NFCC 1 says that equivalents need to "serve the same encyclopedic purpose." In no way does a ruin of a building serve the same purpose to the reader as a photograph of a building at its height. ɱ (talk) 22:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) That's why in cases like this sourced critical commentary of the actual image itself is generally needed to help establish and strengthen the context you're referring to above. You look at the image and see one thing, whereas someone else looking at the image may see something else. In order to avoid the non-free use appearing to be more WP:DECORATIVE than not and also to avoid any sort of image-like WP:OR or WP:SYN, non-free content use tends to require a stronger connection connection between image and text per WP:NFC#CS, and I don't think that connection has been established here. A non-free use needs to satisfy all ten non-free content criteria, and I don't see how this use meets NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. To be fair, I'm not an administrator so I'm sort of flying blind a bit in that I can't see the actual deleted image per se and am only going by how it seems to have been used in the article as well as whatever experience I have when it comes to assessing non-free content; so, if you want to through out my WP:!VOTE than that's fine. Fastily, Stifle, Hut8.5 and Jo-Jo Eumerous, however, are administrators who can see the deleted file and who are pretty experienced when it comes to file stuff; so, there opinion might carry more weight than my. If they can be swayed to reopen the FFD discussion for this file, then that's fine. I think though that you're going to need to make a more compelling argument that the above and not basically repeat what the one made in the FFD which led to the file's deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These photographs do show the same building. The only important thing that the non-free image has is that it lacks a few spires, their absence can easily be described in text where they aren't even mentioned. And as folks have said above, if the building still exists you or someone else can go and take a photo, which would make the non-free image (which shows a more recent state than the free one) replaceable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see the only "encyclopedic purpose" of the image in that article was to give the reader an idea of what the building looked like. There wasn't any commentary on the image in the text or anything like that. The free version also fulfils the same encyclopedic purpose of showing the reader what the building looked like. Yes, the fair use image had differences to the free image, but unless those differences are actually needed for the image's use in the article they aren't relevant to the question of whether the image is replaceable. Hut 8.5 18:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The "no free equivalent" criterion is explained at WP:FREER. "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" The answer is yes, so it failed the criterion. ✗plicit 13:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. Have you edited the article? I wrote it - the image is irreplaceable, as mentioned. ɱ (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think people generally understand that buildings left unmaintained fall into disrepair and decay and what that typically looks like, bits fall off, wildlife moves in, trees grow through etc. Unless there is something specific about the way this manifested (which I'd then expect to be discussed in 3rd party sources) then the existing image and note that it later fell into decay ultimately leading to demolition would seem sufficient. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Columbus Railway, Power & Light office.jpg (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Again, improper reasoning to judge there to be no free equivalent of this photograph that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. No photographs exist where you can discern the level of detailing in this building that have all decayed. This building has been dramatically altered since its construction; nothing except this single image will show that. ɱ (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The claim by the nominator is disingenuous. A free version is available: File:Columbus Railway, Power & Light office 01.jpg. -FASTILY 21:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The NFCC rules were correctly applied here. SportingFlyer T·C 17:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if the use in the article did actually require an image from that particular point in time then you might have a case, but the image was just being used for decorative purposes and so is replaceable with the modern version. The images do not look drastically different to me. Hut 8.5 11:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see what kind of information the non-free image presents that Fastily's one doesn't, in fact, the free image actually has more information (colours) than the deleted file. So WP:NFCC#1 isn't met and thus endorse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't understand how so many of you can easily miss architectural details and decay. These are so dramatically different, as laid out in detail in the deletion discussion, and for the file above. Again, NFCC 1 says that equivalents need to "serve the same encyclopedic purpose." In no way does a near-ruin of a building serve the same purpose to the reader as a photograph of a building at its height. ɱ (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I can't imagine why you're so obstinate about dying on this hill. A bit of friendly advice, drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. -FASTILY 02:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are way too subtle and the main difference (some windows are walled shut) can be described in text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine why everyone is so obstinate about following nuances of rules, reading far too into NFCC and essays that "explain" it, and setting an impossibly high bar for it. Wikipedia sucks because of a lack of decent images, among other things. Nobody cares except the deletionists who swarm around FfD and DR. If I had professional photographers and historians here commenting, as opposed to nitpicky deletionists who comment on every file up for discussion, I would bet for a different outcome. ɱ (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, you really have to consider whether the problem is with you, and not others. But it's obvious you can't, because you can only hear yourself. Please find something better to do with your time, thanks. -FASTILY 22:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love the constant rude attitude. Surprising for an administrator. At some point, you really have to consider whether the problem is with Wikipedia, and not others, when Wikipedia is the only place where we refuse to use others' images that have no known author or copyright claims, and refuse to follow anything but our own made-up ridiculous NFC standards. ɱ (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The "no free equivalent" criterion is explained at WP:FREER. "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" The answer is yes, so it failed the criterion. ✗plicit 13:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is no. Have you edited the article? I wrote it - the image is irreplaceable, as mentioned. ɱ (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. We're talking about an image of unknown provenance (date taken, creator, initial date of publication) where the building in question is still standing and has not substantially changed. I'm sorry, but this is about as straightforward as they come. I had a look through Columbus in Historic Photographs collection and didn't turn up the original. Mackensen (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Fails WP:NFCC#1 since there's no critical commentary specific to this image as opposed to the currently used free image. Yes, they are different, but the sourced commentary I see in the article that is specific to one image or the other says that the building has fallen into disrepair and nothing about the other details that have changed since the non-free image was taken which would benefit from illustration by this picture or one like it. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed on the basis of no sources. There is a full The Times of India review here as of now. Detailed information about the film here, here, here, and here as ഗജകേസരിയോഗം. Other mentions here, here, here and here. If a Times of India critic writes a review of a 1990 film in late 2021 (only did this for #FilmyFriday for fifteen-or-so Malayalam films, then this film must be notable). DareshMohan (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see what was deleted and so I'm not sure this should be restored, but I don't have any problem if this gets recreated. SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, allow recreation Correct close, but new sources emerged after the closure of the AfD (AfD closed Jan 2021, first 2 articles provided by appellant created Dec & August 2021 respectively). The film could now be notable per WP:NFILM #2.1. Jumpytoo Talk 05:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, Allow Recreation - It wasn't closed on the basis of no sources, and saying "No sources" when it was closed on the basis of failing film notability is not useful. Wikipedia is not IMDB. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The existence of antineutronium (also known as antineutrium) has been experimentally verified since 1956 ("antineutronium" in the plural-noun or elemental sense of one or more antineutrons). The plural nouns of "antielement 0", "antielement zero", "antineutronium", "antineutrium", and "antineutrons" should redirect to "antineutron". Other experimentally verified forms of antimatter have redirect pages, including antihelium. Nicole Sharp (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: @LaundryPizza03:

• Looks like this was deleted following an RFD nomination with no discussion, so I don't have any issue with restoring. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that antineutronium has been experimentally proven to exist. How much is there to say about it though? Might it be better covered as a section of antimatter?—S Marshall T/C 15:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much everything you need to know about antineutronium for everyday experimental use by physicists is covered by the article for "antineutron", though the article could use some expansion. "Antimatter" would be too broad if there is already an article specifically for antineutrons. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, antineutronium has not been "proven", or "verified" or "observed". Confirmation of the particle does not imply existence of the material. I believe that even the tetraneutron (particle, not a material) remains "hypothetical". SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No issue with the redirect being restored, but it is difficult for me to decide whether it should link to Antimatter or Neutronium. Reyk _YO! 20:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The requested redirect to antineutron seems reasonable. My physics knowledge in this area isn't great. Is there a reason why folks think that's the wrong target? @Reyk:, @S Marshall:. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think necessarily it's the wrong target, I only asked a question.—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. These redirects for pseudo-technical crossing science-fiction terms are a disservice because they prevent the internal search engine from doing a better job. DRV and RfD should stay out of these content discussions, leave it to mainspace articles are sourcing by content editors, and allow the internal search engine to function. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not sci-fi, it's real physics.—S Marshall T/C 23:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you followed my search link, or google searched? The term is associated with science fiction. A bulk material made of anti-neutrons? It is fiction, not real physics. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Science fiction by definition is a fictionalization of real science. "Antineutronium" can refer to either antimononeutronium (single antineutrons), which is produced nearly every day in accelerators during hadronic collisions, or to antipolyneutronium, which is hypothetical (as opposed to fictional) and has never been detected. The laws of physics require every form of matter to have an antimatter counterpart, regardless of whether sufficient quantities of antineutrons actually exist under the correct conditions to form antipolyneutronium (the material that an antineutron star would be made of). Multiverse theory also postulates that some universes are matter-dominant and other universes are antimatter-dominant (what we call "matter" versus "antimatter" is anthropocentric to our particular universe), and as such antineutron stars should still (hypothetically) exist in other universes, assuming that the sign of charge conjugation is distributed randomly across different universes. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The terms antimononeutronium and antipolyneutronium appear unknown to google, and I guess that they are your neologisms? WP:Neologism are best avoided.
      • I note that Neutronium is defined as a substance, not a particle, and in common use it means a material, not simply the particle it is made from. I think this distinction carries into derivatives of the word "neutronium".
      • I do not find any reported evidence that neutronium, or antineutronium, has been observed to exist (bigger than a single neutron, or smaller than a neutron star). Evidence of a transient particle is not good evidence for the bulk substance. Every use of "antineutronium" I find comes from science fiction. Two such uses are in articles. The existence of a redirect that prevents a reader from finding the term used in these articles is a disservice to the reader. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should also be pointed out that there is no way to tell for sure whether a neutron star (or any other electrically neutral astronomical object) is made of matter or antimatter, other than by the annihilation of infalling material. We just assume that all the neutron stars in this particular universe are made of neutrons instead of antineutrons, which is the simplest explanation based on our current understanding and observations. One of the motivations for impacting space probes early in the space program was the serious concern that the Moon or Mars might be made of antimatter. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you know that the motivation for the WP:NOR policy was physicists prone to arguing their theories? SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect pages are not relevant to Wikipedia Search, since any user can manually search for keywords, even if a redirect page exists for that keyword. The purpose of redirect pages is specifically to avoid using the Wikipedia Search altogether, so that you are automatically taken to the most relevant page for the term you searched for, without needing to manually search through multiple pages. As such, my opinion is that "antineutron" is the most relevant page relating to searches for "antineutronium." Regarding a hypothetical bulk material composed of antineutrons, one would need to link from "antineutron" to "neutron" to "neutronium" but that is acceptable since the fundamental component of antineutronium (in any form) is the antineutron. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect pages are relevant to Wikipedia Search in that they prevent an attempted search in the "Go" box from happening.
      • This search: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Antineutronium&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 gives exactly two uses of the word "antineutronium" anywhere in mainspace. Both are science fiction. A redirect sending them to a page that does not use the word, and preventing discovery of two pages that do, is a disservice.
      • I think that is just a personal preference. When I do a Microsoft Bing Search for "antineutrium", the first result is the Wikipedia page for "antineutron", thanks to the redirect. I think this is helpful. Antineutronium/antineutrium (regardless of usage or context) is something that is made of antineutrons. Nicole Sharp (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly, you could write a WP:CONCEPTDAB for Antineutronium, but I think allowing the Wikipedia Search to do it jobs is a superior situation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Mono-" and "poly-" are standardized by the IUPAC and have been adopted into physics (e.g. "triquark" or "polynucleon"). It is acceptable to use neologisms when they are standardized by an official body and the meaning is clear. In general use (a descriptivist definition as opposed to a prescriptivist definition), "neutronium" typically refers to the bulk material (polyneutrons or polyneutronium) as opposed to referring to single neutrons (mononeutrons or mononeutronium) as are typically encountered by experimental physicists. With a prescriptivist definition, it is grammatically correct to refer to an "antineutron beam" as "antineutronium" in the same way that it is correct to refer to an "antiproton beam" as "antihydrogen" but there could still be confusion between the polynucleonic material (the most commonly used definition of "neutronium") and the mononucleonic material. However, that kind of analysis I think is too much for a simple redirect. The question for a redirect page is just: "What is the most relevant page for someone searching for 'antineutronium'?". How the word is actually used or from what context is mostly irrelevant here. In every sense of the word, and in every context, "antineutronium" always refers to something made of antineutrons. As such, "antineutron" should be the most relevant page for a redirect. Nicole Sharp (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have a bad case of WP:OR. This doesn't mean that you are not right, but that your arguments are not suitable here.
      • "antineutronium" is used, past tense, verifiably, in relation to The Forge of God. If the title were to redirect anywhere, it would be there. However, the benefit of deletion is that any attempt to jump straight to that title will invoke the search engine and give up-to-date information, on its usage in Wikipedia.
      • If you think it should get coverage in other articles, eg antineutron, then you need to first add actual coverage there.
      • I have tagged the redirect that you re-created with {{db-g4}}. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Liz: That seems premature since the consensus here seems to be to keep the redirect, including from the person who originally deleted the page. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Good lord. OK, if we're doing this: allow creation of redirect.—S Marshall T/C 11:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If there is any suitable target for this redirect, I would think that Antineutron is a better target than Neutronium because only the former is about antimatter. I note that this discussion is getting bogged down with OR, as is all too common in particle physics. In fact, I had already removed all the fictional content from Neutronium because it was probable OR not backed by RS, and isn't discussed in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This wasn't a well attended discussion by any means but the discussion it's based on, which deleted anti- redirects, is sound, and a quick search shows it doesn't appear to be a viable search term. Would keep deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 17:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - As noted above, the material is hypothetical, and if the term is used as a search term, we might as well default to using the internal search engine. The particle is only the transient particle in this observable universe. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Don (2006 film) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed on the basis of no sources. There are several reviews here, here, here, here, and here. Film preview here. Box office verdict here and here as ദ ഡോണ്‍. DareshMohan (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow creation of draft Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow creation as per newly found sources, either as draft or to mainspace. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Nominator is wrong, the AfD was not closed on the basis of no sources, but on the topic failing WP:NFILM. Encourage him to create a draft, on its talk page note the WP:THREE best notability-attesting sources, and submit through WP:AfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There's nothing stopping you from writing a new article about it, you don't need anyone's permission to do so. The deleted article was extremely short, it only really consisted of a cast list and infobox, so it wouldn't be much help to you, but if you want it restored to draft to serve as a starting point then I'm sure that could be done. Hut 8.5 17:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Gulf rugby sevens team (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed by AssumeGoodWraith as "not going anywhere", but that does not seem like an accurate summary of the discussion at all. While participation was limited, the delete arguments (that there are no sources to support the article content, hence it failing WP:V) are much more convincing than what looks like a claim to inherent notability. Might be an instance of something similar to WP:Relist bias (given that the closer did not have access to the delete option). Should be overturned to delete. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per WP:RELIST, a third relist should be exceptional. V, though arguably unmet, can be addressed in that I can find content in Google News search with a slightly modified search string ("Arabian Gulf" "rugby sevens") that would likely support the article. Low participation, low content in the article, and probably hampered by poor WP:BEFORE efforts devoted to the subject; even if it was deleted, it would be at most a soft delete. Regardless, no consensus was a decent read, even by a non-admin, because the participation dearth almost demanded such, although the closing statement could have been better. Of all the Great Wrongs to be Righted on Wikipedia deletion, this seems an odd one to fret over. Jclemens (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn BADNAC. It could have been reasonably closed as "delete", and so it was not an appropriate NAC. It could not have been closed as a "keep". On the basis of the discussion, I think it leans "delete", but in a few minutes I think I cam finding sources, eg https://www.emirates247.com/sports/other/arabian-gulf-rugby-stars-boost-uae-squad-2011-09-20-1.419695. Why did the nominator not check? It does not fail WP:V. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't advise a non-admin to close a sports AfD at the moment. Closing statement is terrible and can't stand.—S Marshall T/C 08:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse - It was a terrible closing statement, but there is one fact. The AFD wasn't going anywhere. Either No Consensus or Delete would have been a valid closure. It really didn't require another Relist. It should have been left for an admin, who would have had the same result. Duh. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. The two delete !voters raised the policy-based argument that the article had insufficient sourcing to meet WP:V. This was not rebutted. Had we not already had endorsements here, I would have vacated the close and deleted. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: At the time of the close of the AfD, the article did not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability as it had no sources and the only "keep" AfD participant did not provide any sources. A more accurate close would be "delete" based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. To address the verifiability concerns, I expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]