Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Before listing a review request, please:

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

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

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:

• If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
• If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)

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

Talk:Besame Mucho (film) (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It's amazing that I'm opening up a DRV for a talk page [redirect] discussion, but here we are. I informed the closer why I was requesting the discussion be reopened, essentially because their close comes off as incredibly WP:SUPERVOTE/WP:IAR-ish and, in effect, potentially a misuse of the admin toolset. But, since the closer would not reopen the discussion, here we are. In a nutshell, I think the close was out of line, incredibly POV pushing, and should be either left open or closed by a closer who can better articulate the reason for the closing in a consensus-based manner rather than the statement in the close. Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing a contested discussion to keep people from "wast[ing] time" never, ever saves time. Even when you're right. (Because Talk:Bésame Mucho (disambiguation) is still a redlink and shouldn't be created solely to mark a wikiproject's territory, especially not when that wikiproject is the only one that acknowledges that you shouldn't do that. And no, redirecting a page to a title isn't adding content to that title either.) —Cryptic 23:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure what's being asked here. Was there, contra the discussion, actually usable content on this page? Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Three revisions: the redirect left by the move to Talk:Besame Mucho (1987 film), the rfd tag, and a failed attempt to update the tag to point to the discussion's new location when it was relisted. —Cryptic 02:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cakra Khan (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Rejected REFUND. The singer passes WP:GNG with enough significant coverage in reliable sources apart from WP:NMUSIC as well as having won multiple music awards (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The closing admin has been inactive since February 2024. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can Sphilbrick shed some light on the 2017 deletion as apparently G5? It's been a decade since the last discussion and over 7 years since this was last brought up, so I'm struggling to see why we would not allow a new article and provide the old as a starting point. Jclemens (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds like there's nothing usable and a risk of copyvio per below, so Start Over with a new article. Jclemens (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Refund to draft/userspace to allow Clariniie to create a “new” article conforming to GNG/NMUSIC. Article was deleted in 2014 with unanimous (but limited) consensus, then speedy deleted as WP:G5, meaning it was deleted due to the principal author being blocked/banned, and not due to the content. Two of the three sources posted above post-date both deletions, meaning it is possible the subject has become more notable during this time. Frank Anchor 13:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to endorse based on Cryptic's assessment of copyright infringement, of which I was unaware when I !voted. Recreation is already allowed as the title is not salted. Frank Anchor 23:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll endorse the G5; it was created by this prolific sockpuppeteer. The version deleted in 2014, which dated to the very start of this person's career, isn't going to be any help at all in writing a proper article - it consisted of an infobox, his birthdate, stage name, a sentence detailing his education, an extremely promotionally-worded paragraph purporting to describe his career but not managing to actually say anything except that he released one single in 2012, a four-entry discography, and an external link to this. Only the infobox is salvageable, and even that is probably worse than the one you'd end up with if you started from scratch. —Cryptic 17:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, its creator is indef blocked for copyright infringement. I'd certainly believe it of the "Celebrity career" section. Don't restore either version. —Cryptic 17:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't have Cryptic's permissions, but I completely trust their judgement here. Feel free to recreate an article from scratch. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Creation and Review of Draft - The title was not salted, and the requester doesn't need permission to create a new draft. I don't know what the value is of requesting a refund of an 11-year-old draft that didn't satisfy notabiity at the time. I don't know why editors who see that a living person has become notable want to start with a non-starter article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starship flight test 9 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

<There are several reliable sources supporting the details within the article. Original closure did not accept these sources, nor has the deletion nominator. Additionally, while its not required, the deletion nominator failed to notify the relevent Wikiprojects, article creator, or substantial constributors. > Redacted II (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. (Lots of discussion over at the talk page for the redirect for those just joining.) "The original closure did not accept those sources" because the consensus at the discussion did not accept those sources. Meanwhile, the appellant is suggesting an FCC primary source document and an Ars Technica article that doesn't mention flight 9 as newly available GNG-qualifying coverage, which suggests a misunderstanding of what would constitute newly available information under DRV#3. Starship flight test 8 was scratched just hours ago, seconds from launch, which reinforces the WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL rationales of the AfD participants and will surely push flight test 9 into the future. This topic will no doubt be notable someday but there's not enough evidence of it now to overturn an AfD result based on TOOSOON and CRYSTALBALL concerns that closed just six weeks ago. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(For current article "version", see Draft:Starship flight test 9)

Significant new information includes the dozens of other sources listed. And a bit of context on the Ars Technica article: its in the section "Impact of Flight 7", and supports the following statement:

"Due to the failure of S33 to complete its ascent burn, this was delayed to a later mission"

And how does Flight 8 scrubbing impact WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTALBALL? Any delay to Flight 9 from this is going to be a few days at most (this is speculation, but so is the presence of any delay to Flight 9), and the article doesn't violate WP:CRYSTALBALL as far as I can tell.

Listing specific violations would be very helpful for correcting them. Redacted II (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to weigh in further because it seems futile after the talk page discussion, but the half-sentence this was delayed to a later mission is not WP:SIGCOV of test flight 9. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and speedy close. No valid reason to overturn is presented, just a repeat of the appellant's claims at the AfD. Based on his comments on the redirect's Talk page, the appellant believes he is entitled to ignore the outcome of AfDs, and that community consensus doesn't apply to him. He is engaged in what appears to be a war of attrition, hoping to tire us out so he can have his way. His contribution history suggests this SPA, possibly a SpaceX COI, is unlikely to comply with what we decide, so a page protect might be needed. Owen× ☎ 11:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reminder to Assume Good Faith.

  (And no, I don't have a SpaceX COI, other that absoloutely hating Elon Musk) Redacted II (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Closer here: I certainly feel war-of-attrition levels of worn down looking at that talk page discussion, but at least from my perspective I think this is a case of truly not understanding notability guidelines, not some kind of COI or ulterior motive. -- asilvering (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse while noting that the latest version and the version that was redirected from January’s AFD were sufficiently different and the latest version should not be redirected without discussion (or a subsequent AFD). However, there was a discussion on the talk page and consensus remained that this should stay a redirect based on TOOSOON and CRYSTAL. Frank Anchor 15:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there's no other way this could have been closed - the consensus is there and the policy for removal is completely correct. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as correctly stating consensus. The appeal doesn't claim an error by the closer. DRV is not AFD Round 2. It doesn't matter whether I agree with the community, but I agree with the community that the deleted article contained crystal balling. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (involved as I supported redirecting at the most recent AfD). The AfD close reflected consensus and nothing I see in this request or on the talk page convinces me that consensus has or should change yet. I get that its frustrating when working on a topic that will certainly be notable when it happens and appears to meet the GNG already, and AfD says "not yet". But sometimes patience is required. Assuming Flight 8 launches this week*, more sources discussing Flight 9 will appear and an article going live around the time this DRV closes is likely to remain. *Note the contingency still remaining. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with developmental coordination disorder (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted as per consensus involving six people per WP:NONDEFINING. This was because 1) the articles listed did not spend too much time on dyspraxia and 2) because dyspraxia is so common that the person who suggested it be deleted doubted that it could be defining except in severe cases (they went into greater detail in the category talk page but it has since been deleted, here is a link to a screenshot in case it's relevant). While I do not know what articles were originally in the category, I attempted to make a category myself without knowing that the category would later be deleted because of a decision made 4 years ago. As for the first point, in my category there were multiple celebrities who had another disability that did not receive any more focus than dyspraxia and yet they were listed in categories related to the other disability. This includes Tom Hunt (politician), who is listed in the category for politicians with dyslexia despite his article mentioning his dyspraxia more than his dyslexia and Olive Gray, who is listed in the categories for actors with dyslexia and people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]], despite dyspraxia being mentioned the same number of times as either dyslexia or ADHD. There is also Gage Golightly, whose early life section focuses mostly on her dyspraxia, and I would say at the very least, dyspraxia is clearly defining for her. What is even stranger is that some of these people are in categories for people with disabilities, despite dyspraxia being the only disability mentioned in their article. This includes Daniel Radcliffe, who is listed in the category for English actors with disabilities, despite having no other disability mentioned. As for the second argument, that 1 in 20 is too common, first off, how defining a disability is has no relation to how common it is. Second off, by that logic, the categories of people with dyslexia should be deleted too, as dyslexia also affects about 1 in 20 people and there are many people listed in multiple categories for people with dyslexia, and most of them do not seem to have severe dyslexia. This is clear double standards and I would like this category to get undeleted. I do not believe that this would have been successfully deleted if dyspraxia were a more well-known disability and I believe that the fact that dyslexia is well-known and dyspraxia is not is the main reason why there are many categories related to people with dyslexia, but you are not able to create a single category of people with dyspraxia. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately. (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately., arguments such as, by that logic, the categories of people with dyslexia should be deleted too, or This is clear double standards will not help you make your case. If dyslexia falls under WP:NONDEFINING or WP:TRIVIALCAT, then it, too, should be deleted. Fairness and equitability are irrelevant in categorization. This is an encyclopedia, not an agency determining social assistance. If you can show that dyspraxia is an encyclopedically meaningful defining characteristic, the category will be restored. Consensus can certainly change in four years, but I have no reason to believe the unanimous consensus we saw last time would tip over to the opposite. As a list, this already exists at Developmental_coordination_disorder#Public_figures. Owen× ☎ 00:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the proper reading of consensus. I think that I disagree with the community and the close, but DRV is also not CFD Round 2. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The close was obviously the only way to read that CfD, but the CfD didn't consider most of the questions raised here, so I think it would be reasonable to allow for recreation and a new discussion. However, I suspect this would have been successfully deleted if dyspraxia were a more well-known disability may be true, and I doubt that much has changed on that front in the last four years. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately., you may have to content yourself with the list. -- asilvering (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayana: Part 1 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This non-admin closure is not appropriate for a contentious topic (all India-related articles); especially as this was a 2nd nomination; I left a message on the closer's page, which [had] remained unanswered [before I initiated this DRV]. Requesting a relist to let a clearer consensus emerge and a close by an administrator. -Mushy Yank. 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I was tempted to just reopen the AfD per WP:REOPEN, and immediately re-close it as Draftify - again. The appellant is right that this probably should have been handled by an admin. But beyond that, the close correctly reflected consensus, especially when you consider that the previous AfD for it, with similar source strength, was closed only three weeks earlier. But in respect for Mushy Yank, whose tireless work in AfDs likely saved dozens of articles from untimely deletion, I chose to see what others here think. Pinging @CNMall41, Nathannah, RangersRus, BD2412, and Krimuk2.0, who participated in the AfD. Owen× ☎ 15:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding @Sribrahma. -Mushy Yank. 16:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I have no problem with Sribrahma chiming in on this, if you believe the article falls under the Contentious Topics sanctions, please note that Sribrahma is not EC. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure I understand. What does Sribrahma's user status have to do with Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan? -Mushy Yank. 16:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Once a topic has been assigned by Arbcom to be contentious, any uninvolved admin may impose the standard set of restrictions, the most common of which is limiting participation to only editors who are EC. Owen× ☎ 16:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. OK, sure, but that's not the case yet. -Mushy Yank. 21:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - As nominator of the both the first and second AfDs. The page could have been speedied due to the fact it was only 20 days since the page was moved to draft upon completion of a discussion. There were only two keep votes, one of which mentioned a redirect or draftification as something to consider. Even the page creator (who should have never moved it out of draft space in the first place), recommended draftification as an WP:ATD.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse clear consensus to draftify on both AFDs (noting that a large number of users participated in both of them). While this close probably should have been left to an administrator as a contentious subject, the closer got this one right and opening it for an admin to close the same way is just process for the sake of process. I strongly disagree with CNMall41's claim that the page could have been speedied as significant changes were made between the versions art the first and second AFDs such that the draftify equivilent to WP:G4 would not apply. Frank Anchor 20:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorseish; this wasn't a BADNAC but I think non-admin closers should agree to any good-faith request to revert a close, since that signals it's sufficiently contentious to require an admin. But with OwenX above noting that he would make the same close decision, overturning this particular close would just be an exercise in bureaucracy. FWIW, Mushy appears to have miscounted the "keeps" and I do think the consensus is for draftification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the close that reflects consensus, and as the close that is consistent with policies and guidelines. The non-admin closer made a good-faith error in closing the AFD, but it is a mistake where Deletion Review can endorse the close rather than either reopening or relisting. There is no need for a relist, because this AFD was essentially a relist of the first AFD. User:RangersRus had a good idea in the first AFD and in the second AFD that the draft should be move-locked. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I feel like there was plenty of time to comment and though the closure should've been from an admin, they'd make the same decision. Nathannah • 📮 23:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn(edit the close). The nominator did not give a valid deletion rationale, and User:BD2412 didn’t address the question, and User:RangersRus was a mere “per nom” which is worthless when the nom statement didn’t give a deletion reason. Nate argued “churnalism” but didn’t get specific. With User:Mushy Yank listing a small number of specific sources, this discussion was not reasonable closed.

It is WP:Reference bombed, but the references include reliable sources, and principle photography has begun, the main threshold of WP:NFF. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: What question did I not address, and why would that have anything to do with the outcome? If unaddressed questions are allowed as a reason to overturn an XfD, we will juts be inviting proponents to pepper opposing votes with questions in the hopes that they will go unaddressed, to use that as a gotcha. In any case, my !vote was for draftification, not deletion, which allows for restoration to mainspace when the draft meets the requisite quality in the opinion of an AfC reviewer, usually an experienced one. BD2412 T 01:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question not addressed is whether the topic qualifies for inclusion mainspace.

And if the answer is WP:TOOSOON/Draftify, until what?

The AfDs fail on both counts, and when User:Mushy Yank goes to details, he has procedural points thrown at him. This is disrespectful, and a failure of the deletion process justifying a DRV “Overturn”.

The topic passes the relevant guideline. The page is Reference bombed. The answer is Stubify SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then let a seasoned AfC reviewer make that call, rather than allowing a virtual SPA with fewer than 150 edits to unilaterally promote a recently-deleted subject back to mainspace. The move could have been speedily reverted. The second AfD was an over-extension of grace. BD2412 T 22:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to get WP:UPE listed as a reason for deletion (see the archives of WT:DEL).

I think it should be a reason for draftification. WP:COI already is.

I think WP:Reference bombed should be a sufficient reason for draftification, with prejudice. So many junk promotional references are not ok to be left in mainspace.

I think the page should be “Draftified until fixed by removal of promotional references” amend the close to include this. I know that this will probably prove difficult to write into guidelines, as sometimes a promotional reference can be justified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I frankly don't see how the draftification outcome you articulate here is materially different from the actual draftification outcome of the AfD. BD2412 T 03:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was unhappy with certain aspects of the AfD discussions and the closes. But in the end the article was unworthy. I understand that dealing with UPE products makes people short with UPEs. I like to think that there’s a route for the topic to return to mainspace, cleaned up. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per all (or nearly all) above. This was a reasonable and correct close, particularly given the very recent previous AfD coming to the same conclusion, which was closed by a much more experienced admin. BD2412 T 01:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The AFD was closed in a very rational manner. Move to draftify is the right decision. As I said in the AFD, filming did not complete for Ramayana 1, showing source where as of Feb 21, 2025, an actor Yash, who is also a producer began filming his scenes. Sources about pics going viral, phone policy on set, non-independent sources that include members of the production, and director of the film does not help to make the page notable. Indepth coverage is needed in secondary independent sources. It is better to keep in draft as it was done before till the film reaches post-production or close to release date to get more significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NFF has used the phrase “commenced principal photography” for a long time.

  You would change this to “reaches post-production or close to release date”?

  Is that for all films, or just Indian films? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How about just for films from regions where we have had metric tons of COI and UPE editors pushing films because they see Wikipedia as an advertising platform rather than as an encyclopedia? BD2412 T 22:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The quality of sourcing here is the same as the quality of sourcing for a released Indian film. The only problem with upcoming films and events is worthless information prior to the release or prior to the event happening, which may not be verified when the thing takes place, meaning speculation, partial information lacking context, totally bogus claims, etc. none of which has any educational value, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. If the facts are stable and the statements we can verifiably include have a lasting bearing on the topic, then the topic is just like any other topic. Here we have multiple stable facts. Did in May 2017, producers Allu Aravind, Namit Malhotra, and Madhu Mantena not announce their collaboration to adapt the epic Ramayana into a live-action feature film trilogy? Did in July 2019, Madhu Mantena not bring Dangal director Nitesh Tiwari and Mom director Ravi Udyawar on board to direct the trilogy? Etc. This is not WP:CRYSTAL content, it is already an account of history, with some events happening nearly 8 years back, and it qualifies for a general judgement on notability. —Alalch E. 23:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn classic BADNAC. The outcome was a close call, there were several valid outcomes, and was therefore likely to be controversial. Going further, beyond BADNAC... "Fails NFF" means "not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography", which has the consequence of the topic not qualifying for notability considerations under NFILM. NFF is a disqualifying criterion. This topic does not fail NFF because the topic is confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced prinicpal photography, and that's not my opinion, it's just reading the guideline and what's in the AfD. This topic is objectively not disqualified from potential eligibility for stand-alone coverage. What is needed is for editors to determine whether it's a notable topic. This AfD did not do that. The discussion tends toward an agreement that the topic is notable. "Still no improvement from before and I will recommend to put a move lock" has zero weight in showing that it isn't. When the nomination is this bad, that generally has a bad effect on the rest of the discussion, and this discussion wasn't good. An administrator can decide whether to overturn to no consensus or relist. If relisting, please say the right things in the relisting comment: The editors should decide if the topic is a notable topic based on the available sourcing.—Alalch E. 22:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curious how the nomination was "bad." The last paragraph of NFF states that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." That is clearly what was said in the nomination - "nothing notable about the production....." Disagreeing whether the production is notable does not mean the nomination was "bad." --CNMall41 (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“sources are mainly announcements” is weak. A better nomination could have said “sources are all announcements (nonindependent) or not reliable” (if true).

A better nomination would have mentioned that the previous AfD was only 12 days previous.

A better AfD1 nominations wouldn’t have said “This has not even finished filming” because that is not a NFF issue.

“full of unreliable sources such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA” is a strong argument to “Stubify” or “Draftify for removing unreliable sources”.

I don’t think your AfD1 nomination deserves criticism. I criticise the two closing summaries, for not giving correct and meaningful information to the editor who wants to improve the draft, or the AfC reviewer who wonders whether the reason for deletion is overcome. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am noting the drift of this discussion and see that I am pretty isolated in some of my analysis. Draftifying for WP:DRAFTREASON#3 (The article is about an upcoming event or forthcoming work that is not notable yet, but likely to become so in the near future) is one thing, and draftifying because the article needs cleaning up from alleged promotional content is a completely different thing. The latter is a much weaker reason to draftify because while the former can't be fixed editorially (if, say, principal photography needs to start to make the upcoming film eligible for potentially being recognized as a notable topic no amount of editing can resolve that), the latter can. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content is a reason to delete (and generally not draftify -- editing spam rarely produces something encyclopedic), whereas advertising as in promotional content mixed with relevant and encyclopedic content is a reason to do the cleaning up work or put a matching tag for someone else to do it... and if the problem is really severe, draftifying might then also be a good option. But content problems that require someone to sit down and do the work aren't generally resolved in draftspace. Pages more often stagnate in draftspace; they certainly receive less cleaning up. In this discussion there wasn't a consensus to draftify because of promotional content, as evidenced in refbombing, promotional references, etc. —Alalch E. 13:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's going to happen is that the film will get released and the perceived content problems (refbombing, use of promotional references) will be equally present. Then the draft will be moved to article space and that will be it. No one will even think about starting an AfD for a released film at that point, and all the current references and the ostensibly unencyclopedic content they're cited next to will stay, and new information will be deposited on top, simply as another stratum. The original stratum will be undisturbed. Draftifying will not accomplish the stated goal. —Alalch E. 13:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of that is right, but I baulk at supporting a DRV consensus to put mostly promotional nonindependent references back in mainspace.

If this were AfD I would !vote “stubify”. I don’t think I would go as far as WP:TNT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn this was a correct BADNAC close, but since we're at DRV it should be overturned and re-closed as draftify as an administrator, as the result was correct. I admit to being overly administrative here, but it's respectful to the participants. SportingFlyer T·C 06:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If, as we agree, Draftify was the correct close, but the non-admin should not have made the close, why should we reopen it for an admin to close? We, the community at DRV, can properly close it as Draftify. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This case is a type of disagreement that we, fortunately, don't see very often at DRV, and that is a disagreement that is not only about how to apply a guideline, but about what the guideline actually means, because the guideline is badly written. The guideline on future films reads:

Some editors, including me, read the third paragraph restrictively. Some other editors, including SmokeyJoe, read primarily the first paragraph. We agree that there are three classes of films:

• 1. Films that have not begun production (principal photography or animation).
• 2. Films that have at least began production, but have not been released.
• 3. Films that have been released.

There is agreement that films that have not yet begun production may not have their own articles. The plans for such films are often discussed in the article about the filmmaker. There is agreement that articles about films that have been released should describe reviews and other third-party coverage. The question is about films that are in production, and are reported by reliable sources to be in production. The question is whether the significant coverage of these films should be about the production itself, or whether the coverage can be about the film, and may refer to production.

There have been differing interpretations of this guideline for years. An attempt to change the wording of the guideline by RFC resulted in no consensus, so there are still differing interpretations. This is an unusual situation for DRV because reasonable editors are reasonably reading the same guideline differently. So I think that all that each of us can do is to read the guideline carefully and decide how to interpret it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read three paragraphs. The first has an objective indicator. The second is not relevant to live-actor films. The third says to go to other guidelines, meaning WP:N. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]