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.

The usage of large-language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.

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.)

1. An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though it were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, a large language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".

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

Closure as "Process obsession at our worst" of an article the same admin had closed as keep three days earlier. Discussion had three keep votes and three days to run, and nominator had been recommended to bring the issue to DRV. Oblivy (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m uninvolved in the original keep discussion, which @Spartaz closed on 19/2 as keep. On 23/2 It was renominated by @PrudskaSofa on the grounds (paraphrasing) that there was too much socking at the prior AfD.

I asked for an explanation and encouraged DRV and, after 24 hours without a response (and to date no more edits) I voted to speedy keep, and again encouraged DRV or WP:6MONTHS. Two experienced editors voted, one speedy and procedural keep. Then it was closed by Spartaz| saying (among other things) it would be relisted as an admin action.

At this point, it seems the proper thing is for this to be overturned (undone) and allowed to run for the rest of the 7 days. If during that time @spartaz sheds light at that discussion what’s going on and why deletion is necessary then the votes (including, potentially, mine) will reflect that.

It would also be proper, I believe, to restore the original keep closure on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripio to keep as it was altered after the close. Oblivy (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message on my talk page at 8:46 this morning as I was driving to work. I am not obliged to check Wikipedia during my workday and instead of waiting for me to reply at the end of the work day you raised a ridiculous DRV 5 hours later which will delay us securing a safe consensus on this article by another week. Had you had the courtesy to wait for my response I have told you that an AFD with so much socking was unsafe and that the only solution is to call it void. I would also have told you that the second AFD was not the vehicle to get a safe consensus as it was basically a bad tempered unpleasant pile one. Nothing I have done is unreasonable or outside policy and is well within the expected norms that I have observed in the 20 years In have contributed today. Your conduct and impatience is entirely aligned with the unpleasant hectoring tone of AFD 2 Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, PrudskaSoda renominated an article which you had closed as keep just days earlier, and neither provided the kind of explanation well-aimed at making AfD2 a success, nor responded to a query about why it was needed. Whatever defects may have affected the first AfD were not called out by you until you decided to angrily close AfD2. Editors aren't omniscient, and the first step when someone fails to see something you think is obvious is not name-calling, it's communication. I tried to be as even-handed as possible in framing the DRV. Since you apparently believe calling my conduct ridiculous and impatient is appropriate I have little expectation you will agree, but my decision to bring this here, and to do so in a time convenient to my editing schedule, was not unreasonable considering what led up to it. Oblivy (talk) 00:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So your convenience is more important than allowing me the opportunity to expand on my thinking and plans? I'm a massive believer in admin accountability but people need to be more patient and not try to force the pace. There is no deadline. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:14, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, as you "forced the pace" at AfD2 by commenting on my vote immediately before closing the discussion so nobody could respond. Patience and capacity for self-reflection are both virtues that benefit the project. Oblivy (talk) 05:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to relist (uninvolved) I think that closing the original discussion because it was "destroyed by socking" was improper. The sock votes can just be hidden from view to allow normal users to participate. Thus people in the 2nd discussion were understandably confused. I don't know a valid solution to this trainwreck but my best guess is to relist the first nomination with the sock keep votes hidden or otherwise deleted, then close it on the merits. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The first AFD was already closed. It would be pointless to reopen it as it already has participation bias from the state it was in when it was open. The solution, which has been exercised hundreds of times over the years into relist cleanly once the dust settles. Something I already stated I would do. Please do explain why it it "improper" to not allow socking to taint the consensus? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, socking can be removed/hidden but there were legitimate !votes there, so it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:23, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And people who might have voted deleted wouldn't even bother looking at the article because the outcome appears cut and dried. A fresh unsullied discussion is the only way to reach a clean consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the 19 Feb close to no consensus, vacate the 26 Feb close per INVOLVED and relist it. For the first AfD, once you discard the socks, there is no consensus to keep. For the second AfD, Spartaz was involved, having closed the previous AfD only a week earlier. On merits, the close is incorrect, as there is no valid administrative reason to speedy close it. The nomination is evidently procedural, and therefore exempt from speedy keep per WP:CSK#1(1), relying on MightyRanger's original deletion rationale. All three speedy/procedural keep votes should be discarded, and the AfD allowed to run its course. Alternately, a new procedural AfD can be opened, and be closed by someone other than the admin who closed the previous two. Owen× ☎ 14:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That all makes sense. Not quite convinced that the exception from CSK#1(1) should apply where it's not identified as procedural, but it's fair to say that was the intent of the 2nd listing. Oblivy (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  As I understand it, acting in an administrative capacity in disputes doesn't make an editor WP:INVOLVED. If it were true, each admin would be able to issue only one sanction in each WP:CTOP, because after that, they would become INVOLVED. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kelob2678: I think closing a second AfD after you've closed the first can be uninvolved. This one wasn't. The closing statement does not come across as a calm, level-headed, passion-free ruling. On the contrary; it reads like an angry retort to what the admin felt--rightly or not--to be an attempt to circumvent his previous close a week earlier. Not looking at a case with fresh, dispassionate eyes means you are involved.

  Personally, I avoid closing any AfD on a page I previously adjudicated, no matter how long ago it was. I do that to avoid even the remote perception of a prejudice, although with the number of AfDs I close, I can't even remember those older ones, let alone be biased by how I closed them. I understand that other admins don't adhere to the same self-imposed standard. But if you're angry about a nom ignoring your previous close, step back and let someone else handle it. Owen× ☎ 19:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No matter what admins do, they will look biased to some editors. It is ultimately up to their conscience to act properly. But WP:INVOLVED is a policy and I think editors who violate it should be stripped of administrative powers. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Spartaz is a fine admin who has been serving the project dutifully for 19 years. I see absolutely no reason to question his administrative powers. We all lose our temper every once in a while, and sometimes it helps to have an outsider respectfully point it out to us. But involved or not, I see no policy basis for speedy closing AfD #2. The best thing to do with a pile-on is to discard those piling on, and let participants who stick to P&G have a chance to present their opinion. By speedy closing that discussion, those piling on basically got what they wanted. What we saw here was a knee-jerk reaction from all sides; understandable considering the circumstances, but unhelpful. Owen× ☎ 21:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not involved in anyway. Please redact your vote to reflect the actual policy which that you are not involved when acting in an administrative capacity, which I am doing in both discussions. I am perfectly entitled to void an afd close if I believe it is no longer tenable - which is a perfectly reasonable conclusion when an AFD has been ruined by socking . That has been accepted practise for many years and has never made an admin involved. The second AFD was clearly an unsuitable vehicle to allow us to have a clean consensus so closing it was again a perfectly normal and reasonable admin action. I'd ask you to revisit your expressed opinion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:34, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Your closing statement for the second AfD makes it clear that your declaration that the second AFD was clearly an unsuitable vehicle is coloured by your close of the first AfD a week earlier. Whether correct or not, that determination should have been made by someone who didn't close an AfD about the same page a week earlier. Owen× ☎ 18:32, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't substitute your beliefs for what I actually thought. Maybe assume good faith that my stated intention was to provide a clean consensus. I make no secret that I found the pile on during AFD 2 was distasteful and fueled my belief it was not the right vehicle for a clean consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure you wanted a clean consensus, but you went at it the wrong way. Your intentions were good, but your premature close of the AfD was effectively a supervote that prevented anyone else from arguing on merits. You don't get to shut down a discussion just because it's not going your way. WP:CSK has no "pile on" clause that allows us to close a discussion prematurely. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean my way? Are you routinely closing discussions where you have an opinion on the article or skin in the game? Why do you keep insinuating that I have a personal agenda? Are you projecting maybe? I already explained my reasoning? I don’t care if you disagree with my approach but its offensive for you to tell me what was in my mind. Bizarre. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a correct reading of AfD psychology. Once the pile-on starts, it is very hard to deal with it. What the last two editors saw in the first AfD was four consecutive Keep votes (three were from socks), and this definitely influenced, if not their votes, then at least their decision to participate in the AfD. This makes their votes entangled with sock votes. The same applies to the second AfD where there are 3 Keep votes which would force every potential participant to think twice whether to voice their opinion to Delete, because they likely have no idea about the background. The solution is rather simple, just start a new AfD as if the previous two hadn't happened. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse both of Spartaz's closures. Ghastly mess and the best way to deal with this is take a break, have a cup of tea, and renominate in a little while once everyone has calmed down. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Vacate closure of first AFD due to sock puppetry, while I will note that the closure was correct based on information known at the time. No action on second AFD, which was correctly procedurally closed. I would recommend starting fresh with a new AFD, and not immediately. Give it some time (at least a couple weeks after the closure of this DRV), to allow for a better discussion less likely to be influenced by sock puppetry. Frank Anchor 17:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That is precisely what I have done. The first AFD is void and I stayed in my close of the second that I would relist later once the dust has settled. Which will now be another 7 days down the road because eh process. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, though I will not go as far as endorsing this action because the close of "Process obsession at our worst" was a very nonsensical way to describe a procedural close. Frank Anchor 13:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I make no secret that I found the pile on against the nominator in afd2 distasteful and it certainly fueled my belief that it wasn't the right vehicle to find a safe consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• So, I wrote a whole thing about how unnecessary this all was and how it could've been avoided if the socks' comments had been struck or possibly just removed as part of the first afd's close. The part I missed in my first read is that that reclose happened at the same time as the second afd, not immediately after the first afd's first close. I guess where I end up now is that, though a week is kind of pushing it, this falls into the afd closer's window of reconsideration, y'know, the whole thing we have in the instructions here at DRV to talk to the closer first instead of just opening a review. ("Hey, all the people voting 'keep' have been proven to be in the same sockfarm!" is one of the canonical examples justifying that instruction, after all.) So I'm endorsing the second nomination's close as wholly correct, and overturn the first one to "defer to whatever Spartaz thinks best". Whether that's a new procedural nomination, or reopening the first afd with the offending votes struck or removed, or wait a while first, or even reward the sockfarm by letting them use our procedures against us to immunize their ad from deletion, I'm ok with any of those. Would be least thrilled with the last, obviously. —Cryptic 02:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  my intent from the outset was to relist for a clean consensus once the dust has settled. I appreciate your analysis of the situation and willingness to assume good faith about my intentions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It isn't important what terminology is used to close the two AFDs (that is, how to change the wording of the close of the two AFDs) as long as the result is a new AFD, after this DRV has been open for seven days. When a new AFD is opened, it should be semi-protected to prevent the sockpuppetry that corrupted the first AFD.
  • Endorse the first AFD, not so much because it was the correct close, but because any other close would have wrong.
  • Void the second AFD. The closer's statement was an unfortunate mistake, but the closer was mostly correct.
  • Allow a third AFD when this DRV is closed, and semi-protect the AFD.
  • Comment - It is less important what we call what we do to the first two AFDs than that there be an honest third AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate your comments and generally agree. However, in light of all the discussion here about unsullied/untainted discussion, I think the wording on the prior closes does matter. When someone opens that 3rd discussion and then clicks through to the other two they need to see what happened earlier. The closes should (1) reflect that the first one was a keep, (2) show that the second one was procedural closed rather than the irregular close that exists at the moment. Oblivy (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow a third, semi'd afd and whatever that result is is what happens.the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 13:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Sheesh. If checkuser is not magic pixie dust, semiprotection isn't even mundane talcum powder. All three of the sockpuppet accounts were well over the semiprotection threshold. —Cryptic 17:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closes, both as procedural and not INVOLVED. Draftify as it is a terrible article WP:UPE product, declined at AfC before being accepted by a later proven SOCK. Forbid mainspacing by anyone not qualified as an AfC reviewer. In draftspace, allow time for discovery of reasons to resume improvement of the draft, which is not currently worthy of mainspace, including for the reason that it is reference bombed with a high proportion of unreliable sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS not met. Major stakeholders were pinged less than 24 hrs ago and weren't given time to respond. It is an old article so they may not be actively watching the page now. While the page has some puffery and should be trimmed down, this discussion should be relisted at the very least. Gigamon (a public company) has a role in the national security state apparatus, and they've been analyzed in peer-reviewed academic literature (USENIX). They provided a comparative technical analysis that goes beyond promotional material: https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ballard/papers/opensafe-inmwren.pdfTechmanTom78 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The AFD was relisted once, so there was plenty of time for editors to contribute to the discussion. Three editors made substantive comments suggesting that the sourcing did not meet the requirements of NCORP (and after TechmanTom added several sources in the discussion). In terms of !votes, it as 5 editors advocating to delete the article and 2 in favor of keeping, so I do feel a consensus was reached. --Enos733 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no concerns with using the refund process based on the sourcing provided in this discussion. - Enos733 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Question was there a policy reason this was not closed as a soft deletion with no opposition instead of being relisted the first time? Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No policy reason, but the page has been around for over a decade, edited by dozens, and more importantly--has been accepted at AfC, which I consider to be at least as weighty as declining a PROD. I don't think the relister erred in this case. Owen× ☎ 19:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some additional sourcing for this page that we can find and help them out shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. What is your connection to them @TechmanTom78 and were you canvassed to this discussion? Star Mississippi 18:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi I put a lot of work into the page, and I think they're notable from a tech perspective. I worked in the industry for a long time; I am retired and enjoy using my knowledge to help out here on Wikipedia. Now, with that being said there is definitely some work to be done on the article itself, I just don't agree with it being deleted at this point in time. TechmanTom78 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Endorse but restore per newly found sources The sources were adequately analyzed and refuted, the "major stakeholders" who didn't respond only performed routine maintenance on the article (not that it would matter if they were actually significant contributors), and the new source in this DRV only mentions the company in a single footnote. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the proper reading of consensus at the AFD, and as the right conclusion about an article that was written from the corporate perspective rather than than of third parties but would be interested in a Temporary Undelete. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Owen× ☎ 19:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Enos. the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 19:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC At least two of the deletion !votes are materially false. The Mercury News reference is clearly an appropriate source, even if the same article is cited as two separate references. That puts this squarely into NC territory, especially given the debates over NCORP. Jclemens (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Participants had a chance to address that source. Looking at it myself [1], it is textbook WP:CORPTRIV of a headquarters relocation. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (I was involved in the discussion.) This is the Mercury News reference. It doesn't address the company in depth. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 21:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Look, I know there are plenty of editors who like to make up rules to be more anti-corporation. That'd be a fine GNG-contributing source in any other context, so I reject that prejudice and substitute my own impartiality in assessing the close. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NCORP is intentionally less flexible than WP:GNG. If you want to loosen the source requirements so that the strict current practice at AfD is discarded, that would at the very least require a discussion at Wikipedia talk:NCORP. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I don't need to do any such thing. I can continue using Wikipedia's core policies and reject the anti-business NCORP as a violation of NPOV. NPOV is policy, NCORP is a notability guideline: if there's a conflict (and assessing sources differently based on article topic most assuredly is) NPOV trumps NCORP. The fact that other people don't agree with my interpretation of NPOV doesn't restrict me from holding it and advocating for it. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Restore to Draft 5 Deletes and 2 Keeps, the sources provided by the Keep side were adequately addressed. At the same time, it is somewhat unfortunate that a 20-year-old company with 1,000 employees and $300M revenue in 2016 was found to be non-notable. Surely, some sources must exist somewhere. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There are a few articles in WP:BLOOMBERG about the company [2] [3] [4] that I would say qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. There are also probably 6 or 7 WP:WSJ articles here of varying depth; [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

  There were also several articles from WP:REUTERS around the sale to Elliott Investment Management that clearly go beyond mere trivial coverage and involve investigative reporting. [11] [12]

  This article about the company's layoffs is another [13]. And there are a couple articles here on Law 360 [14] [15] about a lawsuit over the original sale to Elliott Investment Management.

  There are some The Motley Fool articles ([16] [17] [18] [19]), but I don't know if there is a consensus on the reliability of that publication per WP:RSN (plus these seem to be clear WP:CORPTRIV).

  I was unable to find any consensus on the reliability of this publication in the past (it clearly seems unreliable now), but there is clear analysis in this article from Investing.com [20] (archived because it was blacklisted at one point because of some spam). Another article with good analysis is this article in Canton Rep [21].

  It also has an entry in International directory of company histories, volume 199 [22]. This source, published by Gale, is described as This multi-volume work is the first major reference to bring together histories of companies that are a leading influence in a particular industry or geographic location.Each three- to five-page entry is meticulously detailed with facts gathered from popular magazines, academic periodicals, books, annual reports and the archives of the companies themselves. I think Gale is an eminently reliable source. The coverage spans pages 209-212.

  I'd suggest that the discussion was of typical poor-quality discussions on corporations because the nomination failed to a proper WP:BEFORE and none of the editors in the discussion bothered to look for sources. Katzrockso (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This was an accurate reading of the discussion and when weighed together the arguments presented by the deletion camp were stronger with the citing of guidelines pertaining to corporations. Let'srun (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse but vacate close? Not sure the right way to describe it, but the article should be restored even if the close itself was a correct interpretation of the consensus as it existed in that discussion. The quality of the discussion is very poor and per WP:DRVPURPOSE#4, there is definitely "significant new information" that has come to light. Namely that the company in question is almost certainly notable and editors failed to do their due diligence and search for sources that were not difficult to locate at all. This DRV nomination fails to make a compelling case for overturning the result, however the facts do. Katzrockso (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good work @Katzrockso. I agree with restoring the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Although I am displeased by the terse nomination by User:Scope creep, and the terse close by User:OwenX, for a contested discussion, I do read it as within admin discretion. On reading the temp_undeleted article, I find it dominated by non-independent information that must have come from the company and reference bombed with 46 sources. Allow the deletion to be challenged by the standard method which is: Draftify, and follow the advice at WP:THREE. Cull the weak sources and highlight the independent coverage. If any. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be satisfied if the article is restored to draftspace so I can edit it. Katzrockso (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:BADNAC#1,2. The discussion was both contentious with 3 Draftify and 4 Keep votes, and the closer is not an experienced AfD participant. The policy-based consensus was to Draftify, as no sources were provided that would justify an exceptional situation to have an article about an upcoming film from a little-known director. Among the four Keep votes, the first was likely LLM-generated by an author, the second merely asserted passing GNG, the third appealed to other movies and linked to non-independent coverage, and the fourth literally had no justification. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I agree with Kelob2678 that the discussion was contentious, and closing should have been left for an admin. I also agree that some of the Keeps were weak. However, after three weeks, there was no consensus against retention, which means Keep was the only possible outcome. We routinely draftify articles on movies that haven't been released, but no policy or guideline requires us to do so. That said, I'm fine with treating this as a no-consensus, and renominating in two months if sourcing doesn't improve. Owen× ☎ 11:17, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per OwenX. At least one editor included sources in their comments to suggest the article met GNG (in addition to the sourcing in the article). I also do not think that a mere mention of WP:TOOSOON#Films provides sufficient explanation of how it applies to this film as the only clear line is whether the film has begun filming. --Enos733 (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse-ish Sufficiently one-sided that a NAC is not wrong. Debate appears to be about NFF vs. GNG, with reasonable arguments. Also, this is about redirect vs. article on a future film: waste of time unless we believe that somehow it's never going to be released and never merit an article, which was not the sense of the AFD. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The one thing I would liked to have seen here is actual links to the stated reviews. I agree that the first !vote smells LLM-ish. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It is clear there was a consensus against deletion, so there is nothing for Articles for deletion to do. I might have closed it as no consensus myself, but that comes out with the same result. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  AfD, for better or worse, is the intended forum for contested draftifications, so there could be something for AfD to do. Katzrockso (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse. No consensus would have been a good close for this discussion, and possibly a better close than keep. The end result of the article being kept would be the same, with the only practical difference being the amount of recommended time before a re-nomination should be done, if any user wishes to do so. The arguments for keep were weak (with the exception of SaTnamZIN's) and the LLM-based argument should be discounted. However, the arguments for draftify were just as weak. My advice to the appellant is to see what happens in the two months after the closure of this DRV and to evaluate the need to renominate at that point (as per OwenX). Frank Anchor 15:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse both as the best reading of the consensus of the participants, and as a correct reading of the guideline as written at the time. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There was a change made to the guideline on 19 January 2026 that should have been controversial but was not noticed [23] which opens the door to promotional notes about films that have been photographed and not released. The edit summary is incorrect, and the change is substantial. However, it is not the scope of DRV to review questionable guideline changes, and it is not the scope of DRV to review whether we disagree with the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse, essentially per Frank Anchor and OwenX. Arguably, no-consensus might have been a better close. And not best practice to non-admin-close a poorly attended, some-deficient-!votes 4:3 discussion when going against numerical majority; best to leave to an admin. That all said, there was no way this discussion as it stood would have supported a Draftify close and it had already been relisted twice. So all possible formal outcomes lead to the same practical outcome: article stays for now and can be revisited in a few months based on how the situation develops. Martinp (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus: This is a WP:BADNAC as a contentious close, which should've been closed by an admin. Further, there are policy based arguments on both sides which when weighted altogether leave us with no consensus as for what should be done with this article. While a no consensus closure keeps the article intact for the time being, it more accurately reflects the votes of the discussion and makes it clear that these types of discussions shouldn't be closed by non-admins. Let'srun (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Bad AFD nomination, WP:TOOSOON should not have been used when the more specific WP:NFF applies. User:Nomadwikiholic immediately refuted the nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:death date and age text (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'll try to keep this concise.

As for trying to address this prior to DRV,

The TFD should not have been closed and redirected to {{death date and age}}, when that template doesn't have the same MOS-compliant functionality, which was specifically raised in the TFD. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the deletion discussion in October 2025, it sounds like the desired functionality has been implemented. But then looking at the talk page discussion in January 2026 it sounds like it has not. In that second discussion there is apparently a dispute over whether abbreviated output should be implemented. I suggest it would be more productive to have that discussion. If the answer is "no", no new template is needed. If the answer is "yes", the desired functionality can be implemented in the existing template as originally planned. It looks like Module:Date already supports abbreviated output with "%{monthabbr}". -- Beland (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My specific comment in the deletion discussion was that MOS:DATE allows for the abbreviation of months; I was even told in reply that {{death date and age}} overrides Oct with October. It still works just fine! It just overrides the display value. Thank you for pointing this out. It should be a very easy fix. […] I will fix it so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed However, that fix for abbreviating clearly wasn't implemented, but the redirection happened anyway.

As for whether months should be abbreviated in infoboxes or not, the MOS explicitly has allowed it for some thirteen years, and I began a new discussion at WT:DATE#confirmation of abbreviation allowances, but until consensus changes the MOS, it is allowed and the abbreviation functionality wasn't added as both promised and alleged in the TFD, which was redirected anyway. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DR isn't the place to re-raise TfD arguments but to talk about the actual close. I'm also unclear why DR allows opening a discussion without pinging any of the editors from the previous discussion. Pinging @Zackmann08 @Frietjes. Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DR isn't the place to re-raise TfD arguments That's why I'm arguing that the discussion was wrong to have been closed in favor of redirection when that outcome was predecated upon {{death date and age}} having the same functionality as {{death date and age text}}, which was claimed to have been done, but wasn't.

I'm also unclear why DR allows opening a discussion without… I just followed the directions at WP:DELREVD. Do you require me to notify those editors you've named? Is there an official template for doing so, of would something like this suffice: I've begun [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 February 8#Template:death date and age text|a deletion review of]] {{template link|death date and age text}}, a page for whose [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 October 23#Template:Death date and age text|original TFD]] you participated.? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I oppose reopening this. If the desire is to keep the ability to use an abbreviated month, that can be implemented in the current incarnation. I fail to see why that is such a vital case though... I would like to know what the use case is here where having an abbreviated month is of such important need as to have a second, far more complicated and difficult to maintain template. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about an improper close. At the original discussion, Zackmann08 (talk · contribs) said that It just overrides the display value. Thank you for pointing this out. It should be a very easy fix. […] I will fix it so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed. They later said, This can now safely be merged as the mf/df format is now preserved and the two templates do the same thing. The target template wasn't fixed so that the abbreviation doesn't get changed, and the two templates didn't and don't do the same thing, yet it was on that erroneous claim that the discussion was closed and the template was redirected. As such, the closure was in error, hence DRV. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore to the holding pen (WP:TFD/H) to avoid breakage until the discussion on if the abbreviation feature should be preserved concludes (and if preserved, until it is implemented). No fault on the closer; I would of believed the missing features were implemented as well. Jumpytoo Talk 02:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• seems like the simple thing to do would be to implement preservation of month abbreviations, similar to how it currently preserves dmy vs mdy. Frietjes (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Writing/litspotlight1 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The claim and the deletion reason at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 22#Template:WikiProject Writing/litspotlight1 was that the template was unused. It is actually used as a preload template inside the <inputbox> tag on the page Template:WikiProject Writing/litspotlight. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:REFUND the template per nom. Jumpytoo Talk 19:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: I did post at WP:REFUND first, but after reading the instructions more carefully realized that WP:REFUND was the wrong venue and a deletion review was needed, so I self-reverted. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• relist as there is clearly further discussion to be had. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Also did you discuss this with Liz first as she is usually very open to a well reasoned appeal?Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. After reading the instruction at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion: This means that content deleted after discussion – through deletion processes – may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process but through deletion review instead. I started this discussion by following the steps at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps to list a new deletion review, part of which is Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion, which I did. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    It's literally the first instruction on the page Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    My bad, I'm sorry for skipping these steps, completely my fault. See also my attempt at improving the instructions. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s years old. Discuss with User:Gonnym. Further discussion needed, but don’t relist a years old TfD to have it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore; this was just obviously mistaken, and a relist would be needless bureaucracy unless someone is actually advocating for deletion at this point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per EW (above). Relist as 2nd choice. Hobit (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]