Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)

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.


Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.
  10. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.


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.

Steps to list a new deletion review


Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2023 June 6}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2023 June 6}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2023 June 6|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review

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.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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.

Temporary undeletion

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.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. 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 finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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.)

Speedy closes

  • 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 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".

6 June 2023

5 June 2023

Bilal Mahmood

Bilal Mahmood (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I was not part of the initial discussion which decided that this article should be deleted and redirected to 2022 California's 17th State Assembly district special election, but I contend that, in light of the continuing (reputable) media coverage of Mr. Mahmood from this March, April, May, and June alongside the existing references to him around Wikipedia, the stand-alone article should be un-deleted. I do not have any affiliation to Mr. Mahmood or any investment in the SF politics surrounding him, but I think there is a clear enough interest in him to mandate restoration of the eponymous article.

FlamingMoth (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC) FlamingMothReply[reply]

  • Closing admin comment aware of this request and fine with whatever consensus determines if factors have changed which render my close moot. It does not appear that @FlamingMoth is questioning the close at the time, and as such and because my on wiki time is still somewhat limited for another few days, I'm not re-assessing my close. Please ping me if that becomes necessary. Thanks!
Star Mississippi 01:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Moot As a non-protected redirect, any editor is welcome to un-redirect and add sufficient coverage demonstrating ongoing notability at any time without DRV intervention. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Moot per Jclemens. Stifle (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not convinced the new articles get him to WP:GNG, but he's clearly received some media coverage separate from being a political candidate. I'm not sure I'd restore the old article, but there's no reason a new article can't be created and AfD'd if necessary. SportingFlyer T·C 09:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


User:Immanuelle/Two-spirit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) ([[User_talk:Immanuelle#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_User:Immanuelle/Two-spirit|XfD]]|restore)

Speedy deletion with no specified criteria. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 19:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator wrote out the reasons on the nom. Image for those with an Indigenous identity (Two Spirit) was flagged as inappropriate by member in good standing of the Indigenous wikiproject. New image has been created by users from the communities in question to replace it, and is now hosted at the Indigenous Wikiproject. There was no more reason for the inaccurate, considered offensive by some, image (that was invented by someone on tumblr), so I deleted it per nom. - CorbieVreccan 19:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a relatively long discussion on my talk page about this. Their disruptive editing allegations are quite unfounded and based on a total of two reverted edits I consider to be good faith but incorrect and an edit war which ended with consensus on my side. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What consensus on your side? What are you talking about? This is not the board for it, but Immanuelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a history of disruption and WP:RADAR and WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour, as well, and was warned by @Liz: for some of it.[1] but never responded that I can see. - CorbieVreccan 20:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On Medicine wheel (symbol). The editing went overwhelmingly to my vision for the article. Actually only one edit needed to be reverted as the other one I thought was reverted is still up. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

() The image was an inaccurate portrayal which was supposed to represent the Two-Spirit community. The image they chose to use was made by a random person on Tumblr and is not in use by the 2S community at large. I am not sure why @Immanuelle doesn't understand that it is inappropriate to create something representative of a community simply because they want to when it is not an actual factual associated representation. This is offensive and dishonest. I kindly created an alternative which @CorbieVreccan posted for public use at the Indigenous Wikiproject. The image simply does not belong here. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not defending the image at all. I was the one who suggested proposing the image for deletion on wikimedia commons. Rather I see this conduct as being contrary to the purpose of wikipedia. I even said I wanted it deleted to remove the image. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay...I'm not sure why you're requesting a review then. The image you used has been proposed for deletion on wikimedia commons by @CorbieVreccan, I was unsure as to how to do so myself. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want it deleted you should withdraw this. - CorbieVreccan 21:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have absolutely no idea what's going on with the wall of text above, but it seems clear that 1) whatever this image was, it likely needed to be removed, 2) it seems as if there's clear agreement it should be removed, and 3) no clear speedy criteria exists to remove it, which has needlessly escalated this whole situation. (Maybe G10?) Even with the speedy error, I don't really think there's anything more to do here apart from maybe fry up some trout - I don't see a reason to un-delete even with the incorrect speedy. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn out of process deletion.—Alalch E. 23:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Use a collaborative approach and dialogue to resolve editing disputes. Out of process deletion in a dispute is an application of force and as such may fail to lead to a constructive resolution, and in this case it has already failed to do so, producing a minor scandal that people will now go through. Wikipedia is a wiki. All Wikipedia spaces that are publicly editable need to be treated according to that fact. No one owns userboxes. Not the user in whose userspace it's located, not the users who put it on their userpages, and not the users who assert a connection to the topic of the userbox. Deletion of userboxes is handled at MfD.—Alalch E. 23:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn as out of process. MfD is the correct venue for this. I'm also starting to think that the deleting admin was WP:INVOLVED due to past conflicts/disputes with [the] editor (e.g. here and here) and their apparent strong feelings about this. CandyScythe (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED which means we don't delete non-illegal offensive images without a discussion except under G10, to which this appears entirely nonapplicable. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • A userbox was deleted, not an image.—Alalch E. 01:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Ok, I stand corrected: A userbox was deleted because it had a wrong image associated with it. NOTCENSORED still applies. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy overturn. Clear failure to follow deletion process, possible WP:INVOLVED violation, absolutely inappropriate deletion. Members of wikiprojects wishing to have pages deleted need to go through the proper channels, just like any other user, and the proper channel in this case is MFD. To be clear, I am writing here only about the deletion of the userbox User:Immanuelle/Two-spirit, and not any image thereon. Stifle (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn deletion was clearly inconsistent with the deletion policy, as it does not fall under any of the criteria for speedy deletion. The fact a userbox uses an image someone thinks is inaccurate or offensive is not a reason to delete it unless it is enough to make the userbox an attack page or vandalism, which isn't the case here (for the record the image is File:Neapolitan two spirit flag with feathers.png). Hut 8.5 07:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One Day Alive

One Day Alive (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am writing for the deletion of One Day Alive to be reviewed. The page was edited and multi cites were taken out leaving only like 3-4. I will edit page to add more cites. I am proposing to reenlist page as they currently have a record contract with a subsidiary company or Warner Brother Music. They also have a record coming out being produced by the guitarist of Saving Abel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webbelot (talkcontribs) 14:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Webbelot using the template here Wikipedia:Deletion_review will probably be helpful for administrators Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Template fixed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse I think I sympathise with the nom as they posted on the AfD's talk page before any other votes came in and responded to the notification on their own talk page asking where they could contribute to the discussion, but this doesn't appear to have been a notable band. The way to save this would be to produce definitive GNG-qualifying sources, and I'd possibly recommend AfC. As a FYI, the page also probably still lives as a copy on Webbelot's user page. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Temp undelete for review please? Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Done Star Mississippi 13:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4 June 2023

Ben Phillips (YouTuber)

Ben Phillips (YouTuber) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I created this article due to a category I created (Category:Welsh YouTubers) in 2021 being proposed for deletion. I had not heard of the YouTuber prior to this and I joined Wikipedia in 2020, so I could not have seen the 2017 deleted article of him. UtherSRG deleted the article because of WP:G4, but it states that it "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". As I mentioned it is highly unlikely that I have seen the 2017 deleted article so any similarities would be coincidental and the deletion no longers applies as the subject has become more notable. I messaged UtherSRG on his talk page and he asked me to come here. If people think that the person is not notable then they can open a deletion request, I don't believe that speedy deletion was the right course of action. Sorry if I made mistakes, this is my first time at deletion review. Sahaib (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC) -->Reply[reply]

  • This is moot, the article has been undeleted by UtherSRG, but I'm a bit concerned the advice was to come here if G4 didn't apply considering the period of time involved. SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC) not moot, it was being undeleted for DRV. SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Temporarily undeleted for this DRV. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's clearly not a WP:G4 as they are not substantially identical. Whether it would survive an AfD is a different question, but that's a bad speedy. SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4. It was a bad G4. The deleting admin’s response
: You should go to WP:DRV to make your case for undeletion, and you should have gone there for recreating the article in the first place, especially given that it was previously G4'd as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
should be repudiated, here. A prior G4 does NOT mean that a new recreation needs pre-clearance at DRV. DRV is not the gateway for creating new articles where previously deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not a G4. No opinion on listing it at AfD, someone can do that if they want to. Alpha3031 (tc) 00:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy undelete AfD it if anyone feel like it. SmokeyJoe's reasoning is correct. Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • here is a comparison between the speedy-deleted version and the version deleted at AFD.
    Overturn G4 with option to list at AFD. Clearly does not meet the criterion of "substantially the same". Stifle (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn (1) the article wasn't substantially the same, and (2) notability of this subject (who is young, and known for the very recent phenomenon of YouTube pranks) was extremely likely to have changed between 2017 and 2023: the previous deletion had no relevance. We all make mistakes, Trout and move on... Elemimele (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Street Bird

William Street Bird (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed by RandyKitty as no consensus, and numerically, this is true. The argument for keep stemmed from Cunard, who linked a variety of sources. Nythar then provided a source assessment that, in my opinion, proved that all of the sources that Cunard linked failed WP:SIGCOV. Then followed an extensive exchange between Nythar and Huggums537 that got uncivil, and a load of !votes for keep and delete. In my opinion, Nythar's sources assessment tables, and some questionable applications of policy means that the article should have been closed as delete. Willing to throw it out to another AfD. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I think we could've left a little more time for RandyKitty to respond to the talk page questions. They're normally a very good closer so this might not have needed to go to DRV. But for the record, I (involved) of course agree that this should not have been closed as NC, not least because the keep !votes all seem to hinge on meeting GNG when none of the sources meet the stricter requirements of NCORP. Another part of the problem is also that until yesterday, the AfD wasn't in the business and companies delsorts, so many of the editors actually familiar with NCORP would not have seen it. That I believe would be reason enough to relist, although given the total deficiency in the keep rationales a delete outcome would have been acceptable. JoelleJay (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @JoelleJay: It was my fault not putting it in the business or companies delsorts, and I also did not know about the questions on Randykitty's talk page, which I apologies for. Do you think we should re-open the AfD and let it run for another week? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well if you had talked to RandyKitty they might have been willing to relist, but now that it's at DRV it's up to the usual DRV crew to judge. And unfortunately since the issue with the close has been framed as "didn't agree with SIGCOV source assessment" -- e.g. what people here would say is "relitigating the AfD" -- instead of the much more compelling problems of editors !voting based on non-NCORP rationales and NCORP editors not being notified, there's little chance it'll even be reopened let alone reclosed as delete. JoelleJay (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as an editor who supported retention in the AfD. This is a summary of the sources from the "keep" perspective:
    1. Veenhuyzen, Max (2014-08-31). "The Scene: The Bird". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    2. Bennett, Andrew (2010-07-23). "The Bird". News Corp Australia. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    3. "The Bird". Broadsheet. 2017-10-06. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    4. McCarthy, Kristie (2018-09-26). "The Bird: A hipster hang-out with hip hop karaoke and a killer courtyard". Concrete Playground. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.

    Venue reviews are not routine sources. Veenhuyzen 2014 is a 285-word review. Bennett 2010 is a 347-word review. Broadsheet 2017 is a 149-word review. McCarthy 2018 is a 249-word review. These reviews are all about William Street Bird and all meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. These reviews are both functionally and intellectually independent from William Street Bird, so they meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources. The Sunday Times had a circulation of over 250,000 in 2013 and is distributed throughout the state of Western Australia. It meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience, which requires "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source".

    Nythar wrote above, "the subject does not stand out. Like I said, you can find an article on almost anything if you search deeply enough, but those sources need to prove that the subject stands out and is particularly notable (i.e., more notable than other similar venues)." There is no requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) that a venue must "stand out" or be "more notable than other similar venues". There is a requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria only that the venue "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement.

    Cunard (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

    "Keep" participants agreed with this view, while "delete" participants disagreed with this view. There was a clear lack consensus among the AfD participants about whether the sources met Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, so Randykitty correctly assessed the consensus of the AfD as "no consensus". The AfD had extensive discussion from experienced editors so I do not see the need for a relist.

    Cunard (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    You are quoting one of my many comments at the AfD, and you've chosen one where I didn't mention any guideline. Subjects don't need to "stand out" to be notable; I said that to illustrate a point. The subject isn't notable because the sources are completely trivial (i.e., not "significant coverage"), very local, or routine in coverage. The four sources you've linked to above, which I've already addressed countless times, do not contain "significant coverage"; not a single one, when assessed separately from the others, consists of any content that can be used in a Wikipedia article; they're wholly promotional and focus on food prices, minor performances, hyper-local events, and other trivialities. Nobody has yet addressed this point. The venue reviews allow the venue to meet the requirement: only if they significantly cover the subject. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to delete: My concerns revolved around WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. SIRS states that "Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other" and that they must "meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability." One of those criteria indicates that at least one source must "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." CORPDEPTH describes which sources qualify as "significant and in-depth coverage." It states "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." The problem with the sources Cunard provided in that AfD is that, when each source is evaluated separately from the others, none of them pass any SIGCOV criteria. Take a look at them yourself (listed below). Not a single source passes any notability guideline, and this can clearly be seen by the simple fact that several of the sources (especially the top four) contain no content that can be used in a Wikipedia article (meaning they're composed of minor trivialities such as food and drink prices, the internal design of the venue, etc. Such sources cannot be "significant coverage"; they'd be considered "trivial coverage", which is the opposite of SIGCOV. How can a source that's so promotional and trivial that it can hardly even be used in an article, be "significant coverage"? Well, it can't be. They simply don't focus on the venue's ownership history, its operational history, contain a neutral account of its cultural significance, prove that it's notable beyond Perth, or contain anything else that would indicate they "significantly cover" the venue. And the rest of the sources are either routine in coverage or are very local:
Source examination
  • The first source is both trivial in coverage and falls under "Sunday Style (Perth, Australia)," meaning it is local in coverage, so it fails WP:AUD:

IS it The Bird? Yes. Is it plain? No, it’s super fresh.
Sure, this pokey, charmingly DIY room serves drinks from midday, but it’s as much a place for enjoying art and song as it is somewhere to whet the whistle.
The promoters of Friday’s Kanye West concert probably didn’t have The Bird on their venue shortlist, nor are you likely to find a Rembrandt displayed here.
But as an incubator for some of Perth’s more niche artists, The Bird nails it. Psych rockers, quirky illustrators, crate-diggers: these are just some of the people whose handiwork one can admire with a cold – and fairly priced – drink in hand.
A succinct wine list that includes Mitolo pinot grigio ($9 a glass) proves it’s possible, even for venues that aren’t particularly wine-minded, to serve interesting vino at reasonable prices.
The cider and beer range observes a similar mantra with Feral’s Sly Fox summer ale one of four brews available as an $8 pint.
The Bird is also licensed to sell takeaway alcohol, which is handy for revellers keen to kick on once the party’s over.
The bar team, meanwhile, hasn’t gone too crazy with its cocktails, electing instead to stick with dependables such as the Bloody Mary ($17) and Dark ‘n’ Stormy ($20).
Don’t be put off by The Bird’s alternative leanings. Despite championing the non-mainstream, the venue and its staff extend a warm welcome to all, from lone wolves with a midday thirst to parties of dolled-up girls out to paint the town red.
The setting, while sparse, is tidy and clean (except for when smokers light up out the back), the bartenders’ smiles are genuine and The Bird proves originality is alive in Northbridge.
THE DETAILS 181 William St, Northbridge6142 3513 î Mon-Sat, noon-midnight; Sun noon-10pm THE SCORE***1/2

  • The second source is also very trivial in coverage, and no part of it can be used in an article:

IT'S a sea of drainpipe jeans and plaid T-shirts as we wade through the boisterous crowd at The Bird.
It’s thumping inside Northbridge’s newest bar and everyone wants in. Many have come for the music – it’s like the Ellington Jazz Club for people who are too young to know who Quincy Jones is. Others are here for the infectious brand of nouveau grunge Northbridge is quickly perfecting. Either way, the struggles had by owner Mike O’Hanlon just to open the doors look to have been well worth his while.
Cooped up
Inside, The Bird looks like a big jam room for the resident band. Simple fixtures, plain wooden floors and cheap tiles behind the bar create the impression that this isn’t a bar but a well-catered house party. The low-spec look works, though, because none of it’s taken too seriously. While most bar designers do the exposed brick thing because they think it’s cool, The Bird’s done it to save a few bob. If the random eclectica gets too much, head out back for the best spot: a starlit, open-air courtyard.
Export quality Such is the scattergun approach to The Bird’s drinks list, the entire thing could be filed under “miscellaneous”. There are a few mixed drinks on offer, but it’s too loud to hear the bartender, so don’t bother. Better choices are available from the small wine list, but the beer selection is the way to go. Where else can you find cans of Emu Export next to Knappstein’s excellent Reserve Lager, Coopers Dark Ale and king browns of Little Creatures and Magners cider? It’s clever stuff this – deliberately eschewing mass-marketed brands that would be an insult to the hyper-stylish crowd.
Bird in the hand There are those who still maintain Northbridge has no legitimately alternative venues, but The Bird has joined an important contingent who are voraciously shouting down this noisy majority. Joining the likes of Ezra Pound, 399 and the planned expansion of the “new” William St, there has never been a better time to get a drink north of the CBD.
The Bird 181 William St, Northbridgewww.williamstreetbird.comOpen Tues-Sun noon-late
The Score: Four stars

  • The third source is also very trivial in coverage and no part of it can be used in an article:

The Bird isn’t just one of Perth’s coolest small bars. In the 1920s what’s now the courtyard was a brothel.
It later became a butcher, and the black charring from smoked meats can still be seen on the back brick wall. A spectacles store moved in more recently, then, in 2010, a group of mates gutted the place and made it one of the city’s best live-music haunts.
The Bird hosts diverse tunes, from solo artists to bands and DJs, between five and seven nights a week. But there’s as much conversation and conviviality as there is music appreciation, particularly in the rear open-air area. It has been extended to fit in even more op-shop couches and repurposed armchairs.
Inside, wooden banquettes and velvet settees seat punters clutching tap beers and carefully prepared cocktails. The drink choices represent the look and feel of the place: shabby chic with chutzpah.
Phone:(08) 6142 3513

  • The fourth source is also trivial in coverage and is written like an advertisement, and I'm not entirely sure this is a reliable source:

The Bird is known as a hipster haven, but don't hold that against it. A small bar with a gorgeous outdoor area complete with fairy-light-wrapped trees, it's a venue that was designed by friends for friends. Back in 2010, a group of beer-loving buddies gutted the William Street site and it's since played host to exhibition launches, spoken word nights, dance parties and, of course, live music. Indeed, The Bird has been a comfortable home for Northbridge creatives for the past eight years.
With raw exposed brick, op-shop furniture, well-worn wooden floorboards and a slew of hyper-stylish bearded men drinking tinnies of Emu Export, you'd be forgiven for thinking you were at a rough-and-ready house party — till you see the music lineup. The Bird draws some seriously impressive acts and is a great place to catch the latest local EP launch. With a small 150-cap band room, it fills up quick on Friday and Saturday nights. You'll see a few familiar faces in the crowd over the weekend — this place is frequented by many of Perth's up-and-coming musicians. In fact, one of the guys from Methyl Ethel runs sound most nights.
If you're more of a participant than a listener, on the second Thursday of every month The Bird hosts the incredibly popular hip hop karaoke. This isn't your ordinary karaoke night, with punters going all-out to compete for first place. Free before 8pm and $5 after, it's the best-value live music entertainment you can get in the west.

  • The fifth source is a list of four "Venues Where Western Australia Loves To Party", and this is its entire, trivial coverage of the Bird:

The Bird is a live music venue, based in Northbridge, that thrives on good vibes. The Bird hosts a range of live entertainment, exposing up-and-coming local musicians, monthly story telling night, the infamous Hip-Hop Kara"YO!"ke and international heavyweights playing intimate shows.
The space is split between the main room and bar, and a low-key courtyard offering an open-air space for drinkers and conversationalists to do their thing. Peter Bibby, The Ocean Party, Terrible Truths, Methyl Ethel and The Shabbab are just a handful of acts who’ve brought in big crowds and the vibes to match.

  • The sixth source is part of a list of "The Best Live Music Venues WA Has To Offer" and is extremely short, trivial, and lacking in terms of significant coverage:

Another Northbridge venue that’s prime for hangouts when live music isn’t on offer. It’s one of the most inviting venues around, and after a while in the beer garden, you begin to feel like you’re chilling in a mate’s backyard. We caught up with San Cisco there as they were gearing up to release Gracetown and they rattled off a couple of acoustic numbers for us.

  • The seventh source is an article published by the Western Independent, a newspaper operated by students at Curtin University. It is thus hyper-local and fails WP:AUD, so it alone cannot be used to indicate notability.
  • The eighth source is 100% routine coverage, titled "The Bird fights early closing time"; even if it wasn't routine in coverage, it doesn't actually focus on the venue itself.
It appears that this non-notable venue is being lifted up to the level of notability simply because sources exist; however, none of these sources, when examined alone, can be considered to be "significant coverage", not per any SNG guideline or per the GNG. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse The closer is not supposed to make a judgement on whether the sourcing meets the notability requirementThe closer is expected to determine whether there is consensus about whether the sourcing meets our community's notability requirement. In this case, participants were equally passionate in their position whether the sources met NCORP/GNG (and pointed to policy in their comments). A no consensus close is quite appropriate in this case. --Enos733 (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The disagreement wasn't so much on whether the sources met NCORP as on whether GNG supersedes NCORP. In that case the issue boils down to who has interpreted the policy correctly. Avilich (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enos733, I appreciate your point, which is quite right, but would you consider the points I make below please? My issue with this close is not the result so much as the way it has happened. There were procedural problems with this close. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse Is there enough coverage to make a sensible article of the topic? Clearly so, because we have one. A Keep outcome would also have been reasonable, because it's not even clear that an entertainment venue is covered by WP:NCORP. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'll also note that the article has been expanded significantly since the AfD closure. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is there enough coverage by independent, non-local media? The venue is a corporation, it has to meet NCORP; it can't do that with reviews from the same city it is located. JoelleJay (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, it's actually not established that it has to meet NCORP. Your procrustean expansivism is uncompelling and would serve to eviscerate the encyclopedia, rather than simply do what is within NCORP's remit: keep spammy startups off the 'pedia. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. NCORP defines what is independent SIGCOV for organizations; if a source does not meet NCORP requirements it can't count toward NCORP or GNG. If this wasn't the case then the guidelines at NCORP would serve absolutely no purpose. JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - I was involved and voted delete. However the question at DRV is not to relitigate the debate but to look at whether the close was correct. In this case there were serious enough concerns that I had already gone to the closer's talk page. I would have waited a little longer before opeing a DRV but the issues are these:
  1. The case was a clear delete, both in number of !votes and the policy arguments made, but it was left open beyond the normal 1 week discussion, and it was in the extended period that 3 more keep votes were added. These added no new information or policy reasons, but were treated as simple votes, balancing the voting to allow a no consensus close. There is definitely an impression here (I am sure unintended), that the case was allowed to run on until the voting was stacked to no consensus.
  2. Deletion is not a vote in any case. The policy arguments made were clear, and the bulk of the conversation was a meta argument from one commentator arguing why the policy should not be policy. This argument tehrefore conceded the point. The close statement was so brief that it did not justice to what was a very involved and careful look at the policy arguments.
  3. As the case had been allowed to over-run, and with an unclear consensus, this should have at least been relisted.

A relist would be acceptable, but endorsing close is basically saying deletion policy does not matter. That is not a message we want to portray. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse you may not like/disagree with the keep votes, but they are substantive and backed by policy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But again, the question is not whether we agree or disagree with the votes, but whether there is an impression that the AfD was improperly allowed to over-run until there was an exact balance of votes, and only closed at that point without any attempt to relist nor evaluate the arguments. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wasn't arguing this, but this was a possibility. I'm moving towards re-opening the AfD, if such a thing is possible. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Headbomb, how many of the keep !votes even acknowledged NCORP, let alone argued sourcing met it? JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment from closer: Sirfurboy, are you suggesting that I somehow waited until I got some desired !votes? In fact, I was looking at some AfDs that had not been handled after running 7 days. This one ran a decent time, with ample participation by multiple editors and there was no clear tendency towards a keep or delete that would make a relist worth while. Cunard's summation of the debate is spot on. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I said above, I am sure it was unintended. Yet the close, not after one week nor after two, and just after the number of votes suddenly balanced, and with a very short closing summary, gives an impression that this was irregular. I would have preferred if, rather than this deletion review, it had just been re-opened, as per my comment on your talk page, as I am sure it could have been resolved amicably. Unfortunately you did not see that before this review was opened, sorry. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Apology accepted. It wouldn't have changed anything anyway as I see no reason to change my close. That the AfD ran for more than 7 days does in no way mean that it must be relisted. As for an exact balance of !votes, that's new to me because I didn't count the !votes. Even without those 3 late !votes, my close would have been "no consensus". I take offence by you characterizing my close as not evaluating the arguments. The discussion had produced huge walls of text (which I suspect may be related to the fact that no admin came around to close the discussion after the usual 7 days) and I waded through it all. My close does, I think, show that I evaluated the arguments of both sides. --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    While it isn't the responsibility of an AfD discussion closer to determine if the subject is notable, the closer should at least review the merits of !votes. WP:NHC: "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy [...] and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." <-- I am not saying that some !voters had no understanding of the matter; I am simply pointing out that there needs to be a somewhat thorough review of the !votes. Now, in regards to this particular AfD, some people (among whom I am one) assessed the sources and arrived at the conclusion that the subject wasn't notable. Others examined the sources and concluded that the subject was notable. One of the aspects of notability we discussed was SIGCOV in the context of GNG and CORPDEPTH. The closer is supposed to determine the consensus of the discussion by evaluating the merits of the policy claims. You wrote in your closing statement, "No apparent consensus whether sources satisfy SIGCOV, with good arguments both for and against", which is disappointing. So much effort was put into the discussion and the final closing statement doesn't even address how "good" any argument was. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you want a !vote-by-!vote evaluation from the closer, then I'm surely not the only one who is going to disappoint you. I don't intend to add to the wall of text that this DRV is degenerating to, similarly to the AfD. In that spirit, this will be my last comment here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly disagree that Cunard's analysis is accurate.
  1. The review in Sunday Times (a tabloid owned by News Corp) appears in the "home" and "real estate (Prestige Property)" sections and is written by a Perth-based journalist focused on Perth bars. Its circulation is a full order of magnitude lower than the population of Perth itself; that decidedly fails the "local media or media of limited interest and circulation" part of AUD.
  2. The review in Perth Now (owned by News Corp) is not independent from the other review under NewsCorp and was written by another journalist dedicated to Perth bar reviews. Local!
  3. The review in Broadsheet is categorized in a sub-subsection of the Perth news outlet for Broadsheet, not the more national Food and Drink section. Local!
  4. The Concrete Playground review is also in the "Perth bars" section, written by a music talent manager/PR marketer who would obviously have a financial interest in drumming up attendance at venues her clients play at! Not to mention: local. JoelleJay (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak overturn to delete I don't think no consensus is necessarily a bad close - hence my "weak" - and I do want to commend Randykitty for wading in to close this, but having read that discussion I don't think the WP:NCORP argument was successfully rebutted by those arguing for WP:GNG, since NCORP applies a stricter guideline unless things have changed recently. SportingFlyer T·C 17:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse – No Consensus was a valid conclusion by the closer. It was, also, incidentally, the conclusion that I would have reached, but that is not important. The appellant seems to be sort of re-arguing the AFD by arguing that the closer didn't reach exactly the same conclusion as the appellant would have reached. This is a case where there is reasoned disagreement as to whether the sources are independent, significant, reliable, and secondary. When there is no consensus among the participants in the AFD as to the status of the sources, No Consensus is a reasoned conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is a case where there is reasoned disagreement as to whether the sources are independent, significant, reliable, and secondary. That would be the case if we were assessing a non-corporate entity .
    The DRV nom missed the biggest issues. Those were the fact that a) the AfD was not delsorted into the correct categories until the night before it was closed; b) keep editors largely ignored whether the topic met NCORP and instead insisted it "met GNG", which delete editors pointed out is irrelevant because the sources used failed the AUD requirements (the venue is in Perth, the coverage is in Perth, claims that the Perth newspapers are "regional" because they happen to also be distributed to the 8% of WA that doesn't live in the immediate Perth area are ridiculous; and moreover many delete !voters argued the coverage wasn't SIGCOV anyway). JoelleJay (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the record, I think the fact that this AfD on a business wasn't in the business delsorts until the night before--hence all the !votes ignoring NCORP--is a very strong rationale for just relisting. I had gone to @Randykitty's talk page to request exactly that, then saw the close had already been brought up for other reasons. JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid closure. This is just relitigating the debate. I was summoned here by talk page notice. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (no consensus). Opposing arguments were continuing with no indication of converging. Some fresh air is needed. Follow the advice at WP:RENOM. The AfD nomination was too brief, try better next time. An abundance of sources were considered, but it looks to me that their possible failing quality, independence, was not well considered. A review can be failed for being nonindependent as a customer review and a too-close primary source, but there is clearly no consensus that by merely being a review it should be excluded, or that local newspapers should be excluded. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (no consensus) per SmokeyJoe. Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. I had commented on the AfD and likely would have !voted delete had I decided to submit one but the discussion could reasonably be read as no consensus. Could this also have been closed as delete, keep or relisted? Maybe. I'm not sure I would consider relisting this even had I not commented. Trying my best to be neutral, delete seems more plausible than keep to my eye, but that is not in itself sufficient to overturn the close. Alpha3031 (tc) 00:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Reasonable closure. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse, there was no consensus and it was closed as no consensus. Merko (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 June 2023

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Q28/user names I personally recommend (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Welcome to the 1st Deletion Review in June 2023. I accidentally deleted this page in a previous operation, but the RFU didn't go through because the session timed out, and I can only request that the page be restored here Q𝟤𝟪 05:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
0402臺鐵第408次車清水隧道重大鐵道事故 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Request for deletion review: It should be a redirect page to 2021 Hualien train derailment as it was named by Taiwan Transportation Safety Board (Chinese: 國家運輸安全調查委員會) for investigating the rail accident, but it was speedy deleted as R3. (See more information at [2] and Chinese Wikipedia article W:zh:北迴線太魯閣號列車出軌事故. @鐵路1, Mafalda4144, and Subscriptshoe9) Sinsyuan~Talk 06:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It's customary to discuss with, and mandatory to notify, the deleting admin of your wish to review their decision here. Why hasn't that happened? Stifle (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Uh...The sysop User:Liz didn't give me any reasons why he decided to delete. Since I was notified for the speedy deletion notice, I wrote something to prevent from being speedy deleted (It is the same as W:zh:Template:Hang on) Sinsyuan~Talk 09:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is someone really going to type 0402臺鐵第408次車清水隧道重大鐵道事故 into the English Wikipedia search bar? Stifle (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think English users might not try to search that, but it usually uses for investigation conveyed by the government in Taiwan. Sinsyuan~Talk 13:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe I would create a new discuss at WP:Village pump about “Redirecting pages (with the title named by the authorities, especially from other languages) to some rail or airplane related accidents.” For example:
    Sinsyuan~Talk 13:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn. Systematic bias at its finest. WP:RLOTE states that redirects in other languages should only be deleted if there is no cultural or linguistic association between the redirect and its target. Sinsyuan's explanation on the talk page before deletion (This redirect should not be speedy deleted as an implausible typo or misnomer, because this is the official name for investigating the railway accident by Taiwan Transportation Safety Board, organized in Taiwan. [See more at [3] (in Chinese)]) made it clear that this was not eligible for speedy deletion. WP:CSD#R3 itself reads, However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are sometimes redirects in other languages. plicit 14:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn foreign language redirects are frequently considered acceptable if the target relates to a culture which uses that language. Most people in Taiwan speak Chinese and this is the official name of the subject in Taiwan, so it isn't an implausible search term. Hut 8.5 16:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not an R3, and in particular it shouldn't have been speedied after being contested on talk (a rare example where such a protest was relevant), but I suspect this won't survive RFD. Restore and send it there for discussion. —Cryptic 20:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn per Explicit. This deletion appears to be a simple error.—Alalch E. 20:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Send to RFD; I am convinced that it was ineligible for speedy deletion, though it may well be deleted the slower way. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I'm satisfied that this can be restored and sent to RFD. I'd do it myself but I think that this discussion should be closed first. And this wasn't systematic bias, I was just responding to pages that were tagged for speedy deletion and this seemed like a valid tagging. I will say that I untag quite a few pages that I think are inproperly tagged so I have no problem with doing that. But like Alalch says, sometimes we make mistakes. Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The WP:Systemic bias essay Explicit links to is careful not to assign blame, and I don't think Explicit meant to imply intentional wrongdoing either. The idea is that we, as mostly native English speakers, are more likely to do things like deleting redirects in foreign languages (and particularly ones in non-Latin scripts) unless we make a conscious effort not to.
      Anyway, the original admin reversing themselves is one of the few ways to get a DRV closed early. There's no need to wait until after this DRV is formally closed, though it might be different if there was a split opinion here, or if you'd taken action in response to a community discussion like an AFD rather than speedy deleting. —Cryptic 19:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn - I think that the answer to Stifle's question is that it is possible, even if unlikely, that someone who is bilingual in English and in Taiwanese Chinese might copy this long Chinese title, since it is an official title, into the search bar. Speedy deletions should be non-controversial. Usually the filing of a DRV for a speedy deletion other than the misconduct categories of G3, G4, or G5 is sufficient reason to restore, possibly followed by XFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to close early with Liz's statement and the general sentiment here, this discussion has clearly reached consensus, so the redirect can be restored and RfD'ed if anyone cares. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 May 2023

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Santiago Fonacier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I had already made the necessary changes needed to reduce the probability of copyright violations before someone decided to completely delete the article. Furthermore Philippine government works, which was cited by @Uncle Bash007 as a justification in removing the article (to which @GB fan concurred), belong in the Public Domain. Both of you should have seen the updated Earwig result before you arbitrarily decided to delete it Borgenland (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like it was a since-reversed speedy deletion. What remains to be done here? Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The review request was logged 7 minutes after asking the deleting admin to reconsider, and 2 minutes before the deleting admin undeleted it, so nothing remains to be done, other than perhaps remind the nominator that giving people a little more time can help. Stifle (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 May 2023

  • List of Syrian Air destinations – Consensus to endorse delete closure, though it is noted that some participants feel the information is useful. It may be possible to request the deleted content be sent via email to be used elsewhere, though requesters should keep in mind any copyright considerations (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (tc) 09:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Syrian Air destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1. Consensus was misinterpreted. No consideration was given to the now hundreds of dead links to the deleted pages. Also, these pages are more than likely to be recreated sooner rather than later by somebody who is unaware of the discussion. The information in the deleted pages can be merged back into the respective main articles, and never should have been deleted entirely. SurferSquall (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I meant for this to link to all pages deleted from that discussion. None of those should’ve been deleted. SurferSquall (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you succeeded in pointing to none of them. Sorry if that wasn't what you wanted, but you can go ahead and add the rest in manually. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse First off, this discussion was numerically 15 delete to 4 keep, which would require a pretty strong keep argument to not have consensus to delete. Instead we had nothing more than WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:HARDWORK running up against an explicit RfC determining consensus against having these articles, which is nowhere near sufficient. This nomination is itself a relitigation of the AfD rather than a valid DRV argument, and fails even at that.
    No consideration was given to the now hundreds of dead links to the deleted pages - So? If the red links bother you, you are welcome to remove them
    Also, these pages are more than likely to be recreated sooner rather than later by somebody who is unaware of the discussion - and new page patrol will see the recreation and tag it for speedy deletion per WP:G4 - the process will work as intended.
    The information in the deleted pages can be merged back into the respective main articles - no it can't, because much of the concerns raised in the discussion were about the existence of the information at all, not being a separate article. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not able to see the deleted page - but what's the issue in listing where the airline currently flies to in the article; especially for smaller scheduled airlines. It only looks to be about a dozen or so countries. I'd have thought the closing statement would have explained why merge was not an option. Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Users claimed it was support of a corporate entity and thus didn’t belong; a strange argument- see List of Braathens destinations, a featured article! SurferSquall (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who said the issue was with the content itself? SurferSquall (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was pondering what we do with major airlines I'm more familiar with ... but I notice that Air Canada, British Airways, American Airways, United Airlines, Qantas, Air New Zealand, and pretty much every other "English-speaking" airline have multiple clear keeps at AFD. And I think to myself ... WTF? Nfitz (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thoughts as well! Wikipedia can have some pretty crazy and pretty obvious bias occasionally SurferSquall (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
? No-one is talking about deleting the airline articles. FOARP (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (involved) - First off, I actually agree that Explicit (the closing admin) should have provided a detailed close. AFD closers should not be providing no close rationale at all simply to avoid giving people who request review anything to argue against. It gives the (no doubt unfair) impression of just counting the votes without assessing the strengths of individual arguments. I am very sympathetic to there just not being enough people working on closing AFDs, but it is bad if this has led to drive-by closures being made as a matter of course.
That said, there is no evidence at all that this DELREV was discussed with Explicit before it was raised, so this review fails before it even gets over the very first hurdle. If mergers were wanted, SurferSquall could have just asked Explicit to give them access to the data in the deleted articles - and can still ask Explicit for that! This review is therefore totally unnecessary and would have been avoided if the DELREV process had been followed properly.
I agree with Pppery that the lists as such couldn’t have been merged directly into their parent articles given the concerns raised about them. However, multiple experienced editors gave advice on what would be acceptable (a brief summary of major destinations served) for SurferSquall to follow.
However, since we are here, it would be good to establish a clear assessment of what the consensus in this AFD was so that it can be accurately recorded. For the record, it was that these articles failed WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTRAVEL, and WP:NCORP. In human terms that means they aren’t encyclopaedic content, and lack any references that are independent of the airlines providing the services that are the subject of the articles. FOARP (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Question for User:FOARP; if this is the U-Z airlines, where's United Airlines, US Airways, and Virgin; or are those notable? Nfitz (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Nfitz. In order to have a more focused discussion, the articles were selected from the worst, and thus easiest to assess, articles of the lists of airline destinations category. This approach (bundling in smaller groups by quality) was the approach suggested in the 2018 AN discussion I linked to in the original nomination.
    Regarding the articles you mention, are you saying they should have been nominated? I have to say it is somewhat Catch-22-esque to see clean-up of these articles repeatedly blocked over the years by people saying that these articles cannot all be AFD’d in one go due to WP:TRAINWRECK, but then be told that other articles need to be included when a more focused set is proposed! FOARP (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm simply concerned that we are going to see huge BIAS, where we'll see such articles eliminated for some flag carriers, but not flag carriers for countries with advanced economies. I see no indication that the previous discussions were done with an equity lens. Nfitz (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please rest assured that I’m an equal-opportunity deletionist when it comes to these non-notable, free advertising, business-service-directory, WP:LISTCRUFT articles. However, if you’re anxious to even the score against the advanced economies, you can always go and nominate those articles for deletion yourself. FOARP (talk) 04:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It wasn't the motive, or nominator, that concerns me. It's the likely outcome - even with the best of intentions. Nfitz (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can't help what was decided under the 2018 AN discussion, and ultimately, these were the worst ones. Many others (e.g., List of British Airways destinations) are simply WP:REFBOMBS cited ultimately only to the airline and its website (as far as I can see every link for an active flight goes to the website) but its way more work to show this (you have to explore every link and source). Again, if you want to even the score, go and nominate them yourself. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS, Nfitz - of these 14 nominations:
  • 2 were for lists of services offered by American companies
  • 2 were for lists of services offered by Belgian companies
  • 2 were for lists of services offered by British companies
  • 1 was for a list of services offered by a Chinese company
  • 1 was for a list of services offered by a Danish company
  • 1 was for a list of services offered by a Dutch company
  • 1 was for a list of services offered by a German company
  • 1 was for a list of services offered by a Philippines company
  • 1 was for a list of services offered by a Portuguese company
  • 1 was for a list of the services offered by a Syrian company
  • 1 was for a list of the services offered by a Yemeni company
For anyone counting that's 10 out of the 14 from Western Europe/North America. I'm honestly not seeing any basis for your equity concerns here. Perhaps you can explain? FOARP (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of the airlines most commonly known to the public (American, British, Air Canada, Virgin, etc) are ever deleted- because why? their lists are hardly better than the one deleted. SurferSquall (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I don't think there was BIAS in this nomination. I can see why you went for the low-hanging (low-flying?) fruit. The British/American ones seem to be for minor airlines - I wasn't aware Cook was still around. But I'm concerned that there's BIAS. Really (at least for flag carriers rather than chartered unknowns) this needs to be all or nothing. But that's not the process we are now in. Nfitz (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Unlike the DRV starter who says that consensus was misinterpreted, but doesn't say how or why, I find it implausible that it could have been misinterpreted and can't identify any such reason. Clearly, No consideration was given to the now hundreds of dead links to the deleted pages. is not an argument for how consensus was misinterpreted. There was consensus to delete the pages based around policy reasons for how this content is not suitable.—Alalch E. 17:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The closer misinterpreted it by simply reading the number of delete v. keep and hardly reading the arguments for or against. The closer is an admin known for similar occurrences. SurferSquall (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whether or not there's a history - what's the policy-based justification to Keep? Nfitz (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SurferSquall: The closer is an admin known for similar occurrences. Excuse me? Please provide evidence of this claim. plicit 23:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    there are six separate topics on your talk page regarding the issue. SurferSquall (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SurferSquall: And you've manged to completely ignore the context of every single one of them. Considering the endorsements of my closure above, I'd comfortably say I'm doing alright. plicit 00:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The discussion has nothing to do with personal matters SurferSquall (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Let's keep it constructive. The closer is an admin known for similar occurrences, even if hypothetically true, is not an argument for how consensus was misinterpreted either.—Alalch E. 16:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - The appellant doesn't explain how consensus was misinterpreted, and it appears to have been interpreted correctly. Insulting the closer is not useful. Either discuss any issue about their closes at WP:AN, or ... don't discuss them. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - "I didn't agree with the outcome" is not a valid DRV rationale. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think this was a terrible decision by the AFD, as this information is not available in anything approaching a similarly well-structured way anywhere else, and is highly suitable for an encyclopedia as a collection of knowledge. But the AFD consensus was clear and with the highest reluctance I must endorse it. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe you could consider a RFC on this topic because tbh I don't understand your position and I don't really see a reason why we should consider the consensus has changed since the discussion in 2018 referred to above. JMWt (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Stifle is referring to the fact that the pages deleted were the best-organized form of that information anywhere on the Internet. SurferSquall (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same was true of all the plot-summaries we used to host before they got moved off-wiki. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not or Skyscanner. FOARP (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sometimes we should accept that having things that are useful to people, like potentially hugely useful, we should host even if it doesn't meet our general inclusion criteria. I think this is such a case. That said, everything about this met our rules and we are no where near an IAR keep. So endorse. But yeah, what Stifle said. Hobit (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why should we accept articles that are simply lists of company services created entirely from company publications? FOARP (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because, as WP:IAR says, when a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree that we are improving Wikipedia by including lists of company services on a random date at some point in the past sourced entirely to company publications. Stripped of the "wow, aeroplanes!" factor, this is the equivalent of maintaining a list of Blockbuster Video outlets accurate as of 24 October 1997 (including, for some inexplicable reason, the ones that were already closed on that date) sourced to a Blockbuster company prospectus.
IAR is out of place here, since your proposal is not a specific exception to a general rule. Instead you are simply saying that a specific policy just shouldn't be applied to the things it specifically applies to. If you believe this position to be correct, then go and start a discussion at VPP to overturn the 2018 RFC. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I endorse this, I just think the underlying arguments get us to a less useful-and-good encyclopedia. If I were King of Wikipedia, things would be different. But I'm not and this outcome is consistent with where we are. Hobit (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 May 2023

  • Aqua:_The_Hits_VCD_KaraokeEndorse, allow recreation. Non admin, but per WP:DRV#Closing reviews, 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. Both apply here. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aqua:_The_Hits_VCD_Karaoke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The reasonings given for deletion were not adequate. 81blazko92 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse - not one person spoke up against the deletion in the AFD - almost 15 years ago. The close looks like the only possible choice. A complete lack of good references appears to be the reason. I'm not sure why User:81blazko92 is here. If they think there should be an article, refund it to draft or something, and make a good article. But there's zero chance the closure is being overturned here without providing any new information. Nfitz (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I saw this earlier in the day, and it seems like 81blazko92 requested a refund of that along with Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01, which was accepted as it was a soft deletion. I can't say I'm too surprised this one was rejected, given the rationale is somewhat difficult to decipher in relation to DELPOL, though a restoration to draft should be possible. Alpha3031 (tc) 11:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse correct interpretation of consensus, albeit consensus among four participants. With the deletion having taken place over 14 years ago, I have no issue with it being WP:REFUNDed to draft space if there are more references to create a good article. Frank Anchor 13:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse since this appears to be an appeal of a 14-year-old deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Restore the deleted article to draft or user space. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Allow review of draft Robert McClenon (talk)
  • Submit Draft for Review The deletion decision taken at that time was right. To recreate the page, one has to share a draft with proper sources.Jimandjam (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Unlike the DRV starter who considers the reasons for deletion not to be adequate, I find that they are perfectly adequate, and that there was consensus to delete. Nothing needs to be done.—Alalch E. 17:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Here are the search results. 81blazko92 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Based on the appeal it seems that this seems to be going for criteria 1 of DRV by stating vaguely that the reasoning in a 14-year old deletion discussion is inadequate, despite the participants raising policy-based concerns of significant coverage and independence. If this is appealing to criteria 3, recreation is of course allowed given the age of the discussion if it significantly differs from the original version, but judging from the unconvincing sources the DRV filer linked via the Google search, submitting through AfC seems like a better path. VickKiang (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - No reason for overturning has been given. If the nom has new sourcing to restore the article, they can go ahead and attempt a new draft of it - this AFD discussion does not prevent that (and should not be interpreted as preventing that). FOARP (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 May 2023


Brainspotting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I saw a request under the Psychology topics ( for a page on Brainspotting. I wrote up a draft article, but I saw that it was protected the article from creation in 2018 due to recurrent attempts to make the article and recurrent deletions. However, the user who deleted and protected the article is no longer an admin. It seems like past attempts to make the article were not well-sourced. My draft is better-researched. I think that even though there's basically no quality evidence that Brainspotting works, the fact that it is so trendy in certain mental health circles warrants a re-creation of this page. I'm a psychologist who is concerned about the amount of inaccurate information out there about certain treatments, including Brainspotting, and I want the public to have a page to read about it from a source that isn't trying to sell them something. PenguinyPenguiny (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song) (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dance with the Devil (Immortal Technique song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I have re-written the article in a draft, with more reliable sources that cover on this song in particular. Click here to read. MC-123 (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • MC-123 it would have been better if you asked me about this before filing a DRV. For a deletion discussion from 6 years ago, with a new draft written with more reliable sources, it's a no-brainer that it can be recreated. No need to get DRV involved. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @RoySmith thank you for letting me know. That's what I had in mind as well, but when I requested for my draft to be moved to article status (since the page is protected), I was told to make a case in a DRV that the redirect should be moved. MC-123 (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Interesting. I see I wrote way back when, I'm not going to protect the page; that can always be done later if it turns out to be necessary when I closed the AfD. And I see that Spartaz added page protection after a second AfD. So, I guess I can see why the folks at AfC might have been hesitant to do anything. In any case, here we are. Let's just see how this plays out. A week isn't going to kill anybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have removed the protection. Time passes Spartaz Humbug! 18:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you very much! MC-123 (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Submit Draft for Review - The redirect has been unprotected as requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Submit Draft for Review Please create a draft with proper sources to show notability. Kindly, let me know if you need help.Jimandjam (talk) 10:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 May 2023

Category:Australian Survivor contestants

Category:Australian Survivor contestants (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category should not have been deleted as not all of the contestants on the series were celebrities when appearing on the show. Therefore, it would be inaccurate and incorrect to delete it as it is clearly not a WP:PERFCAT and the appearance is WP:DEFINING for some contestants and their articles. Happily888 (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't watch reality TV, but as I understand it most folks won't be notable before the show. So yeah, I'm not getting the !votes here. Leaning overturn or relist, but I'm also more than willing to be better educated. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from closer: I'd like to think I made no error on my part (unanimous consensus to delete), but given this info, we should probably relist for more input. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 17:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak endorse I sympathise with the closer of the CFD. There is a difficulty when the nomination and all the arguments are wholly irrational or based on a severe mistake. However, I think it probably best to take them at face value and just move on. Thincat (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I have a problem with "yeah, it was wrong, but it's where we are". If we agree the !votes were just plain wrong, we should relist, not just move forward. Here it's a very minor thing. But as a way of handling issues like this, I think it's important. Hobit (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse but relist. There was a clear consensus to delete but there was very little discussion in the CfD. Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says: "Deletion review may be used: ... 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page".

    Editors at the CfD were operating under the CfD nominator's statement that "As these people were already famous this is not WP:DEFINING and therefore nothing more than a WP:PERFCAT." But the DRV nominator has stated here that "not all of the contestants on the series were celebrities when appearing on the show" so "the appearance is WP:DEFINING for some contestants and their articles". This dissenting view was not discussed at the CfD, so I support relisting at CfD to allow for more discussion.

    Since the CfD closer said "given this info, we should probably relist for more input", it should be uncontroversial to relist this at CfD.

    Cunard (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Relist per Cunard - the consensus was interpreted correctly but there was a clear error in the reasoning applied as we know now. FOARP (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist no closer error, but the argument may have been flawed. No problem with letting it run for a bit longer. SportingFlyer T·C 17:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec