Wikipedia:Deletion review

This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

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.

Purpose

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. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
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.

Instructions

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

1.	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: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2023 November 30}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	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 November 30}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2023 November 30|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.

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.

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, 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.)

Speedy closes

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

Active discussions

30 November 2023

Bharat(India)

Bharat(India) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think J947 brought up a valid point, especially given that the the acronym being thrown around as if it were policy is really just an essay. Rosguill relisted the discussion, but it was closed as delete the next day by Ivanvector, without any participation since the relist. As deletion discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE, I think the relist was perfectly valid, to stimulate more discussion, and the closure should be repealed. Numbers don't mean everything, especially all the "delete" !votes are basically just "per nom" or "per that essay". Edward-Woodrow (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse Neutral. (RFD nominator) Honestly, I thought it was a bit odd that this discussion was relisted at all, making me believe that undue, almost WP:SUPERVOTE weight was placed on that "keep" vote, considering the numerous delete votes after it. (By the way Edward-Woodrow, I didn't see an attempt to contact the closer to get their take on their close, but eh, it is technically just an option per the DRV instructions.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  ...But yeah, that was kind of a quick turnaround. No time for the relist to even breathe. I'll "neutral". Steel1943 (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• I suspect Rosguill did not see CycloneYoris' late delete vote, otherwise it would have been closed as delete (6–1 with four deletes after my one keep being relisted would be a new extreme). In that light both Rosguill's relist and Ivanvector's close make a lot more sense. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse There was a clear consensus to delete and this should never have been relisted in the first place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

29 November 2023

Category:D.I.C.E. Award winners

Category:D.I.C.E. Award winners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to provide to some information that was not part of the deletion discussion. I have to point that there are category pages for the British Academy Game Awards winners at Category:BAFTA winners (video games). In my opinion, the D.I.C.E. Awards are more defining than the British Academy Game Awards. There are also categories for Category:Game Developers Choice Award winners, Category:Golden Joystick Award winners, and even Category:New York Game Award winners. There also category GOTY winner categories for the Game Developers Choice Awards and Golden Joystick Awards. I feel that at the very least the Category:D.I.C.E. Award for Game of the Year winners MR.RockGamer17 (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I concur with MR.RockGamer17. The D.I.C.E. Awards (originally called the Interactive Achievement Awards before 2013) is a highly prestigious peer-based awards ceremony that has been going strong for close to 27 years, with no cessation in sight. Many of the top video game companies from around the world (Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, Bethesda, etc.) are sponsors of the D.I.C.E. Awards, so it has tremendous financial support. Many of the games that has won throughout its history are amongst the best games of all time, and the winners of those awards were voted on by nearly 30,000 worldwide video game industry professionals (publishers, developers, designers, artists, programmers, etc.). The D.I.C.E. Awards' voting methodology is very similar to the peer-based voting methodologies from other art and sciences "academies" (AMPAS for Oscars, the Recording Academy for Grammys, ATAS for Emmys, etc.). An award won from the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences is at least on par with The Game Awards, the BAFTAS and the GDC in terms of industry prestige, if not more so because of the aforementioned voting methodology. The awards ceremony also occurred in one of the biggest networking conventions amongst the video game industry, the D.I.C.E. Summit (hence the name the D.I.C.E. Awards). If the Game Developers Choice Award, the Golden Joystick Award, and the New York Game Award are allowed to have their specified Category Wiki pages, it would stand to reason that the D.I.C.E. Awards should have those Category Wiki pages as well. Tommybone32 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse this is a regurgitation of your comments on the CfD itself, not a valid premise for a DRV. DRV is not CfD round two. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

27 November 2023

Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation)

Gilbert Affleck (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was an invalid WP:G14, per disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. At the time of deletion, there were three extant pages: (1) Gilbert Affleck, (2) the baronets which are listed at Affleck baronets, and (3) the "Lt-Col of the Risbridge Battalion", which is discussed at Suffolk Militia. UtherSRG seems to think the other entries are "further information pages", but they are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. Furthermore, this was at AfD at the time of deletion, and multiple editors opined to keep the page. This would make deletion controversial, in violation of the advice at WP:CSD that administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages except in the most obvious cases. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn: I came to DRV to add this and the next entry, then found it had already been done. This was a valid and useful dab page, was nominated for AfD, and the AfD was then closed as G14 (within 8 hours) despite "keep" votes, although WP:CSD says Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Clearly this was not an obvious candidate for G14 or any other speedy deletion. I asked the deleting editor to reverse the close of the AfD, but they have not done so. PamD 19:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy Overturn G14 and reopen AFD largely per PamD. It disambiguates to multiple extant targets, thereby making it an invalid G14. UtherSRG also deleted this page within hours of being pinged in the discussion as an admin who G14 deleted another page, suggesting this out-of-process deletion was the result of (likely unintentional) WP:CANVASSing. Frank Anchor 01:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn per nom. An understandable, but wrong, reading of G14.—Alalch E. 17:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn per Alalch E. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy overturn and list at XfD . Most speedies, if contested by an editor in good standing, should be undeleted and sent to XfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation)

Thomas Ainsworth (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was an invalid WP:G14, per disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. At the time of deletion, there were five extant pages: (1) Thomas Ainsworth, (2) the baronet(s) listed at Ainsworth baronets, (3) a fictional reverend discussed at Gentleman Jack (TV series), (4) a fictional character played by Ron Silver, and (5) a fictional dishonest mayor in The Raiders (1952 film). UtherSRG seems to think the other entries are "further information pages", but they are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. Furthermore, this was at AfD at the time of deletion, and multiple editors opined to keep the page. This would make deletion controversial, in violation of the advice at WP:CSD that administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages except in the most obvious cases. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn: I came to DRV to add this and the previous entry, then found it had already been done. This was a valid and useful dab page, was nominated for AfD, and the AfD was then closed as G14 (within 8 hours) despite "keep" votes, although WP:CSD says Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Clearly this was not an obvious candidate for G14 or any other speedy deletion. I asked the deleting editor to reverse the close of the AfD, but they have not done so. PamD 19:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy Overturn G14 and reopen AFD largely per PamD. It disambiguates to multiple extant targets, thereby making it an invalid G14. UtherSRG also G14 deleted this page within hours of being pinged in the discussion as an admin who G14 deleted another page, suggesting this out-of-process deletion was the result of (likely unintentional) WP:CANVASSing. Frank Anchor 01:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn per nom. An understandable, but wrong, reading of G14.—Alalch E. 17:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn per Alalch E. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Longwan (disambiguation)

Longwan (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was an invalid WP:G14, per disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. At the time of deletion, there were three extant pages: (1) Longwan, Wenzhou, (2) a town administered by Qianjiang, Hubei, (3) a township administered by Xiong County. UtherSRG seems to think the other entries are "further information pages", but they are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• The actual entries linked on the disambiguation page were Longwan District, Longwan, Qianjiang, Hubei and Longwan Township, Xiong County, and only one of those exists. The latter two entries did have links to pages which do exist, but those should not have been there per MOS:DABONE, and in any case since the settlements concerned are just included as list entries. Hut 8.5 19:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  The only thing WP:G14 concerns is whether the pages being disambiguated are extant. Longwan, Wenzhou; Qianjiang, Hubei; and Xiong County are extant. Other arguments on the validity of the entries can and should be made at the AfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  The pages being disambiguated were the first links - Longwan, Qianjiang, Hubei and Longwan Township, Xiong County. Hut 8.5 20:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  The pages being disambiguated are the bluelinks, because they guide readers to where we have information on the topic. That there are also redlinks is irrelevant for G14 purposes, it's simply a formatting choice described at WP:DABRL. If the bluelinks didn't exist, then there wouldn't be anywhere to navigate to and then there would not be an extant page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Precedent (which I'm too lazy to go dig out, but I can if it turns out to be truly necessary) is that WP:DABMENTION is enough to stave off a G14. This was initially surprising to me too. —Cryptic 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  May I ask why you found that surprising? If WP:DABMENTION was not enough to stave off a G14, then valid disambiguation pages would be eligible to be speedy deleted. Surely that would not be the intent? -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  Because, as someone who hardly ever works with dabs, and hadn't followed any deletion discussions for dabs at the time what eventually became G14 was first added to G6, my initial reading of G14 was the same as Hut 8.5's: "but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page" and similar wording seems to say that there has to be a bluelink to a page that could've been at the dab's title if not for the title's other meanings. Xiong County, for example, has never been in any danger of being moved to Longwan. —Cryptic 01:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  • And, just saw who tagged it. I previously had to revert a series of edits of theirs that automatically and silently tagged dabs with two entries as speedies; related talk page convo. Clearly that didn't take. Not to mention that they had prodded it and Boleyn, an experienced and good-faith user who hadn't previously been involved with the page, declined, so this is clearly not uncontroversial. Speedy overturn. —Cryptic 01:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn. There were multiple entries, and two of the three entries being DABMENTIONs doesn't matter. Red links especially don't matter, and in some circumstances it's even possible for a dabmention entry to also contain the red link, per WP:PRIMARYRED, and MOS:DABONE does not conflict with that, as DABONE is about navigable links. Invalid G14.—Alalch E. 15:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn per Alalch E. Also noting that nothing in the MOS is relevant in a deletion discussion: MOS determines how we normally present information, not what we keep or delete. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Insta (disambiguation)

Insta (disambiguation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was an invalid WP:G14, per disambiguation pages that have titles ending in "(disambiguation)" but disambiguate only one extant Wikipedia page. At the time of deletion, there were five extant pages: (1) Instagram, (2) cooking equipment described at History of Burger King, (3) a former name of the band Alison's Halo, (4) a song for Armenia in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2018, (5) a 2019 single by Bizzey. UtherSRG seems to think the other entries are "further information pages", but they are valid entries per WP:DABRL and/or WP:DABMENTION. Furthermore, this was at AfD at the time of deletion, and multiple editors opined to keep the page. This would make deletion controversial, in violation of the advice at WP:CSD that administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages except in the most obvious cases. Finally, UtherSRG opined to delete at the AfD, making them WP:INVOLVED in the matter. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• As with the other dabs listed today, this didn't qualify for speedy deletion. We should probably make that clear in the text of WP:G14 so admins who don't often work with dabs don't get misled like this. —Cryptic 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy Overturn G14 and reopen AFD It disambiguates to multiple extant targets, thereby making it an invalid G14. Frank Anchor 01:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with Cryptic that changes to the wording of G14 would be really helpful. MOS:DABMENTION entries do link to different extant pages, but those pages aren't necessarily standalone articles on the topic, just articles where you can find some information on the eprson/thing you are looking for. I've worked on disambiguation for years, but I appreciate that it's niche and that not many people will be totally familiar with the guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think it really needs clarification in WP:G14. The red link in the entry of MOS:DABMENTION could generally be created as a redirect to the blue link (the related topic), which suffices one extant Wikipedia page although it's a redirect rather than an article. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn per nom. An understandable, but wrong, reading of G14.—Alalch E. 17:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn per Alalch E. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

26 November 2023

Karate Do Association of Bengal

Karate Do Association of Bengal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As stated on User talk:Doczilla, I personally find the deletion close to be a somewhat incorrect interpretation of the consensus in the AFD discussion. The discussion was closed as no-consensus, however, from my (definitely biased POV) the Keep voters were fairly new accounts that failed to actually show any reliable significant sourcing that would lead the page to be kept and instead reffered to various policies (sometimes completely errenously) without actually pointing out how the page actually satisfied the said policies. Sohom (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• I hate saying "per nom", but yeah, overturn per nom. I'd have entirely discounted all three of vote/contribs, vote/contribs, and vote/contribs (up to that vote, more follow), which are indistinguishable from sleeper socks. —Cryptic 02:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse the close of No Consensus.
  • • I would have !voted to Delete, but this is not AFD round 2.
    • A close of Delete based on downgrading of the Keep !votes would have been reasonable. A closer has to Be Bold when closing an AFD with a roughly equal number of Keeps and Deletes, because it will likely be taken to DRV no matter how it is closed. A close of Delete is likely to be appealed, stating that there was not a consensus to delete. A close of No Consensus is likely to be appealed, stating that the closer should have discounted the Keep !votes. Divided XFDs are thankless closes.
    • DRV is not AFD round 2, and DRV is not a second and third and fourth close. We are reviewing the close, not closing the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Who needs sources or policies when you have extra accounts? —Cryptic 06:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse Like Robert, I would have !voted to Delete, but I cannot find error in the close (as both no consensus or delete were valid options of the closer). So, what I can see is a close !vote in the discussion and disagreement among participants whether the sources in the article meet GNG (2 of 3 keep voters suggested the sourcing was adequate). Also, after the last relist, the only new participant was to keep the article. To me, this adds up to a no-consensus close, unless the closer decided to discount the keep comments. --Enos733 (talk) 06:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I will retract my thought here if there are confirmed socks. - Enos733 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete. The closer should have looked beyond the numbers to see the clear strength-of-argument disparity: the keep !voters do not rebut the delete !voters' source analysis or provide any evidence/sources in support of their claims. The dubious provenance of the keep-!voting accounts doesn't help matters, although I think the outcome should have been delete either way. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete - weak keep votes were from WP:DUCK. starship.paint (RUN) 09:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete. Supporters of keeping did not engage with the stated reasons to delete. Their comments were of the WP:ITSNOTABLE type and WP:THREE was cited without actually identifying any sources contributing to notability. The delete side made concrete and relevant observations.—Alalch E. 12:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. The closer failed to follow deletion policy in that he did not properly down-weight the contributions of editors which appear to be socks or otherwise limited in contribution. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse one "weak keep" in the final relist precludes a delete outcome: if it wasn't "no consensus" before the final relist, then the final relist was in error. I don't dispute the "meh" quality of the keep arguments, but a delete outcome is not consistent with the discussion when the relists are considered. Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  That comment after the last relist is discountable, and the last relist should not have been done. The discussion should have been closed as 'delete' then instead. Relisting is a close action and DRV can take a stance on the correctness of a relist too. —Alalch E. 18:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse - While the delete side had a slightly stronger case, there was not clear consensus to delete and a NC close was within the closing admin's discretion. If the alleged sleeper socks are confirmed as such, I will consider changing my vote to overturn to delete at no fault of the closer. Frank Anchor 20:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete. This should have been closed as delete on November 7. There were two well-reasoned, policy-based rationales offered for deletion, and one WP:ASSERTN keep from the page's author. It was relisted. There was one "meh" delete, another WP:ASSERTN keep vote, and a third well-reasoned delete !vote. Two meritless keep votes – one of which was from the page's author – against four well-reasoned argument for deletion should be closed as delete, but it was relisted.
  Then a third user argues for keeping the article (a self-described "weak keep"):

  Weak Keep: I found numerous news articles from reliable website which passes WP:BASIC. On the basis of WP:THREE.
  — User:Katy Williamson 11:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Unlike the other keep !votes, this one cited a guideline. However, I fail to see how a (unspecified) reliable website can meet WP:BASIC – the "basic" notability guideline for biographies. In fact, I fail to understand how WP:BASIC is relevant to an article about an organization. And even though it is "just an essay", let's look at WP:THREE for a minute. The {{nutshell}} of the essay states:

  If you were sent here from a link in a WP:AfD, WP:AfC, or similar discussion, please consider it a request to post two or three, but no more, of what you consider to be the best sources for the page under discussion.
  — WP:THREE

  Noticeably absent were those "two or three" sources, despite multiple requests (1, 2).
  The delete !votes have policy-based reasoning. The keep !votes did not. And if we look at the numbers, we have four in favor of deletion against three opposed (one of whom is the original author and another who was a self-described weak keep). Both numbers as well as strength of arguments tilt in favor of deletion, so "no consensus" is an inappropriate close. HouseBlaster^talk 01:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete. All of the three keep votes are bare assertions on notability, from new accounts with <100 edits, whereas "delete" votes actually analysed the sourcing in detail. I would argue that based on the strength of the arguments, delete is far more preferable than no consensus. VickKiang (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SanFranBan

Wikipedia:SanFranBan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

"SanFranBan" is a term for a WMF global ban (see e.g. 1, 2; c.f. WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?), and its existence aligns with the general principle that one should be able to find the definition of Wikipedia jargon term by going to WP:[insert term here].

Note that because of the age of the deletion discussion (it is eight years and one WP:FRAMBAN later), I had initially filed this at REFUND, but Graeme Bartlett said it would be better to take it to DRV. HouseBlaster^talk 07:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding on to the above, I would argue that three out of four deletion !votes are based on incorrect premises:

1. Any possible retarget e.g. to California Air Resources Board would be WP:CNR – this is not a mainspace redirect; there are plenty of interwiki soft redirects.
2. Only visible on forums and self-published content – not relevant to a projectspace shortcut
3. Especially since that's unrelated to a global ban – it is objectively related to a global ban

And even if thought it is not an established principle, it is certainly how I (as a newbie) figured out what people meant in discussions. HouseBlaster^talk 15:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

There are some irrelevant remarks in the discussion but the core argumentation supporting deletion is okay. —Alalch E. 22:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, what would that core argument be? I presume you are referring to the nomination, which says Useless redirect. Unlikely to be searched. That is textbook WP:ITSUSELESS. I would additionally point to WP:RFD#K5: I would find it useful, and the original creator found it useful. Both of us did, quite literally, search for this. HouseBlaster^talk 00:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Endorse close and decline refund. Nothing has changed since the 2015 close. Every bit of jargon does not need to have a WP:[jargon term] page. There is no such general principle. —Alalch E. 11:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding nothing has changed since the 2015 close: WP:FRAMBAN has happened, giving renewed use of phrase. Restore. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Allow Restoration and a new discussion. Over the last seven years this may have become an established piece of wiki-jargon that justifies a redirect. Worth discussing again. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse although I would have !voted to Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Allow Recreation subject to RFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Restore (or allow recreation) exactly per Tavix: this phrase seems to have become more common in the wake of the Fram incident, and that's reason enough to let RfD discuss it anew. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Allow Re-creation which didn't need to come here in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nikolai Ogolobyak

Nikolai Ogolobyak (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

More reliable sources have covered Ogolobyak [1] [2]. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Refund to draftspace. Not much to add here.—Alalch E. 10:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• Allow recreation in either draft or mainspace. Needs to cite the new sources to demonstrate sustained coverage. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
• Allow recreation and restore history to either draftspace or mainspace. This probably doesn't need DRV approval considering the AFD was deleted over 13 years ago and new sources are present. Frank Anchor 13:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Restoring to mainspace could theoretically be fine, but the BLP content will be outdated, and judging by the AfD comments it wasn't particularly good content in the first place in terms of overall policy compliance. —Alalch E. 17:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• That afd could just as easily apply to the article today, even with the new sources. And, all told, we're talking about an article that was never more than four sentences long when it was deleted. You'd be better off rewriting from scratch in draftspace, but don't be surprised if the article's never accepted, nor if it's afd'd and deleted again should you move it to mainspace anyway. —Cryptic 01:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Allow Recreation, either as draft, or as article subject to AFD. Title was not salted and should not be salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Allow userification or draftification which didn't need to come here for approval. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

23 November 2023

2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing – speedily reopened by closing administrator. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Not a valid R3, as - while inaccurate - this title isn't implausible, which WP:R3 requires. Early reports described this as a car bomb (example) and it was initially treated as a possible terrorism attack (example). As Thryduulf said at the aborted RFD, the way to combat sloppy reporting is education, not to pretend it didn't happen. —Cryptic 11:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse removal, this was a car accident, a spectacular car accident but not a bombing. The accuracy of the project is an important factor in article naming, and purposely falsely calling something a bombing has no place on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Yes, but was it called a bombing? We don't delete redirects because they're wrong, that's the whole point of a neutral and accurate destination. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse removal. While doubtless this was briefly called many things in the immediate aftermath, but the situation has clarified. While I respect that a plausible search term may be appropriate even if not quite accurate, Randy's argument is important as well. While there are doubtless situations (eg. very slow internet) where autocomplete doesn't happen, if someone starts searching for "2034 Rainbow"... then "....explosion" will quickly come up, so I don't think Thryduulf's argument, while not invalid, is of low importance in this instance. Martinp (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Restore. Not a valid R3. I think that the case for keeping or deleting the redirect is quite close and requires a full discussion at RfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The term "bomb" was removed from the article body by the fourth edit, 14 minutes after the article was created, and removed from the article title about 30 minutes later. Readers will not be "educated" about the alleged bombing because there is no mention of it in the article. To keep this redirect, but without mentioning anything about the bombing in the article body, is to pretend that if did happen. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Strong overturn and trout the deleting admin. This was not a valid speedy deletion because there was at least one good faith recommendation to do something other than delete. This means deletion is not uncontroversial. There are no copyvio or other bright line concerns and no reason not to let the RfD continue. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Overturn – of a type of redirect that tends to produce mixed results at RfD; clearly controversial (although deletion here is probably preferable IMO). J947 ‡ edits 10:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC) So what the overturn-and-restore voters are saying is that we need to have a hatnote on the article: "2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing" redirects here. The Rainbow Bridge was not bombed. for a week while we discuss the redirect? wbm1058 (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC) No. There is no need for a hatnote regardless of what happens with the redirect unless there is some other event with which the search term is ambiguous. No hatnote is required for almost every other redirect in category:Redirects from incorrect names, and this is no different. The readers using the search term will be educated by reading the article prose, something they will probably be unable to do if the redirect is deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Speedy overturn and reopen the RFD. R3 (or any CSD) should not have applied due to stated good faith opposition already in the RFD. I do not support this redirect, largely per Wbm1058’s argument, and would vote delete in an RFD. However, the speedy delete process was not correctly followed here and should be reversed. Frank Anchor 13:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Restore and let the RfD run, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_23#2023_Rainbow_Bridge_bombing had been opened. While consensus may ultimately be to delete this, it's not implausible. Star Mississippi 13:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The instructions state that Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. Two souls have endorsed my decision, so the "speedy close" option is no longer available to me. Sorry, I guess this needs to run a full week, and by then most of the potential short-term damage will have been mitigated, so I guess I don't have a strong objection to reopening the original discussion after a week has passed. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Damage? Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) An early close can still be possible based on WP:NOTBURO, WP:SNOW, and even WP:IAR. Personally (as an involved voter), I see zero prospect of consensus to endorse the speedy delete, which is required for the speedy to remain in force. There is really no need to run this discussion for a week before reopening the RFD for a week outside of process for the sake of process. Frank Anchor 17:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC) As one of the two "souls", I continue to feel we don't need this redirect, and continue to substantively endorse the original deletion decision. However, we are not a bureaucracy, I hope, and so if my endorsement here is preventing from moving discussion elsewhere (i.e. reopening the RFD), please anyone go ahead and strike my comment above and move it to the reopened RFD. Not trying to be difficult, but travelling extensively this week with limited access so can't follow the discussion, but don't want to procedurally stand in the way of anything sensible people want even if I would disagree with it. Martinp (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) @Randy Kryn: Are you OK with ending this discussion early? I think enough new information has come out as to make this redirect sufficiently benign as to be safe to restore, albeit temporarily to let the discussion run. I don't see any snow falling, so checking with you. We have a new theory anyway, which is actually plausible and credible. That Flying Spur indeed went flying. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Sure. Might as well move the discussion forward to a logical and encyclopedically accurate conclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Recent discussions

22 November 2023

Blood Red Throne

Blood Red Throne (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Insufficient conversation took place about the possibility of redirecting the article with history to a band member. The discussion was relisted thrice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Erlend Caspersen

Bernt Moen

1. Y Approve, as the best sourced page. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Tchort

• Endorse. Little green checkmarks and explicit voting outlines aren't discussion, bleating out an ATD isn't a veto when there's consensus that that isn't an improvement, and any such redirect would be deleted at RFD. —Cryptic 14:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment A redirect was created on 9 November and incorrectly speedy deleted via WP:G4 by OwenX, the same admin who closed the AFD as delete, on 15 November. G4 does not apply because a redirect is not substantially identical to an article. Frank Anchor 14:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Concur - I concur, that G4 does not apply in this case. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with the statement and reasoning for why G4 does not apply to the creation of the redirect. Cunard (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Agreed. We should never G4 a redirect from a deleted article. R2, G6, G8, and even G10 might apply, but in order for a G4 to apply to a redirect, it would have needed a prior RfD discussion closing in deletion; an AfD on an article is not an RfD on a subsequent redirect of the same title. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Completely agree. G4 does not apply to redirects created after an AfD as the redirects are not substantially identical to the content that was deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse AFD result and explicitly allow recreation as a redirect to Bernt Moen standalone article. The fact the AfD ended in delete does not prevent a redirect from being created. There was no general objection to a redirect in the AFD, only concern regarding specific redirect targets. Any redirect can go to RFD if a user wants to take it that way. Also, one user’s belief that any such redirect would be deleted at RFD is not a valid argument against creating a redirect. I believe the band name is a reasonable search term and would argue that point in an RFD. I would assume the history is insignificant for this page and adds little value to a redirect, though an admin can correct me if I am wrong. Frank Anchor 14:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Modified in light of new sources posted below, there is enough SIGCOV to recreate an article. However, I maintain the G4 speedy was grossly out of process. Frank Anchor 15:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

After seeing the temp-undeleted version, the history is more in-depth that I would have thought. A restored redirect with or without the history is fine. Frank Anchor 23:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Concur - I also support keeping the history in such a redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Restore as a standalone article per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Excluding the AllMusic biography and the Omnibus Press book, these sources were not discussed at the AfD:
  1. Selzer, Jonathan (2020-07-30). "Go inside the chaos and carnage of Blood Red Throne's upcoming new album". Loudersound. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

     The article notes: "the band that have become the native standard bearers for groove-laden brutality for over two decades: Kristiansand’s Blood Red Throne. ... From palpitating d-beats to full-on blasts, troll-on-a-rampage growls to flesh-ripping, having-a-moment-here screams, Blood Red Throne are damage incorporated, and the most fun you can have while watching your insides at the mercy of someone not exactly given to introspection. Having toured, Europe, Mexico and the US in recent years, with visual documentation to boot, the band have been focusing on writing album number 10. However if their new mini-documentary – detailing the band in the process of putting their new album together, and having more fun than might be strictly legal – is anything to go by, ‘focus’ should be used in the broadest possible sense of the word."

  2. McIver, Joel (2005). Extreme Metal II. London: Omnibus Press. ISBN 1-84449-097-1 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes: "The new project of sometime Emperor bassist Tchort, Blood Red Throne was formed in 1998 and includes guitarist Død, singer Mr. Hustler, drummer Espen 'Beist' Antonsen and bassist Erlend Caspersen. Honing an act by rehearsing Deicide, Death and Obituary songs and recording the Deathmix demo, BRT scored a deal with Hammerheart and a debut album, Monument Of Death, was recorded. A limited edition 'Suicide Kit' version of the CD was accompanied by a razorblade and a poster, as well as being hand-numbered in the band's own blood. A cover of a Massacre song was recorded for the A Taste For Blood EP in 2002 and a second album, Affiliated With The Suffering, was released in 2002. A new deal with Earache followed a year later."

  3. Lawson, Dom (2013-07-23). "Blood Red Throne: Blood Red Throne. Norway's groove-laden, deathly diehards bring the violence again". Metal Hammer. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

     The review notes: "Blood Red Throne may feel that their exhilarating redefining of old-school values has been unfairly overlooked in recent times. As with 2011’s Brutalitarian Regime, this self-titled onslaught of precision bombing and hellish filth is as concise and devastating as anything produced by more high profile extremists."

  4. Lawson, Dom (2015-08-04). "Blood Red Throne show their Patriotic Hatred. Watch the new video from Blood Red Throne". Metal Hammer. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

     The article notes: "A reliable source of death metal purity since the late ‘90s, Norway’s Blood Red Throne have consistently pulled off that neat trick of honouring old school values while embracing the precise crunch of contemporary extremism."

  5. Lawson, Dom (2016-06-19). "Blood Red Throne – Union Of Flesh And Machine album review. Norway's diehards Blood Red Throne keep the hellfires burning with new album". Metal Hammer. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

     The review notes: "A consistent and reliable force for death metal authenticity since 1998, Blood Red Throne have never quite received the attention they deserve. Union Of Flesh And Machine may not make a massive difference, but the Norwegians’ eighth album is plainly one of their strongest efforts to date and a very welcome reminder that the basic death metal template still has the capacity to thrill and terrify."

  6. Torreano, Bradley. "Blood Red Throne Biography by Bradley Torreano". AllMusic. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

     The biography notes: "Blood Red Throne started in 2000, when bassist Tchort decided to start a project on his own after playing in some of the most popular Norwegian death metal bands of the '90s (including Emperor and In the Woods...)."

  7. Muhlestein, Nick (2005). "Blood Red Throne: "Altered Genesis"". Modern Fix. Vol. 5, no. 1 #49. p. 92. ISSN 1555-8770. Retrieved 2023-11-23 – via Internet Archive.

     The review notes: "At a time when so may bands of the lauded Scandinavian scenes are moving in unusual, often questionable directions, Norway's Blood Red Throne are staunch traditionalists. With the album "Altered Genesis", Blood Red Throne eschew synths, clean vocals and poppish leanings to create 50 minutes of pure, unadulterated death metal, albeit with some thrashy flavoring in the riffs."

  8. Wharton, Bryer (June 2009). "Blood Red Throne: Souls of Damnation". SLUG Magazine. Vol. 20, no. 246. p. 69. Retrieved 2023-11-23 – via Internet Archive.

     The review notes: "Norway’s Blood Red Throne have been kicking for over a decade. It is my  understanding that the band is more  of a side project effort than a full-time band—the group has had a revolving door of notable musicians. Probably the best part about BRT is guitarist Tchort, who has the biggest credits to his name..."

  9. Dyer, Liam (December 2010 – January 2011). "Dimmu Borgir/Enslaved/Dawn of Ashes/Blood Red Throne". Absolute Underground. Vol. 7, no. 1 #37. p. 36. Retrieved 2023-11-23 – via Internet Archive.

     The review notes: "Blood Red Throne played pommeling neo-death metal to fairly unresponsive onlookers, which is always uncomfortable to see. Dawn of Ashes looked like the love-child (hate-child?) of Lordi, Gwarand Slipknot. Their ultra-theatric appearance made taking their blackened-death approach seriously a far shot, but I was entertained by the comment of "Take a look at the person standing next to you," now imagine slitting their throat.""

  10. Doran, John (October 2007). "Blood Red Throne: Come Death (Earache)". Plan B. No. 26. p. 76. Retrieved 2023-11-23 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "Blood Red Throne produce an almighty and groovy death metal that would probably sound more at home in theTampa Bay environs of Florida with its churning, down tuned riffage and larynx shredding growls. On Come Death, they eschew the technical advances which have made this once proud genre into a bit of a toothless beast. No triggered drums and no Pro Tools tomfoolery mean the visceral edge of their sound is  bloody and intact."

  11. John, Darnielle (2002-01-23). "Blood Red Throne: Document of Death (Hammerheart/Martyr Music Group)". Riverfront Times. ProQuest 367971922. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23.

      The review notes: "The latest entry in the harder-than-you sweepstakes is Blood Red Throne, a group who incorporate some really wonderful riffage into their spraying-howitzer squalls. Document of Death starts off rather slowly but suddenly locks into the extreme-metal equivalent of an honest-to-God groove, a triggered kickdrum rolling like thunder under some of the most prime headbanging guitar real estate you'll hear mapped. The vocals are incomprehensible troll-under-the-bridge-isms, but that's what lyric sheets are for. What, then, of the lyrics? Well, they're simply horrifying and genuinely offensive: They're wholly misanthropic first-person murder/torture fantasies. You'd sooner hire Eminem to babysit your kids for the entire weekend than let them spend five minutes glancing over this record's lyric sheet."

  12. Torreano, Bradley. "Monument of Death Review by Bradley Torreano". AllMusic. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The review notes: "After spending years toiling around in various death and black metal bands, Norwegian madman Tchort has started Blood Red Throne. Combining the lightning-fast chugging of vintage Slayer with the audio assault of Emperor, Blood Red Throne writes brutal, memorable metal that never loses its focus as it plows through nine vicious cuts."

  13. Rivadavia, Eduardo. "Come Death Review by Eduardo Rivadavia". AllMusic. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The review notes: "BRT is arguably the most unique of all Tchort's endeavors, but only because it involves death instead of black metal, his regular domain. In all other respects, 2007's Come Death is, like all BRT releases before it, a straight-up genre exercise, well-intentioned and well-executed but lacking the thrill of innovation so much as the comfort of familiarity."

  14. Mudrian, Albert (2019-06-20). "Track Premiere: Blood Red Throne – 'Skyggemannen'". Decibel. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The article notes: "Norwegian vets Blood Red Throne have come a long way from the days when they were simply known as “that death metal band with the dude who played on In the Nightside Eclipse.” In truth, they developed into a death metal killing machine ages ago, long before Tchort left the band in 2010. They’ve recorded four full-lengths since then, including their latest, Fit to Kill, which will be be their debut for Danish powerhouse Mighty Music."

  15. "Blood Red Throne: Come Death". Blabbermouth.net. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The review notes: "Norway's Blood Red Throne has always done a fine job of playing a decidedly American (Floridian in particular) style of death metal, but stopped just short of breaking into the upper echelon of the genre. Consider "Come Death" the breakthrough for which we've been waiting. Tchort ... and company took their time and did it right. In so praising the album, I am not saying that it raises the death metal bar, only that is a damn strong release that fans will thoroughly enjoy."

  16. Atkinson, Peter (2021-10-11). "Blood Red Throne Imperial Congregation". KNAC. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The review notes: "Blood Red Throne has been cranking out what I guess you could call “true Norwegian death metal” for almost 25 years. Formed, oddly enough, by veterans of Norway’s then-notorious black metal scene – Satyricon touring guitarists Daniel “Død” Olaisen and Terje Vik “Tchort” Schei, who also played with Emperor and Carpathian Forest – the quintet has been productive and fairly dependable for its entire run, despite a dozen or so lineup changes, and several vocalists, along the way."

  17. Divita, Joe (2016-07-29). "Rumblings From the Underground: Ghoul, Profanatica, Blood Red Throne (Interview) + More". Loudwire. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The review notes: "It's hard to believe it's been 15 years since Blood Red Throne's debut. With a handful of lineup changes since, the Norwegian stalwarts have delivered Union of Flesh and Machine, their eighth album. These dudes have always had a white-knuckle grip on groove when they choose to employ it, but here it's the sticking point."

  18. Blum, Jordan (2023-07-14). "The 12 Most Beautiful Breakdowns in Metal". Loudwire. Archived from the original on 2023-11-23. Retrieved 2023-11-23.

      The article provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "This is a band from Norway that more people should know about. Their whole discography has bangers so it’s hard to recommend just one record, but my favorites are Union of Flesh and Machine and Come Death."

  19. Slessor, Dan (2016). "Blood Red Throne". Outburn. No. 85. p. 55. EBSCOhost 116924029.

      The EBSCO Information Services entry does not have the text of the article. The entry notes that this article is a music review of the Blood Red Throne album Union of Flesh and Machine.

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

  Cunard (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Reply - I am also open to restoring Blood Red Throne as a full article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: If Blood Red Throne is restored, Altered Genesis should be restored also. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altered Genesis was closed as "merge to Blood Red Throne". Cunard (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Reply - I am not opposed to restoring Altered Genesis as a full article, nor am I opposed to restoring it as a redirect to Blood Red Throne, or one of its band members. I would suggest phrasing the conversation as a split proposal from a relevant article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• The scope of this discussion needs to be limited to Blood Red Throne only. A separate discussion at DRV or a request for undeletion can be made for Altered Genesis, citing the additional references. Frank Anchor 16:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• I created a WP:REFUND request for restoring Altered Genesis's history under the redirect. Cunard (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Vacate AfD in light of Cunard's sourcing. We don't have a procedure for this, and maybe we should, but when the sourcing brought up in a DRV demonstrates that an AfD was so sourcing-deficient that a reasonable editor could not have been expected to understand the actual notability and thus the closer not review a reasonable, policy-based discussion, maybe we should just pretend it never happened. Obviously, we don't want the same people relitigating an AfD at DRV, but when an outside party demonstrates so conclusively how bad the discussion was, that's not the same thing. If you want simpler binary responses... Overturn Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment: I see a couple of participants here who believe the consensus of an AfD can be vetoed by anyone who wishes to revive the article as a redirect, because, according to them, CSD:G4 doesn't apply to redirects. I'm sure the authors of the CSD:G4 policy would be surprised to learn of this interpretation. If you believe an AfD was closed improperly, say so. But if you believe you are above policy and consensus because you !voted "Redirect" on that AfD, I'm afraid that's not how this project works. Owen× ☎ 19:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

G4 specifically excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. A redirect is not in any way, shape, or form, substantially identical to the version of the article (which was not a redirect). I don’t see any way a person could interpret G4 to cover a redirect when the deleted version was not a redirect. Frank Anchor 00:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Frank Anchor's interpretation of the policy. Cunard (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

OwenX, Yeah, you're very wrong on the G4 policy here; see my note above in the discussion. Unless a redirect was itself G10 able, the main question about a post-AfD redirect is whether or not it should have the contents of the deleted article in history. If you delete a G11-eligible article about a CEO but he's mentioned at his company's article, that might be a good reason to leave history deleted with a redirect. For most deletions on the basis of non-notability with a good redirect target (fiction and popular culture, for instance), leaving the history intact is preferred because it allows non-admins to review the history for improvement and possible un-redirection if and when it demonstrate notability. Jclemens (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: if the AfD consensus was against turning the page into a redirect, e.g. because the proposed target was inappropriate, any editor can ignore the AfD result and recreate the page as a redirect, just because the history was wiped? Then why bother with consensus at all? Instead of !voting "Redirect", just say, "Decide whatever you wish, I'll still recreate the page as a redirect, because G4 doesn't apply to redirects". Sorry, you can't just circumvent G4 and an AfD consensus against a redir because you intentionally misread CSD:G4. The new redirect is substantially identical to the one discussed in the AfD, and decided against. Don't try to lawyer your way around consensus. Owen× ☎ 09:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

First of all, there was not consensus against redirect. There was disagreement about a redirect target but not opposition to a merge/redirect in general. Second, even if that was not the case, G4 does not cover redirects when the previous version was an article. G4 says the article must be substantially identical to the deleted version, not substantially identical to the one discussed in the AfD. Quoting a policy is not “lawyering.” I also did not intentionally misread G4, nor did several other voters in this DRV. Please strike those false claims from your statement. Frank Anchor 13:17, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

OwenX, please confirm that you now understand that G4'ing a redirect as you did in this case is not covered by the speedy deletion policy. I realize that the discussion you closed was of quite poor quality, but the AfD deletion of an article without a redirect doesn't entitle anyone to G4 a redirect of the same name. That's what MfD is for. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It's disheartening to see an experienced editor like you jump on the "substantially identical" loophole bandwagon. We can debate whether or not that AfD ended in a consensus. But if we accept that a consensus was reached, that consensus was clearly against turning the page into a redirect. You can't show up the next day and decide, unilaterally, to enforce your !vote and turn it to a redir anyway. That's not WP:BOLD, it's going against consensus, which is exactly what G4 is meant to address. If what you suggest were true, there would be no point in !voting "Redirect" on any AfD, as you could always show up after the fact and turn the deleted page into a redir, regardless of any consensus against such an action. Owen× ☎ 18:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Redirects are not substantially identical to the articles being deleted, that much seems straight forward. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Overturn per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 and treat Cunard's comment as the actual challenge to the AfD, despite it not being him starting the process (it doesn't matter). Significant new information has come to light since the deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. No fault of the closer.—Alalch E. 22:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment re the CSD:G4 red herring: in the AfD, Jax 0677 proposed the page be turned into a redirect to one of the band members. They even started a straw-poll, right in the AfD, which didn't garner much support, and rightly so: redirecting a band name to one of its members is not something we normally do here.

Consensus ended up marginally in favour of deleting the page, and I closed it as such. Jax 0677 wasn't happy with the result, and rather than taking it to DRV, they recreated the page the following day as a redirect, going against the AfD outcome. Using CSD:G4 for its intended purpose, I deleted the out-of-process recreation, and advised Jax 0677 to discuss things on DRV, which is why we're here.

Some here are now WP:LAWYERING about some hidden meaning of "substantially identical" in CSD:G4. To be clear: the redirect created by Jax 0677 is identical to the one they proposed--and got rejected--in the AfD. A "#redirect Ronny Thorsen" isn't the substantially different content CSD:G4 talks about in recreating a deleted article. Anyone claiming differently is being disingenuous.

The purpose of G4 is to ensure AfD consensus is followed. If you believe that anyone who isn't happy with the outcome of an AfD is free to recreate the deleted article as a redirect, by all means, let's start an RFC about G4 and the entire AfD process, as this would be a major departure from how things have been done for the past 20 years. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, my interpretation, and the interpretation of several others here, is the actual text of the policy is what is to be used. G4 makes no mention of ensur[ing] AfD consensus is followed, it only makes reference to recreation of sufficiently identical page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. My interpretation, and the interpretation of several other users, is that a redirect is not substantially identical to the deleted version, an article. I will reiterate, G4 does not cover redirects when the previous version was an article. G4 says the article must be substantially identical to the deleted version, not substantially identical to the one discussed in the AfD. There is no hidden meaning of substantially identical. A reddirect is vastly different from an article. However, Owenx decided to ignore my previous response and continued to WP:BLUDGEON their own point of view and accuse those of enforcing the actual words of a policy of WP:LAWYERING even though that essay states simply being a stickler about Wikipedia policies/guidelines and process does not make an editor a wikilawyer. Again, I am requesting Owenx strike those obviously false accusations of intentionally misread[ing] G4 and of lawyering, or I will consider taking this to ANI. Frank Anchor 20:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Good idea! Please take this to ANI. We could use the added participation. I also opened a policy RfC on this subject. Owen× ☎ 21:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone's recommendation in an AfD to redirect the page as an alternative to deletion that, subsequently, does not correspond to the AfD outcome has nothing to do with the possibility of creating a redirect at the name of a deleted page. When the AfD outcome is 'delete', it's fine to create whatever redirect at that name afterwards. If the redirect is a bad redirect, editors may form a consensus to delete it in an RfD. G4 doesn't apply to a redirect created at the name of a deleted article. The reasons to delete an article and to delete a redirect are different. G4 only applies to pages for which the same type of consensus applies. See the its most recent deletion discussion. It needed to be the page's deletion discussion. An AfD is not a redirect's deletion discussion. An RfD would have been the redirect's deletion discussion, but there was no RfD. There was no deletion discussion. G4 did not apply. The only thing that's the same in this situation is the name, and G4 is not about the name. You can see that by reading WP:G4 (having any title). It is about whether a page is a sufficiently identical copy. A redirect is never a sufficiently identical copy of an article. Your G4 was incorrect, you did wrong, and Jax 0677 did okay to pursue his idea, and maybe the redirect was a bad redirect, but that's for RfD to settle, not for you individually.

Ultimately, the G4 angle is inconsequential, because what should happen is the AfD deletion being overturned because of DRVPURPOSE#3, per my above comment. —Alalch E. 22:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

20 November 2023

Progressive_utilization_theory – Procedural close. This is an attempt to nominate the article for deletion, which belongs at AfD rather than deletion review. Deletion review is for reviewing page deletions and closures of deletion discussions. While this page has been the subject of deletion discussions in the past, the last non-withdrawn discussion was in 2007 and an attempt to appeal a close from that long ago would almost certainly end in a recommendation to start a new discussion. Hut 8.5 20:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Progressive utilization theory (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This page is a extremely obscure set of economic theories which isn't terribly useful to have as a separate article. The article should be deleted or merged and redirected to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's page. The issue with the earlier review is that it is inconclusive due to the idea that this theory was being used or implemented, however this is not the case. It's a obscure theory from over 50 years ago with and hasn't been used since. Perhaps, at most it's a social movement started by Sarkar, all the more reason to have it be on his page. Similar to social credit, but as far as I can tell unlike social credit no government aligned with this movement has been in power which brings into question it's notability. This is a theory that isn't used either in economics or in any polity. This article isn't notable enough to have its own page and needs to be reviewed. Imitationsasquatch (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Procedural close as wrong venue. Appears the nom is requesting deletion, rather than challenging the result of an AFD. Article was previously nominated in 2007 (NC) and in 2018 (withdrawn). With over five years since the last AFD, it is not unreasonable to start another AFD discussion to assess the article. Frank Anchor 14:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 November 2023

Arshad Khan (Chaiwala) – Deletion endorsed (as a result of AfD closure), and also this is not eligible for a REFUND as per the G11 consensus below. Daniel (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Arshad Khan (Chaiwala) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Improper close. It should be No Consensus close unless the closing admin cast a super vote. Tetrainn (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) That discussion turns on the sources so we need either a list of them or a temp-undelete (admin's discretion which). Were there really 13 primary sources?—S Marshall T/C 08:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Done. History of the afd is of some interest too. —Cryptic 10:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC) "Captivated the internet". "Entrepreneurial journey". "A prosperous and luxurious life seemed distant". "Remarkable appearance, characterized by his captivating blue eyes and a compelling, serious demeanor". "His primary drive behind this venture was to generate employment opportunities for individuals, enabling them to sustain their households." And of course he's selling something. How did this even get to afd? Endorse as G11, besides the afd. —Cryptic 10:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse as G11 as per Cryptic. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse closure. The arguments for deletion are stronger policy-wise than the arguments to keep, and the close is a fair outcome. Like Cryptic above me, I'm surprised this even made it far enough to reach an AfD closure without being tagged for G11 first, so endorse as G11 too. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 10:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse the properly closed AfD. On reading the deleted article, Endorse G11. Irredeemably tabloid promotion. Perhaps at best consider it WP:TNT, read WP:THREE, and try creating a fresh draft in no less than six months. If the source focuses on his striking eyes, it is not significant coverage. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse as within discretion (although a very wide range of closes would also be OK by me, including no consensus). Cryptic above has played a trump card (and a pretty high trump at that) so I presume that will win the trick. However, everyone at AFD (including the closer) was playing in no trumps, hence the difficulty. People are not well advised to !vote "delete WP:1E" but it would be cruel to discount their good-faith !votes. 1E is not a rationale for deletion – it discusses whether the article should be about the person or the event (or both) – and it is a high point for inclusion. However, I would not fault anyone who does not have a comprehensive understanding of our guidelines (I certainly do not) so I would read all such votes as "delete in full accordance with WP guidelines". Thincat (talk) 11:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC) @Thincat If 1E isn't valid rationale for deletion then what is in this scenario? My interpretation and reason for citing 1E in the discussion was thinking along the lines of "this AfD is for a biography and said biography should not exist according to what's written at WP:1E; whether the event itself should have an article is a different story." Have there been BLPs converted to being about events in 1E situations? My uninformed instinct would be to delete the BLP and create a new, separate article for the event. On the subject of the event itself, is it notable? One keep voting user argued that instances of virality are notable and two others argued there was WP:SIGCOV. There's a lot of sources, but it doesn't seem like there's a lot of substance there besides "this photo of this attractive guy went viral and here's a little about who he is and what he's doing now." I suppose this may be a rare case of there being a plethora of sources from (mostly?) reliable publications but there still being no significant coverage? Uhai (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC) WP:BLP1E is a criterion for deletion so maybe that is meant. However, I don't think it applies to this person because he is no longer "low profile" (even if he is not wikinotable). In this case I'm not sure what the event is supposed to be but I really have only assessed the AFD discussion and I have no interest in the article's topic. I think most people at AFD take a view of an article and then !vote giving a rationale they think might be persuasive (which for experienced editors will be of the form "... WP:ABCDE ..."). I think articles are not repurposed too often at AFD (most commonly when a "biography" of a murdered person is moved to become an article about the killing). Usually the closer closes keep and then makes the move themselves or suggests others do it. Thincat (talk) 11:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC) I would rather than people not write in initialisms, too; and Thincat has hit the nail on the head with what the one-event concept was about. That said, reading it as people mis-using the initialism and talking about a person whose entire publicly documented life is within a single news cycle and retrospectives on the same, there is a point about not enough coverage for a biography. The addition of the fact that this is most definitely not how one writes articles at Wikipedia, biographies or otherwise, serves to make this a two pronged endorsement: this was argued as an unacceptable subject and there are policy reasons that this is unacceptable content. Farah Gogi was just as bad. We don't write articles this way, neither based upon tabloid reports that have weasel-words coming out of their ears nor putting egregious puffery into Wikipedia's voice. Uncle G (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse close and when re-deleting note that G11 applies to this page which is needed to make it non-WP:REFUNDable.—Alalch E. 16:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Those are not thirteen primary sources, but I'd agree with the G11.—S Marshall T/C 20:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse with explanations: Closers have to be bold when closing any AFD that has approximately equal Keeps and Deletes. The closer can close it as No Consensus, and someone may come here to DRV saying that the closer should have recognized that one set of arguments were much stronger than the other. The close is then almost always endorsed as at least a valid conclusion by the closer, but I think that no closer likes to have their close taken to DRV. On the other hand, the closer can, after assessing the strength of arguments, close the AFD as Keep or Delete. A close of Delete in particular is then likely to be brought here to DRV. So any close may be appealed. This is an unusual case because the strongest argument for deletion was not raised by the nominator or by the Delete !voters or by the closer. The strongest argument for deletion, as mentioned by the editors here at DRV, is that the article is promotional, and either should have been blown up, or should have been tagged for G11. The editing of the AFD by followers of Genseric is interesting, but does not affect either the result or this DRV. So this is an Ignore All Rules endorsement, because the AFD had the wrong rationale for the right action. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse as G11 and a reasonable read of the AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse as a G11 delete only and neutral on AFD result (I believe delete was an okay interpretation of consensus, but NC would have been the better close). No prejudice against recreation if the sources exist to make this article in a non-promotional tone. Frank Anchor 14:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse as G11 and as reading of the AfD. The closure is reasonable, and the article has so many blatantly promotional parts (i.e., [h]is striking looks and piercing blue eyes captivated the internet, leading to a modeling career and the launch of his own café brand in Islamabad, young and attractive, Arshad Khan's remarkable appearance, characterized by his captivating blue eyes and a compelling, serious demeanor, propelled him to instant fame, [h]is primary drive behind this venture was to generate employment opportunities for individuals, enabling them to sustain their household). This promotion is so clear that a G11 IAR is entirely reasonable. VickKiang (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC) I struggle to find even a single sentence that isn't promotionally worded and wouldn't need a rewrite. Even checking previous versions, there is nothing. Given that WP:CSD#G11 says "would need to be fundamentally rewritten", it's safe to say that G11 applies. Now the question in the AfD was not G11 or spam but notability. Folks presented sources, others disagreed and said that these sources only refer to one event, Ameen Akbar's keep is probably the only one that rebuts this argument in full. I'd probably close this as no consensus rather than delete as I don't see a super clear consensus that the sources don't establish notability and "in doubt, no consensus", but in light of G11, keep deleted as G11 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 November 2023

Alex Zhavoronkov – Consensus exists to refund to draftspace. I will work with BD2412 to ensure all the relevant history is undeleted. Daniel (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alex Zhavoronkov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This article was properly deleted on 12 December 2017, based on a consensus that the subject was "marginally notable" at the time and, pivotally, based on the subject having requested deletion of the article himself. While this outcome was clearly correct at the time, circumstances have changed substantially in the intervening 5+ years. I therefore request restoration of so that I can move it to draftspace to develop the article in light of substantial post-deletion sources. As a procedural note, I previously undeleted this article to draft and then restored it to mainspace, but re-deleted it upon request pursuant to an objection based on circumstances outlined below. I formally proposed undeletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, and was directed here. Subject's increased notability In the 2017 deletion discussion, our late friend User:DGG noted in a comment (and User:Widefox referenced in their !vote) that of the subject's articles, "only one are articles with citation over 100". As of 2023, however, the subject's Google Scholar profile and Researchgate profile demonstrate (per the charts at the top right of each) that the subject has since increased in academic impact by orders of magnitude, going from fewer than 1,800 total citations prior to 2018 to over 10,000 citations today, over 2,000 citations in each of the past three years, and with 32 articles having over 100 citations, including several articles each having multiple hundreds of citations. At the same time, from 2018 to 2023, there have been dozens of news articles and other sources discussing the subject to some degree. In addition to their substantially increased academic impact, the subject has recently published an additional book in their field, and has received additional media coverage for their business and other non-academic activities, including: Robbins, Tony; Diamandis, Peter H.; Hariri, Robert (2022). Life Force. p. 556-57. ISBN 978-1982121709. Chace, Calum (November 9, 2022). "How Insilico Medicine Uses AI To Accelerate Drug Development". Forbes Magazine. Archived from the original on April 8, 2023. (while Forbes may be questionable as a source, author Calum Chace is a published expert in the field, invoking WP:SELFPUB) Smith, Wesley J. (February 8, 2023). "Harvesting Clones to Live Forever Would Be Monstrous". National Review. (criticizing Zhavoronkov's endorsement of cloning human bodies for parts) Field, Hayden (June 29, 2023). "The first fully A.I.-generated drug enters clinical trials in human patients". CNBC. Matsuyama, Kanoko (November 14, 2023). "Race for first drug discovered by AI nears key milestone". The Japan Times. Subject's opposition to having an article The subject has stated a desire not to have a Wikipedia page (which was the objection raised to restoration of this article without discussion). This is not an automatic determiner, as this also hinges on the level of notability of the subject—and I would suggest on the subject's own reasoning for this. We have recently had several rather high-profile discussions on subjects who have requested deletion of their articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bell (British Army officer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indira Raman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diego García-Borreguero, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranti Bam, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole W. Troxler), of which all but one ended up with the article being retained despite the subject's wishes. This illustrate the limited parameters of our observance of such requests. In the case of this subject, their comments in the discussion suggest that they did not really have privacy concerns or the like, but merely object to not being able to control the content of the article, and would prefer to have a resume. I am all for protecting the privacy of marginally notable figures, but not for safeguarding their PR directives. It is apparent from the subject's own public activities (granting interviews, taking controversial positions on hot-button issues, and the like), that they are not so concerned with remaining a private person. In conclusion, I believe the combination of developments illustrated by continuing citation to the subject's academic work, and continuing nonacademic coverage, is at least sufficient to support having a draft on the subject in draftspace, to be submitted for consideration through the usual WP:AFC process, irrespective of the subject's own preferences. BD2412 T 22:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Refund to draftspace. Doesn't seem like any reason not to could apply.—Alalch E. 23:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Restoring a deleted page in such a way that it wouldn't be immediately speedy-deleteable (such as by moving it to draft, so that WP:G4 doesn't apply) usually is entirely uncontroversial - especially when the afd is as old as this, such that DRV in most cases wouldn't endorse a G4 even in articlespace. On the other hand, I can't fault WP:REFUND in general and Spartaz in particular for kicking it back here for more examination for a blp, particularly under circumstances like this. Were you planning on working on this and bringing it to AFC yourself? (Other admins: the recent edits were history-split to Special:Undelete/Draft:Alex Zhavoronkov.) If so, I'd suggest that the least controversial way forward would be to work on it offline until you're ready to submit it; you can paste it back in to preview (but not save) to check formatting. You don't need DRV's, or anyone else's, permission to do that. —Cryptic 00:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC) I do intend to work on this, but would consider working on it "offline" to run counter to the transparency that Wikipedia seeks to foster. I am concerned that this will become a catch-22; that no matter how notable the subject becomes, it will never be possible to have an article on them because of the absence of express permission to create the draft from which to document notability. I would also prefer not to create a draft that violates the GFDL by omitting the deleted prior edit history. BD2412 T 03:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC) GFDL specifically isn't an issue, since all revisions date to well after the CC-BY-SA migration. We tell our reusers all they have to do to provide credit for that is link back to Wikipedia, even if the article's been deleted; and author information is still made available, if not exactly easily-so. (Crucially, edit summaries are not, which is part of why trying to give authorship credit in summaries has always struck me as a worst practice.) If someone deletes your draft, bring it back here - you don't even need to say everything you did above, just something to the effect of "Nearly half of the text of WP:G4 says you can't do that to recreations in draftspace that are being improved", and the proper piscine punishment will be applied in short order. You don't need DRV's permission to redraft a deleted mainspace article; we tell even very new editors that. —Cryptic 07:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC) @Cryptic: This is an unusual case. The argument made in the WP:RFU objection was basically that because the subject had requested deletion, there needed to be a community consensus to have anything about the subject in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 14:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) prefer not to create a draft that violates the GFDL by omitting the deleted prior edit history. That is an excellent and admirable position to hold. It fits a simple reading of the GFDL, and even if there’s a controlled argument that proceeding without the deleted versions is ok, Wikipedia should demonstrate best practice for copyright compliance. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Refund to draftspace, obviously, is noncontroversial. The AfD is old. Things have changed. The case for recreation is best demonstrated by a draft, with the old history intact. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC) I think that the close paraphrasing/copyright problems in the early edits to Alex Zhavoronkov are a good reason to keep that edit history deleted. It all depends from how untainted by that the Draft:Alex Zhavoronkov edit history is. Uncle G (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC) @Uncle G: I frankly do not know how much of an issue that is. The article was deleted and then restored days later by the deleting admin (User:Malik Shabazz) on the basis that the paraphrasing wasn't enough of an issue to warrant deletion. It was not thereafter raised as an issue. Unfortunately, the article creator (User:The Librarian at Terminus) and the primary early contributor (User:T3dkjn89q00vl02Cxp1kqs3x7) are long gone, as is that admin. The version of the article as of the end of 2014 seems to have substantially different wording than the version at the time of the copyvio assertion. BD2412 T 16:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Looking at Draft:Alex Zhavoronkov it does seem that you've made a case, by writing, that there's new sourcing and new things to consider over the last half decade. So yes, I'm with SmokeyJoe on having this back as a draft. How much edit history to merge back in is a secondary issue. If there's another AFD discussion, I hope that it focusses less on wholly irrelevant things (like laboratory benches!) and more on whether a properly sourced biography of a person's life/works is writable. That wasn't a particularly good first AFD discussion. The article subject said "It would be great to have the page taken down.", and although I can sympathize with that, as many people have said it before and since, I think that it's worth evaluating "It would be great" against an updated article after 5 years. Uncle G (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Refund to draftspace as noncontroversial considering the early copyright concern seems overcome. Widefox; talk 17:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Refund to draftspace. I tend to be very sympathetic to deleting marginally notable BLP's on the subject's request, but a credible claim is being made here that in the 6 years since this argument was applied, notability has gone well beyond marginal. That is a discussion worth having with an updated draft to consider, and a refund of the previous text as a starting point is a reasonable request. It seems the copyright concerns are moot. Some of the backstory why this request ended up here is at this archived undeletion request and this userpage discussion, where the substance of the discussion seems reasonable but the level of snark by the deleting admin seems unnecessary. But there may be additional context for that, and is neither here nor there for resolving it here. Martinp (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 November 2023

Lane Bess – Closure endorsed. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lane Bess (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This Afd was closed as non-consensus this morning when it should have either been a redirect or a delete. The editor who created this, creates high promotional articles and more than 60% have been deleted with several still at Afd, a new one sent to draft this morning. The editor was taken to WP:COI, an independent review of the articles was completed, and as an uninvolved editor I sent the ones which were dodgy to Afd. I conducted a source analysis review which found no secondary soruces. They were all PR, press-release and interviews. The editor did a Heymann, and those sources were checked and were equally as bad. Another uninvolved editor found equally as bad. Another drive-by editor stated it was a keep without offering any evidence it was notable. Another keep was attempted with several references, but these were found to be interviews and more PR with same images found in the articles. The closing admin has asserted that I stated the Miami Herald is clickbait, which is patently false. The admin also seem to be positing that primary sources are ok to establish notability and many primary sources are somehow ok. It should have been a redirect. The reference are terrible for mainstream BLP article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scope creep (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Comment from closer. I will grant that the nominator did not call the Miami Herald articles clickbait. He did say of the sources as a whole: "These references are the exact same low-quality PR, clickbait and interviews along with social media driven articles", and I mistakenly took that he meant all the articles were all the epithets. With that said, it is a reasonable position from the "keep" side to accept interviews in independent and reputable newspapers such as the Miami Herald as evidence of notability, and as sufficient sourcing to meet WP:V and WP:NOR requirements, and with several participants advocating for that view, I could not call a consensus for deletion based on notability guidelines, nor did I see a sufficient "deal breaker" to delete based on the core content policies. Comments on the editor who created the article are irrelevant to the discussion of the merits of this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Further comment An explanation of why I mentioned WP:V and WP:NOR is in order. While those core policies were not mentioned explicitly, there was an extensive discussion of the reliability and quality of the sources. These issues relate directly to those two policies, WP:SOURCE is a section of WP:V, while WP:FOLLOWSOURCE, along with a policy on primary, secondary and tertiary sources, is a section of WP:NOR. In a contentious AFD, I always weigh the provided sources against those policies. In the instances where I called a "delete" in spite of an apparent numerical consensus against deletion, by far the most common reason has been a concern related to WP:V or WP:NOR that the keep side failed to adequately address. But in this case, I didn't find the arguments related to the sourcing to be decisive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse the Delete arguments were somewhat stronger but I don't see a consensus either way. This isn't really a BLP issue, as the central question was whether the sourcing covers the subject in enough depth to pass the GNG. Hut 8.5 18:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse there was a relatively even split between the delete/ATD voters and the keep voters and both sides made valid points regarding the sourcing. I don't see any consensus in number or strength of the argument tfor a delete result. Frank Anchor 20:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse I find it a bit strange mentioning OR and V in the close, especially when the article didn't even touch on them, but I agree that no consensus is a fair summary of the discussion. @Scope creep: I suggest pruning non-RS in the first instance and considering a re-nomination in the future. SmartSE (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC) I plan to do it. A substantial amount of the references are non-rs. I plan to renominate 2-3 months in the future. I was suprised at the mention WP:V and WP:NOR which was never discussed in the Afd. WP:V was never in doubt, with at least 6-8 interviews and didn't see any kind original research on the article. It wasn't tagged as OR and wasn't as promotional as some of the others in the series. It wasn't on my mind. scope_creepTalk 22:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Weak Endorse the close of No Consensus. This AFD had 2 Keep !votes and 2 Delete !vptes including the nomination. When there is numerically no consensus, a close of No Consensus is usually reasonable. Sometimes another close in such a situation may also be reasonable, but No Consensus is usually reasonable when there is no numerical consensus. The appellant seems to be arguing that the close of No Consensus was clearly wrong, not even a valid choice; I disagree. It appears that the appellant is complaining that the closer did not supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Comment - The author has been indeffed as an undisclosed paid editor. Therefore, as an Ignore All Rules action: Relist to consider that the article may be undisclosed paid editing. G5 does not apply, but the community should consider that the author may not have been editing in good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse. I don't really see any options but no-consensus or relist for the AfD as it was closed, but it had already been marked with a "final relist". The DRV nominator had strongly held and strongly expressed policy-based positions, but there were opposing opinions that were also based in policy; we should not discount these merely because the people who expressed them did not likewise filibuster the AfD. The number of participants was small and balanced on both sides, hence no consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC) I'd also be ok with a relist or renomination specifically to take into account the new evidence of undisclosed paid editing, but this should not be taken as criticism of a close made before this information came to light. (There are some vague accusations of paid editing in the AfD but no evidence.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Responding to evaluate new sources when another discussion participant puts them forward is not "filibustering". It is discussing and evidence of an open mind ready to evaluate new information not previously addressed when it is presented. Although I don't envy closing administrators who have to wade through long lists of bare URLs just to see who has addressed and evaluated what. Uncle G (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Endorse. While I'm not necessarily happy with the result of the AfD, the closing admin did a thorough, unbiased job of reviewing the opinions and the evidence presented, and the closing conclusion was well justified and properly explained. Owen× ☎ 13:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

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