Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September

Cardiophobia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I’m concerned that this may have been an out of process speedy deletion. It was deleted by Discospinster with the reason neither word nor definition appears in target page, but — as far as I can see — none of the criteria for speedy deletion were met, so in my opinion the redirect should have been sent to RfD instead of being summarily deleted. The discussion at Talk:List of phobias#Cardiophobia also suggests it may have been an {{R with history}} that should potentially have been retained. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 18:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably meant to be a WP:R3, but it's been a redirect to List of phobias since 31 October 2018, and had existed as a bluelink since 28 November 2011. Reasonable people disagree on how long ago "recently-created" can be stretched, but twelve, or even five, years is well beyond the commonly-suggested limits. Besides, R3 excludes "articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects", and this was indeed formerly a brief article. If we undelete and send it to RFD, it will, yes, likely be deleted due to the lack of mention, but the community hasn't authorized individual admins to skip that step. Overturn.
  The July 2008 deletion appeared at first examination to also be incorrect since this had then been a redirect since April 2004, but it turns out its contemporary target -phobia was a redlink at the time. —Cryptic 19:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks to me like -phobia wasn't a redlink at the time, it was the location of the article now titled List of phobias, which was moved to that title from -phob- two days before the deletion. The July 2008 deletion appears to have been part of the pattern of conduct that later received an ArbCom finding at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SemBubenny#SemBubenny's deletions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hm, yes, I got fooled by the 2006 deletion. It's usually me who has to point out that the creation log doesn't go back that far. —Cryptic 22:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. If this was intended as an R3, that wouldn't help: "pages older than about 3–4 months almost never are" considered recently created (WP:CSD, footnote 13). If it wasn't, then it was clearly out-of-process; redirects that don't meet the speedy deletion criteria should be sent to WP:RFD, not deleted unilaterally. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to RFD. That isn't one of the speedy deletion criteria, and doesn't appear to qualify as an R3. Being a stupid redirect isn't in itself a reason for speedy deletion of a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per everyone above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also note that this appears to have sllipped through Wikipedia:Database reports/Possibly out-of-process deletions based on a technicality - the report resets every calendar month, and only updates every three days, so deletions near the end of a month sometimes get missed. If I had seen it there I would almost certainly have challenged the deletion at the time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fixable. I take it that the intention of and log_timestamp like CONCAT(YEAR(CURDATE()),LPAD(MONTH(CURDATE()),2,"0"),"%") is to show deletions in the current calendar month? Why not limit it to a fixed amount of time before NOW()? and log_timestamp >= DATE_FORMAT(DATE_ADD(NOW(), INTERVAL -1 MONTH), '%Y%m%d%H%i%s') —Cryptic 22:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And if it starts to get irritating to see rows roll off the starts of the results one by one, easy enough to make the cutoff exactly one week before the beginning of the current calendar month. log_timestamp >= DATE_FORMAT(DATE_ADD(DATE_FORMAT(NOW(), '%Y-%m-01'), INTERVAL -1 WEEK), '%Y%m%d%H%i%s') —Cryptic 23:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn out of process deletion. Retarget to Nosophobia and do not send to RfD (contains mention, perfect target).—Alalch E. 01:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn an invalid speedy delete reason. There is also an article hidden in the history. But Alalch E.'s suggestion sounds good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randal Alexander McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed a 2-2 vote as !keep. Without looking at the strength of the arguments, 2 editors suggested keeping the article (1 keep, 1 keep/merge), and 2 editors were in favor of redirecting the article (nominator being delete/redirect, 1 merge/redirect). On top of this, there is no mention in the close reflecting how the closer weighted the strength of the arguments provided by either side (WP:CLOSEAFD, WP:AFDEQ, WP:DISCUSSAFD all mention that this is not a simple numerical vote). Not weighing the arguments penalizes the redirect's case, in my (involved) view. Should have been a relist, a no consensus, or a redirect IMO, but certainly not a keep. Pilaz (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC) last edited by Pilaz (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

• Plenty of contributions, so relisting would have been inappropriate. No consensus is equivalent to keep. Editors can redirect as a normal editorial action or discuss it on the talk page, as the closer suggested. As such, endorse. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - While there was adequate discussion, I don't see any of the keep !votes being maintained in the discussion; all were weak arguments in the face of the facts as presented. No consensus may have been a better result and, though it is functionally equivalent to a keep, it carries a different weight. I also note some of the discussion is unmarked by !vote marks, and those seem to not have been taken into account. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That all said.... a trout for Pilaz in not initiating a dialogue with Liz before opening this DRV. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I feel it's a correct close and not the best nomination, I would have also voted keep. O and UtherSRG keep that bag of fish to yourself please, thank you! Govvy (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sharing is caring! XD - UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus which is, for practical purposes, the same as a "keep" close. However, a "no consensus" result would hold less water in a future merge discussion. The vote was evenly split 2-2 between keep and not keep, and the strength of the arguments on both sides seemed relatively weak. I do not believe a relist is the right move since there is zero prospect of an outright deletion. Frank Anchor 12:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus - With the !votes split evenly, there wasn't a consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see anybody actually agreeing with the nominator's proposal, which limits the options to Keep or No Consensus, and there isn't a huge difference between those two outcomes here. While a few people suggested a redirect or a merge as a possible outcome I don't see anybody actually supporting that view. Relisting would not be appropriate given the number of participants. Since a few people suggested that a merge with Earl of Antrim would be a good idea I think the best way forward would be to propose that. Hut 8.5 10:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I see here rough consensus to keep because the first boldfaced "comment" comment does not advocate for an outcome, it only points out ATD as something that should be taken into account in the course of the discussion. That's honestly what it looks like to me. Too reasonable of a close and too much of an edge case (I can't fault those who interpret that comment as an expression of support for redirecting/merging) to overturn, and it's not especially important to overturn from keep to no consensus, and merging is better discussed on a talk page.—Alalch E. 19:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer's summary including explicit call out for starting a merge discussion on the talk page, after the close. This seems to be a fair interpretation of the consensus developed over the discussion, and it is a better forum for such merge discussions than AfD. There's no benefit to a relist here, and an overturn to no consensus seems unnecessary, when the closer's statement reflected a reasonable consensus in acknowledging the possibility of a merge. —siroχo 22:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Andrews Reserve (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unfortunately the admin went with a bad move. And the other people on the AfD said to redirect a page which is about a football club nothing on what George Andrews Reserve is, it clearly states it has Basketball Court, Pavilion, Picnic Area, Playground, Public toilet, Soccer Fields and Tennis Courts per official source, then why the hell would you redirect to a football club which uses the same location. This is not how we should be doing things for a geo location. And I strongly suggest this be reviewed. And if you're going with a redirect, because it is a geo location it should be directed too Dandenong, Victoria for the part of the city it is in. Geo locations should always be directed to other geo locations when GNG doesn't qualify and not football clubs. Govvy (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse three redirect votes (including the nom) citing lack of WP:SIGCOV and failure of WP:GNG and WP:SNGs against a single keep vote that was was refuted generally is consensus to not keep. I would be open to relisting due to the low attendance in the AFD, but I don't see any difference in the result based on the state of the article prior to being redirected. Frank Anchor 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Frank Anchor: You posted that so quickly, I didn't get my updated bit in the DR, I strongly suggest you actually look into what you're posting too, considering how quickly you posted, I know you didn't do any research into this. And that really pains me to see. Govvy (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually did do research. Due to the fact that the AFD only had four participants and had almost unanimous consensus to not keep, I did not have much to actually look into what [I'm] posting too [sic]. I did notice you suggested Dandenong, Victoria would be a better redirect target after my vote. I will offer no opinion on where the redirect should go. A retargeting discussion can take place at WP:RFD after this DRV is closed. Frank Anchor 19:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would prefer to keep geo location articles like this, but if not, I prefer a sensible location as a redirect. And that is my main reason, I've never heard of WP:RFD before in all my years on wiki from memory! Govvy (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closure of the AFD, including the redirection to Dandenong Thunder SC, which was supported by consensus. When the appellant said it clearly states it has Basketball Court, Pavilion, Picnic Area, Playground, Public toilet, Soccer Fields and Tennis Courts, I thought maybe that was in the article that was cut down. That is only in the web page, and the appellant didn't even ask the editors or the closer to read the web site, so quoting that information is silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation of Draft - The appellant is welcome to develop a draft with more than three sentences and more than zero properly formatted references. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If the appellant thinks that the redirection is wrong, then, as previously noted, they may go to Redirects for Discussion, but the closer followed consensus, which was what she should have done. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - although can see that the target is likely wrong. Seems like this is the wrong venue to discuss redirect targets. JMWt (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC) edit - in an attempt to be helpful I've opened a discussion at RfD and have tagged Govvy. JMWt (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There is no possibility of a delete outcome, and discussion on varying between the different types of not-delete closure, such as whether or where to redirect, can be taken up on the article talk page or RFD. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as this is clearly the correct closure and a trout for Govvy for not discussing with Liz before starting this DRV. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - consensus was clear. GiantSnowman 11:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Just looked on a map, it does not look that noteworthy. However I think it should have been relisted, as I somewhat agree that declaring consensus was premature, even if the eventual outcome is the same. - Indefensible (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is not within the realms of non admin closure as it was not a clear consensus to keep. I believe it should be relisted to determine a greater consensus and then closed by an admin. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen: I was a keep !vote and the close was a keep, but I agree this was outside the prerogative of a non-admin close, especially one only 9 months old, with 1,836 edits and extremely limited AfD participation.[1] It's also clearly no-consensus at this point and there is an ongoing productive discussion. Support reversing close.  // Timothy :: talk  14:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Jalapeño: friendly advice: Now is the time to state this close was a good faith mistake in judgement, ask an admin to revert your close, and agree not to close any more AfDs.  // Timothy :: talk  14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. How and where can I do that? 🔥Jalapeño🔥 14:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Right here, I think you just did. Thanks.  // Timothy :: talk  14:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem. After second thought, I understand why the close was inappropriate. I don't think I should close AfD's anymore as it turns out I'm really inexperienced. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 14:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't be discouraged by lack of experience; experience only comes with time. I'd recommend that you click on the essay that LibStar linked in their opening comment — that should give you a decent sense of when it is appropriate to close discussions in the future. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did read it, and I understand. I'll try building up more experience before actually closing AfDs instead of just closing them right away (which isn't adequate, seeing that this has just happened). 🔥Jalapeño🔥 14:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jalapeño: Both can be done right here, I believe! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn closure as AfD nominator. The discussion had most definitely not reached a consensus on the topic, and the close cut off a conversation, as TimothyBlue mentioned. I'll also note that the closing comment links to the discussion on AN which led to the speedy closure of the previous AfD nomination. I had already acknowledged in this nomination that I read the previous discussions before starting this one. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Farooq (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Looking at the deletion nomination discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tariq Farooq (2nd nomination), it is not clear why it was decided to be removed, given the votes to keep. The missing references can be rectified. The page contains enough references to make this page relevant. This page is about a major figure in Pakistani and Austrian badminton history. World Champion, European Champion, national coach of Pakistan/Austria badminton team. I would like this deletion to be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyda sh (talk • contribs) 12:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse If you want this to be overturned, you'll have to provide the references now, rather than having us blindly trust that The missing references can be rectified. The closure was entirely reasonable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure of the second AFD, which was well explained by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation of Draft. The title has not been salted. The originator can create a new article, but it will be subject to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with no prejudice against recreation, though I would recommend any attempt to recreate the page go through the WP:AFC process. Frank Anchor 13:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unless the references are actually provided as opposed to asserted. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:The sun1.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

(Note: I am only requesting undeletion of the revision of the file deleted by Nyttend, not the one deleted by Tom)

This file was deleted for the reason "Wrong name, didn't realise that this name was already in use!". This shows that the author didn't want the file to be deleted, but merely renamed. Besides, deleting this file has screwed up the attribution history for File:The sun (color modified).jpg.

(Edit: I seem to have not realised the second version of File:The sun1.jpg is a merely a derivative of the first version avaliable at File:The sun (color modified).jpg. Please undelete the first version of the file by Lykaestria. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 14:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC) )[reply]

This file should be undeleted (preferably to a different name such as Sun glare (1).jpg to avoid unsuspecting users overwriting this file)—Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 16:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The file you are requesting be restored was uploaded by Nyttend themselves four minutes before they deleted it. There's nothing to do here, and this should be closed as a waste of time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: Apologies, I seem to not have realised that the second version of the file is a derivative of the first version avaliable at File:The sun (color modified).jpg. In that case I request undeletion of the first version. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 14:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Recreation of file, which was not salted. No opinion as to the merits of a deletion 14 or 16 years ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the creation log shows that the file Nyttend uploaded as File:The sun1.jpg was also marked as a derivative work… of File:The sun1.jpg. It was uploaded at 04:08, deleted at 04:12, and File:The sun (color modified).jpg was uploaded at 04:13. It therefore seems possible that the two files may be the same — the desired rename may have been accomplished by deletion and reuploading.

Having said that, part of the attribution history is clearly still missing. At the time of uploading, there was a file on Commons titled File:The sun1.jpg, which judging by the Commons logs was transferred in Nov 2005 from the same file name on enwiki — the version that was later deleted by Tom (I’m guessing because at that point the file also existed on Commons). I’d therefore suggest that the version of File:The sun1.jpg deleted by Tom is {{TempUndelete}}d, to confirm whether it is the original work (and so whether it should stay undeleted to preserve attribution). Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 07:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the color modification in Nyttend's version seems to consist entirely of a black blob scribbled over the center of the original version of File:The sun1.jpg. The file's deletion as an F1 is no longer valid now that it's no longer on Commons; if there's legitimate reason to think Lykaestria's upload tagged with {{GFDL}} was not authored by Likaestria themself - and I don't think there is; that was the practice at the time for self-authored images - then Nyttend's derivative work is just as deleteable. Restore all versions (and then revert Nyttend's overwrite back to the original) and tag {{deleted on Commons}}. —Cryptic 10:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it wasn't very clear, this is what I would like to happen. Then, the version at commons (c:File:The sun1.jpg) should probably be undeleted (since it was deleted as having no source/permission, which we now know it has), but that should happen after everything else to ensure all the history is copied where it needs to be. —Matr1x-101 _{(Ping me when replying)} {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 14:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the deletion on Commons is bizarre, and was performed by an admin later desysopped for, among other things, insufficient care in mass deletions. I'd suggest taking it to c:COM:UDR. But there's still no reason to do anything locally that I see. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The derivative version is still hosted here, not on Commons; the original version is still in use as a redlink in numerous places here; the original version is plainly superior to the derivative version in all of the places the derivative version is currently used; and it's not a valid speedy anymore if the file doesn't exist on Commons and meets none of the other speedy deletion criteria here. Maybe they'll do the right thing over at Commons if we ask. Maybe they'll even do it promptly! But that shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing right now. —Cryptic 00:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's reference: proper attribution history of an image requires that we list the contributors, and that's it. File:The sun (color modified).jpg, in the "author" line, lists User:Lykaestria as the original author. Unless someone else contributed to this file (the image itself, not the description page), there are no problems with the "color modified" image. Any other derivative works can be repaired fully by adding Lykaestria if needed. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No action needed. You don't need to undelete files "to preserve attribution", you just need to credit the original authors in the file description of the derivative work. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've undeleted it. The attribution doesn't matter, the fact that it's not speedy deleteable does. —Cryptic 11:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And now the commons file has been undeleted. Around we go ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that we can see the history on Commons, the deletion wasn't entirely bizarre - the image had been overwritten several times, and its source changed to an external site of a different image (likely one of the overwrites) which didn't display appropriate licensing. It seems to be stable over there now (see c:Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2023-09#File:The sun1.jpg), though, so I've respeedied the local version. —Cryptic 18:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Wan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I prefer to try again submit Grace Wan article because there is new information independent article that can add new references. Dobët100 (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC) dobet100Dobët100 (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the links above refer to a deleted page. Please can you specify the exact name of the page you'r7e requesting assistance with. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closure of the 2017 AFD. (Thank you, User:Cryptic, for un-mutilating.) An SPI is probably in order for the appellant, whose only two edits are this DRV entry. and there is a history of sockpuppetry with drafts of this title; but DRV is a content forum. The title is not salted in draft space, and the appellant can create a draft, but it will probably waste their time and that of the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I just went ahead and blocked the appellant. I've dealt with Grace Wan socks before, looks like we'll have to do so again for a while. --Yamla (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't recommend restoring the deleted version, even to draftspace. Besides being six years old and thus at least nominally out-of-date, it was only a single sentence long, sourced only to WP:IMDB, at the time of deletion. There's a longer version with more sources in the history, but it was cut down to that because none of the sources supported any of the text they were attached to. —Cryptic 20:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think that restoring a deleted version to draft space is usually a waste of time. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is a Procedural Close in order, because the filing party is a blocked sockpuppet? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Muthukumar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was previously deleted for failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I would like to point out that Muthukumar has been part of several significant shows and played the leads in the shows Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal? & Sasural Simar Ka 2. Moreover, she is now seen as the lead in the show Do Chutki Sindoor of Nazara channel. There are resources for supporting these roles of Muthukumar. Therefore Muthukumar passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. So kindly restore the article to the mainspace.117.243.150.209 (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both closures if the appellant is asking to review the closures. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation either in article space, subject to AFD, or in draft space. DRV Purpose 3 applies. And the title has not been salted. If the appellant wishes to create an article in article space, they need to register an account and become autoconfirmed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can the deleted article be restored to draftspace so that it can be worked upon and made eligible for mainspace?117.243.150.209 (talk) 03:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't have a problem with draftifying the AfDed version (the threshold for that is pretty low), but unless there are some good high-quality sources about this person, the article is just going to get re-deleted once it gets to mainspace. My cursory search didn't find anything too impressive (mostly interviews, tabloid gossip, etc.), although there may be foreign-language sources I've missed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir, we do have some really good resources on Muthukumar, we will establish that in the restored draft but if still the afd rejects it then we are okay with it. 117.209.242.195 (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians that are cats (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletion log for this user category is a bit confusing. The CfD discussion close says it was speedily deleted under G3, but the deletion log quotes G6 (and links to the CfD section).

In any event, I don’t believe that this user category would have been eligible for deletion under G3, as I wouldn’t describe it as a blatant hoax - to me (albeit with a slight COI because of my username), it seems like a relatively harmless piece of humour that should have been allowed to stay up (along with the userbox of a similar nature). After all, Category:Wikipedians who cannot be trout-slapped because they are already fish exists, but I doubt anyone seriously thinks that it’s actual fish doing the editing.^[Humor] I propose that this category should be either undeleted or recreated, as a subcategory of Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories.

I’m bringing this to DRV because (1) a recreation would otherwise be open to being deleted under G4, and (2) because the page is currently create-protected so it can’t be recreated anyway. I apologise if it’s not the right venue. All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 07:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A speedy deletion was inappropriate as it isn't vandalism. As such, overturn and relist at CFD. I'd also nominate Wikipedians who cannot be trout-slapped etc. for deletion. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts, keep deleted as per WP:NOTBURO; it's clearly an inappropriate joke category and sending it through CFD is just spending extra unnecessary time. Stifle (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist (after these years) because it should have been decided based on discussion, rather than a speedy criterion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I can absolutely see where the deleting admin is coming from here, because the category is listing something that is blatantly not true. Cats don't have the necessary intelligence, physical dexterity or language skills to edit Wikipedia (and even if they did they're far too lazy). Consensus is that user categories which are "jokes/nonsense" are inappropriate (WP:USERCATNO), so I don't see a good reason to recreate or relist this. Hut 8.5 17:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue (here, and in any relisted discussion) that consensus may well have changed since when that guideline was codified (see e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 2 § Pickle cabal, which was closed as keep). In any relisted discussion, I would support invoking IAR to the extent that retaining the user category would conflict with the codified guideline. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 19:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don't think the guideline is supported by consensus then you should propose changing it. A single CfD doesn't mean much in that regard, and a wider consensus like a guideline usually takes precedence over a local consensus. IAR says that if a rule is preventing you from improving the encyclopedia then you can ignore it. I don't see creating this category improves the encyclopedia. Hut 8.5 19:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue that it (although not singularly this user category on its own, to be clear) indirectly improves the encyclopedia by enabling camaraderie and good humour between editors. In response to your suggestion, I’d certainly support a formal change to the guideline, but I don’t think I have the ability right now to develop & propose such a change myself. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 21:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You really don't want to go there. See the discussion at the top of Wikipedia talk:User categories which ended in flames. Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories only exists because nobody is willing to brave this years-old frozen war zone - I'm quite sure if any of the categories still there were brought to CfD they would be deleted (and I would !vote delete) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've cataloged a list of all joke user category deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Nonsense/joke/humour categories. It shows that the pickle cabal discussion is the only time since 2008 in which a joke user category has been kept at CfD. One aberrational discussion does not defeat a guideline. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, there have also been discussions that have ended in no consensus, which were therefore kept by default to maintain the status quo. (I’m not trying to be funny with this comment btw, I’m sorry if it comes across in that way.) Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 07:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This is nothing more than a waste of everyone's time. Especially given all the moot procedural wrangling above - the most recent, and hence controlling, discussion is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 4#Category:Feline Wikipedians ("Wikipedians that are cats" and "Feline Wikipedians" are sufficiently similar IMO that one could be G4ed as a recreation of the other), which was closed early per IAR but otherwise had a clear consensus to delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - In the internet world, we commonly have people who seem to want to confuse the Wikipedia category system with tagging. Or as a way to group "me and my buddies". The first is not how that system is designed. And the second is just clearly inappropriate per long-held overall consensus at CfD. I support humour on Wikipedia for the various reasons laid out in this nomination. But as a page. If you look at WP:CLN, there are many ways to group people on Wikipedia. The category system shouldn't be used for this. And finally, while we generally tend to not talk much about performance, with categories there can be a real issue of "lag" when it comes to updating categories behind-the-scenes. Here are some old essays about performance Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, Wikipedia:Do worry about performance, Wikipedia:Analyzing performance issues. As I said, we tend to not want editors to think about this, because we want them to feel free in developing the encyclopedia. We accept that for the encyclopedia. But adding to performance drag for jokes/nonsense would seem to be rather inappropriate. Please feel free to make a Wikipedia:Wikipedian cats page. But not a category. - jc37 13:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the category it did not meet any speedy deletion criterion and so should be undeleted. Any subjective speedy deletion objected to in good faith should also be overturned in favour of discussion. Additionally it is impossible to tell whether consensus has changed or not if discussions get shut down before consensus develops. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I mean, it wasn't a valid G3 (there's a difference between a good-faith joke and a blatant hoax), nor was it a valid G4 based on the 2015 discussion (G4 doesn't apply to pages that were speedily deleted), nor would it have been a valid G4 based on the 2017 discussion (G4 doesn't apply retroactively), so I guess I'd !vote overturn and relist, though not without feeling that this is a very poor way to spend other editors' time. I will be !voting delete at CfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per WP:NOTBURO. It's obvious that this will be deleted when recreated. By restoring we would practically obligate other editors to go through the motions to restore things to where they are now. That's process for the sake of process. The closer can note that the application of speedy deletion criteria was incorrect.—Alalch E. 16:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:NOTBURO. Regardless of if the speedy category was incorrect, this was a nonsense category that will have zero chance of surviving a CfD. There's very few times I will cite WP:IAR, but this is one of them: we have no reason to keep this cat, and process for the sake of process is just wasting everyone's time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pidge (company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was reviewed twice & there was no change. First nomination & no votes. Soft delete & article refunded. Second nomination 2 votes with Delete. Both nomination was addressed by same person (checked his edits which was below 100). I have read about notability, and all the references were reliable. Still article got deleted. Am I missing with Notability or we can make the article back to mainspace? Or shall I go through AfC review rather than directly publishing? VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 20:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The discussion was unanimous and could not have closed any other way I have read about notability, and all the references were reliable is a non-sequitur - notability, especially for companies, has to do with far more than reliability. It may be time to accept that the the community has decided that this company should not have an article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pppery, I will read about notability again, and respect the decision. VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 07:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Two additional notes. First: Number of edits has naught to do with DRV. If the nominator believes that there be a specific conduct issue, it should be raised with evidence at an appropriate venue. (Number of edits also does not constitute sufficient evidence for anything) Second: Beyond reliable, coverage must also be significant, independent and secondary. An example of what might be excluded as not-significant coverage would be funding announcements. As a general comment on notability, I will also add that independent and secondary refer to different things and both must be met. At this time, I would suggest that AfC review is a good idea. Continuing to familiarise oneself with the notability guidelines is also a good idea, andkI would suggest doing both, time permitting the second. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alpha3031, Agreed with both the pointers addressed. Definitely, I will opt for AfC from now on. VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 07:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both closes, if they are being appealed. Both closes were closed the only possible way. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert McClenon. VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 07:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Submission of Draft - The title has not been salted, and the appellant is free to create another article, but it will almost certainly be taken to AFD. It is much better to submit a draft through AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert McClenon, copy that. We can close this discussion as I have understood what needs to be done. Thank you very much all for clearing all my doubts. Let me invest more time so that I can contribute precisely & in constructive manner. Will introvert & investigate my learnings. VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 07:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Anna of Saxony (1903–1976) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Clearly a no consensus result but closure's decision is redirect, also WP:IDONTLIKE bullied by anti-monarchy gang, who trying to deleted many royalty articles since 2020. The princess was a daughter of a reigning monarch, and her life received extensive coverage from various sources, also notable enough for a biography to have be written about her "The Struggle for a Royal Child, Anna Monica Pia, Duchess of Saxony", ISBN:  9781332933518. For example AfD outcome see wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane, Duchess of Württemberg. Unfair decision! Why not have an entry on Wikipedia because she was not a princess of a British monarch?. Thanks 62.181.221.7 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close reasoning: AfDs are closed based on sources, policy, and guidelines. The only way this is no-consensus is by counting votes and hoping NOTINHERITED is ignored. Keep voters had a lot of assertions, but no sources and this article does not meet notability guidelines.  // Timothy :: talk  09:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no see old friend, you r still shameful! Well, Subject of a book is Enough to pass WP:GNG. GNG rule is not created for a weapon. 82.209.191.153 (talk) 09:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please tone it down a bit, anon. Calling other editors "shameful", "disgusting" and "shameless members of a gang" isn't going to help your case here, nor is suggesting that there is an "anti-monarchy gang" conspiring to have articles deleted. Can you demonstrate here that "her life", and not just her parents' custody dispute, received "extensive coverage"? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. You're just rehashing the keep arguments, which as Vanamonde93's closing statement (you forgot to discuss this with him first, by the way) already said, failed because assertions of importance and pleases of unfairness are very weak in the face of an actual policy- and source-based evaluation of notability. The anti-monarchy gang sounds like a blast, though – where do I sign up? – Joe (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the tone being employed here, I don't especially mind that this wasn't raised with me; I don't think that would have been terribly productive. I stand by my closure. Members of royal families who never ruled themselves are sometimes notable because of other activities, and sometimes not. The arguments that this particular individual was not were far stronger. I'm persuaded by the argument that coverage of a custody battle is not SIGCOV for the child subject of that battle, though it may be for the parents. And while I didn't downweight !votes based on conduct, tossing around personal attacks isn't helping your case. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I agree with the closer that the Redirect arguments were stronger. Since the arguments for redirection were that the subject has little coverage outside of the custody dispute, the most convincing way to undo the redirection would be to write an article or draft about her which has substantial coverage of the other parts of her life. It's true that she was the daughter of a reigning monarch, but the monarchy was abolished when she was still a child and it wasn't a monarchy of an independent country anyway, so it shouldn't be that surprising if she isn't notable. Hut 8.5 17:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mitanshu Kawlekar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe this article should be restored, since I find the action taken by the nominator and closing admin as "hasty". I completely disagree that the article is promotional or if had any WP:Peacock text, it could be trimmed and not speedily deleted. Initially when I questioned the closing admin, I did not get a sufficient answer but an alternative method to push it to draft space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejoy2003 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Recreation as Draft - On the one hand, the article probably was spam. On the other hand, the author should have a copy on their computer, and should be allowed to restore it to Draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your response, Robert. I still do not believe the article was spam and hoping it is restored completely into article space, maybe you could had gotten a better detailed insight if it was {TempUndeleted}, hence I ask the admins for the same so that the editors can have a better insight towards the speedy deletion. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 21:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second speedy deletion of an article about Kawlekar. @Bbb23 offered restoration as a draft which is probably the best outcome here. Text such as This initiative aimed to redefine the way people experienced live events by bringing them directly into their homes. is promotional and if this were at AfD, I would not hesitate to !vote delete. Star Mississippi 21:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've picked one sentence from the article. I do not disagree with you, it might sound promotional. But don't you think a WP:NPOV tag would had been more sufficient? It's not like whole article is promotional. It seems like a case of deletionists involved in this matter. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 21:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is 100% promotional content. If a sentence in an article is 100% promotional, the other sentences usually range between 0% and 100%. No, a tag is not sufficient. Wikipedia is not for promotion. If the article is restored, it should only be restored to draft space. We should all be deletionists when it comes to advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many sentences would you like? I count exactly two, out of the fifty in the final revision, that might survive unchanged in a neutrally-written article, and cutting it down to those two ("Mitanshu Kawlekar was born on 3 March 1999. As of 2022, he is a final year Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering student at Goa Engineering College.") would leave it an A7. 96% of an article being in need of revision does not call for an NPOV tag. —Cryptic 00:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm stil finding it hard to believe. I might have been too lenient to check over the article's neutrality or the sources I used had a lot of peacock statements which maybe I failed to trim down. Do you also think the "Personal views" section too was promotional? 96% seems pretty bad. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 05:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is undue weight, though not in the sense that's usually meant by that term on Wikipedia. By including it, especially at the length you did, you're saying that this person's (laudable) opposition to ragging is a much larger part of his life than it is. The same is true, for example, for the paragraph about the beach cleanup in the Career section - a two hour beach cleanup is not an appreciable part of anybody's career; that you were able to find an ostensibly-third-party puffpiece about it doesn't mean it belongs in a neutral biography.

I do want to make the point that, though the promotionalism was pervasive, it was mostly on the mild end of what's speedy-deletable. Bbb23's offer to restore to draftspace was exactly the right call to make; this article is salvageable, even if it's not at the point where just tagging and leaving it in mainspace as-is would be tolerable. —Cryptic 01:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, based on User:Cryptic's assessment. Do not restore any part. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this discussed with the deleting admin? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Bbb23#Mitanshu_Kawlekar seems to be the totality of it, @SmokeyJoe Star Mississippi 01:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was also this. —Cryptic 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Refer User:Rejoy2003 back to that. Support Bbb23’s offer:

I am willing to restore the article to draft space so you can work on it, but only if you promise to use WP:AFC, meaning you will not move it to article space on your own but instead allow experienced reviewers to evaluate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Endorse the G11 speedy deletion. Rejoy’s follow up points appear to be timewasting. Either accept Bbb23’s offer, or give it up. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smokey, the deleting admin's offer is good. Seems like this article will mostly be moving there. But the "AFC" part was something unexpected. I don't want my article to stall over there for months, I've had similar experiences in the AFC in the past. Can't I just take it to draft space and work on it and then move back to article space? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 05:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The offer is that you don’t move it yourself. You can ask for a variety of things, but I strongly recommend that you take the obvious advice to have it draftified and then fix it in draftspace, before asking anything more. Otherwise, you’re asking on the hypothetical that you’ve done a good job fixing an unacceptable page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean technically you can as the title hasn't been salted, but you shouldn't. You don't understand the problems with the article, and restoring it without addressing those would lead to yet another deletion. That turns into tendentious editing and you risk being blocked. AfC is the better choice. If you accept that, one of us will probably restore the draft in fewer than the seven days here. Star Mississippi 12:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. based on what I can learn about the deleted content from those who can see it. G11 works the same in both namespaces so, if restored, the page would just be G11-eligible in draftspace. Upon restoration, the draft could be tagged by anyone, and an administrator should delete it, and we should want that to happen. It is a good thing when pages eligible for speedy deletion are identified and deleted. So if this DRV leads to restoration, it will only have led to an outcome that begs for that good thing to happen. The same good thing that we're already enjoying by the page being deleted. About AfC specifically: I don't think that DRV can impose AfC, as it isn't practicable to make this optional process function like that on an ad hoc basis. The well-disposed offer of one editor to another only worked before DRV as an informal deal of sorts, based on trust. DRV is a formal process and can't reconstruct this unrealized agreement by readding strongly undesirable content onto the site. It would have been much better for Rejoy2003 to have accepted the offer as it was a "generous" offer. The offer should be considered wasted. Just keep deleted.—Alalch E. 01:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I had made my mind about taking this article two days ago, like I had highlighted to it to Smokey. I'm grateful for everyone that has been involved in this DRV. Especially the admins for helping me understand about this much better since I didn't really understand what "tone" was that the article seemed promotional. I'm willing to have this article rather draftified than completely salting it. I want to improve and add encyclopaedic content on Wikipedia, this was completely not my intent to write down promotional content. I hope the admins will continue to place their trust in me and having fix this salvageable article, as stated by Cryptic. Thank you Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 07:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

See this version, the article is now worthy of being reinstated. 202.134.8.129 (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close - Wrong forum. The IP is edit-warring to restore an article, or a version of an article, that was recently cut down to a redirect, and the AFD that cut the article down to a redirect was endorsed by a recent contentious DRV. If the IP is a good-faith unregistered editor, they should submit a draft for review. Semi-protecting the redirect might be a good idea, but this is Deletion Review, and we already reviewed and endorsed the deletion close. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Four Golden Princess (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn and restore or delete: A redirect to M-Girls seems inappropriate given that these are two completely different music groups. I am unable to provide more than an anecdote about the popularity of Four Golden Princess vs. M-Girls, but you can find Four Golden Princess' page on Spotify here, and M-Girls' page on Spotify here.
Anecdotally, they are famous for children's songs in Malaysia; their Spotify page would give a sense of their discography. Due to the nature of their songs, it would be difficult to qualify them under MUSIC or GNG. I am personally perplexed by the lack of official channels as well. It might be due to the fact that the group and its disbandment somewhat predates the boom of Internet in Malaysia/Singapore. However, my point is that these are distinct groups and the decision to redirect is not well-supported by the discussion. Adding this as a redirect to a completely different group is misleading. RagnaParadise (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - Any action other than an endorse is a little strange a year-and-a-half later, but the redirect was a little strange also. There was no consensus at the time of closure, and a third relist was still possible, and is now an even better idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It’s too old, there was no deletion. As per the close, it can be recreated if better sources are found. The proponent mentions Spotify, so refer them to AfC. DRV is not the gateway for recreating articles with better sources. They were formed in 1994 and disbanded in 2008. So what could be new? There is no case for “overturn” or “restore”.

”Delete”? Yes maybe. Take it to WP:RfD, but only when you’ve decided what you want. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Discussion is more than a year and a half old. If you want to delete it, go to WP:RFD; if you want to restore/spin it out, you don't need permission from here to do so. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Discussion was correct. There's no problem with re-creating the article with better sources per the closure. SportingFlyer T·C 17:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and explicitly allow restoration (restored article is obviously subject to another AFD). Due to limited AFD participation, the close was essentially the redirect equivalent of a soft delete as there was only one user outside the nom who made arguments against keeping the article. In this case an article should be restored upon any good-faith request (e.g. this DRV). Since the page is not protected, the DRV is not technically needed but we are here anyway. I believe either (soft) redirect or no consensus would have been viable options, and Sandstein opted for the former. Frank Anchor 18:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Rarri Dream (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I just thinks he needs a wikipedia given he has press and news articles like I said If It isn't clear that deletion of the draft is the most appropriate way to deal with the resubmission then why has it been done. This is a legitimate up incoming music rapper which it says by his title on google he has many References they just have to be inserted correctly. If you put the draft back up I will assure that the excessive submissions won't happen again unless the page is ready and he has been posting on so really notable news outlets. He has also has had new press articles since then. JoshKaine (talk) 01:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the deletion of the draft, which was the only possible conclusion by the closer after all of the participants in the MFD, including myself, had !voted Delete. The draft was nominated for deletion after a long history of tendentious resubmission including 5 Rejections and 5 declines. The appellant is taking my words out of context. In the MFD, I had written:

  It isn't clear that deletion of the draft is the most appropriate way to deal with the resubmission, because a partial block may be in order, but it is an appropriate way to deal with the resubmission, and this is a content forum.

  Deletion of the draft was an appropriate way to deal with it, and there was no error by anyone except the submitter. The title was not salted, and the appellant is free to create and submit a new draft, but would do well to ask for advice at the Teahouse first, and should be aware that tendentious resubmission this time will almost certainly result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse.

But, restore to draftspace on condition that it does not get tendentiously submitted, assuming this is a reasonable request by an editor in good standing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of this user's edits have been to this draft or its variants, and all but the first two revisions were either by this user, an occasional ip, afc decliners, and removals of what one user aptly described as "ridiculous black-hat SEO". I don't think any of "reasonable... editor in good standing" applies. —Cryptic 22:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was my suspicion, yes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. I would normally support restoration to draft space, but given that consensus was clear that the draft wasn't ready and this was disruptively resubmitted by an SPA, I think that would just lead to more disruption. If Kaine is p-blocked from the draft, which I would support, this likely turns into a G13 so suggest waiting on restoration until an uninvolved editor is interested in working on it. Star Mississippi 16:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Star Mississippi.—Alalch E. 22:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This was variously at, hm, Draft:FF Rarri, Draft:Malik Shakir Aziz, FF Rarri, Draft:Rarri Cash, Draft:Ff rarri, and Draft:Yes Man, for those keeping score at home. Perhaps more; those were just the titles of versions edited by this user. —Cryptic 22:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

House of Aberffraw (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

WP:RS, WP:OR House of Aberffraw article deleted to redirect for Rhodri Mawr a medieval Welsh King, the article stood for over a decade and needs more presence than a redirect. Issue arose from my outdated sources, but that can be amended. Thanks, Cltjames (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation, the article is not fiction, there are sources albeit older sources recreated by authors such as John Davies (historian), and John Edward Lloyd (1911 book re-released in 2004) giving exact details of the dynasty of the house. It would be unfair to have a blank space when other dynasties from around the world still have Royal House articles with inadequate referencing, e.g. House of Dunkeld, Emirate of Nekor and plenty more on Wikipedia's List of dynasties article. Cltjames (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close - There has been no deletion. There was a WP:BLAR. Where an editor objects to BLAR, the remedy is the revert button. That will likely trigger a deletion discussion, but that has not happened yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Allow recreation - There is significant historical information about the House of Aberffraw available in literature. Titus Gold (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am of the same view, there is significant historical information about Aberffraw. Not sure I understand what happened on the Aberffraw page, but the behavior was exaggerated on both sides. Academia45 (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close I've boldly restored the last version before the redirect as this wasn't a DRV issue. Next step is to discuss on the talk page or for the article to be taken to AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close - Wrong venue. This is a contested blank and redirect. As SportingFlyer says, the article should be restored, and then taken to AFD with redirection as an alternative to deletion. We often say that DRV is not AFD round 2, but DRV is also not AFD round 1. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King of Wales (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

WP:RS, WP:OR King of Wales article was deleted and replaced by the same user who deleted House of Aberffraw. The article links to King of the Britons and the List of rulers of Wales articles, but now there is a gap between articles because the information was deleted in one article but not the other and this have created inconsistencies. Cltjames (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close - There has been no deletion. There was a WP:BLAR. Where an editor objects to BLAR, the remedy is the revert button. That will likely trigger a deletion discussion, but that has not happened yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close The article was not deleted but the text was drastically changed. Revert the text and take it to the talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 17:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Allow recreation -, I have reverted the article as requested. Again same issue as the House of Aberffraw article which was deleted in it's entirety. However, at least this time the user created a few paragraphs of explanation, only referring to the Latin use of the title King of Wales, whilst it actually has 3,000 years of history (2,000 more than described in the rewrite prior). Please refer to connecting articles, List of legendary kings of Britain, King of the Britons, Kingdom of Gwynedd, List of legendary rulers of Cornwall (direct connection, yet article hasn't been challenged based on the same research, Book of Baglan c. 1600), and also look at List of High Kings of Ireland starting at 1934 BC. Wales has history, so why try to hide it is my argument e.g. use older sources if necessary. Cltjames (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Close - Wrong venue. This is a contested blank and redirect. One right way to resolve a contested blank and redirect is a deletion discussion, which there has not yet been. Restore the article that was cut down, and then send it to AFD with redirection as an alternative to deletion. In this case, DRV is not AFD round 1. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article was neither deleted nor blanked-and-replaced. Further discussion on the talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I beg. I am requesting the review of the deletion of the article "Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education" because I believe the article should be restored. The article provides valuable information about an educational institution and adheres to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, including notability, verifiability, and neutrality.
new_info: Since the initial AfD discussion, I have gathered additional reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the college. These sources support the educational institution's significance and provide a well-rounded perspective on its activities and impact.
adherence: The article now complies with Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. It meets the notability criteria by showcasing the institution's importance in the field of education. The information presented is verifiable and neutral, maintaining a balanced tone throughout the article.
outcome: My desired outcome from this Deletion Review is the restoration of the article, allowing Wikipedia readers to access valuable information about Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education.

I would like to include some additional information about Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education:^[1][2][3][4] These credentials highlight the college's commitment to quality education and its recognition by relevant educational authorities.

This citation provides valuable information related to the Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education, which is pertinent to the article's notability and content.

Please consider the above information as part of my request for the restoration of the article.

Subject: Discussion on "Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education"

Respected Administrator, Sir, I wanted to initiate a discussion regarding the article titled "Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education." As the primary contributor to this article under the username "Supriyomj16022008," I value your input and feedback. The purpose of this discussion is to: 1. Address any concerns or issues related to the article's content, neutrality, or compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. 2. Collaborate on improvements to enhance the quality and accuracy of the article. 3. Ensure that the article aligns with Wikipedia's standards and policies. I want to clarify a few important points: - I am not a paid editor, and my contributions to Wikipedia are made in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. - As a novice, I may have asked question about public search engine but please believe me, I don't have any bad motive behind asking that rather I asked just to know the unknown and maybe I have inadvertently added some promotional content to my article in the past, but I want to emphasize that I have no intention of promoting or misrepresenting any information. - I am genuinely committed to following Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and verifiability because I have a deep appreciation for Wikipedia and its community of editors. It's important to note that the college is a government-aided institution and operates under the umbrella of Ramakrishna Mission Boys' Home, Rahara. Though I am a monk associated with this Ashrama but please believe me, I am not personally involved with Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education in any official capacity. Please share your thoughts, suggestions, or concerns in this discussion. Your contributions are valuable in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia's content. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards,

(Supriyomj16022008 (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Nothing seems out of order in the AfD. Nor is there anything to keep this user from continuing to improve creating Draft:Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education with text that does not infringe copyright and an eye toward future submission. —C.Fred (talk) 11:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC) amended 12:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've removed the draft hagiography that was shoehorned into this review. That's not going to convince anybody to restore the article - rather the opposite - and neither are additional directory entries of the sort that were rejected at the afd. —Cryptic 12:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unanimous consensus to delete. Recommend improving the draft version already present and submitting to WP:AFC when appropriate. Frank Anchor 15:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I stand by my closure. Ordinarily in these situations, unless the article is unacceptable for the standard reasons (BLP violations, copyright problems, sock creation, etc.), I offer to restore an article to Draft space but as there is already a draft article to work on, this is unnecessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Draftifying this version is probably worth it in any case; the current draft is much, much worse than what was in mainspace, in all of prose, sourcing, and formatting. Working from that version isn't in anybody's best interests. —Cryptic 16:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - appropriate call by Liz. Open to draftifying per Cryptic if Liz agrees with Cryptic that the deleted version is better than the draft version.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Another overly long appeal that doesn't identify any errors by the closer, and doesn't even really address notability, although that would not matter since DRV is not AFD round 2. I don't know why so many appellants go to such length to request refund of the article, when the article was found not to establish notability, so no opinion on the refund request. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the AFD was well-attended and the the closer could not have come to any other conclusion than "delete". Note that Draft:Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education is a copyright violation and not suitable to build on. The appelant has also created Draft:Ramakrishna Mission Brahmananda College of Education 2 which I suspect also contains copyright violations but I have not had a chance to look at closely. And finally, the "draft" submitted with this review appeal is also a copyright violation from school site which is also the source for the other suspected copyright issues. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Draft 2 is also a copyright violation, and having a look at the deleted article, the version at time of deletion may have be okay, but definitely versions in the history are also copyright violations. Using any of these drafts or the deleted article as a base for a new article would not be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is the case, it sounds like a brand new, copyright violation-free version of a draft is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The new information provided is not of such nature that it would justify recreating the deleting page.—Alalch E. 23:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Refund the copyright violations. The submitter may submit something new. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The AfD had overwhelming consensus and could not possibly be closed any other way. Disallow restoration due to copyright violations; the OP may of course start a new draft, but I would recommend that they submit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation despite the backlog there. (Finally, this is a bit more advice more tangential to this deletion review, but the references linked are trivial mentions or routine listings that does not contribute to the general notability guideline.) Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply to all -

  I convey my gratitude to all. As a freshers of wikipedia I have understand that I had a copyright violation and above all I didn't disclose COI. I violated the law means definitely it should be deleted. But please believe me I don't want to violate the norms of Wikipedia. I was unknown to the fact and it was my big mistake that without reading the guideline I started writing an article. Few days before it was notified by one respected wikipedian reviewer/administrator that I have a WP:COI but like a baby learner I didn't understand and I started requesting to you but just 2 days back another respected wikipedian reviewer/administrator cleared my doubt, telling me that I can write but I have to disclose. So today I disclosed and will try to follow your guideline. But as a beginner in this field it is my heartiest request to you all please guide me. I am a novice. May be I did lot of mistakes but please don't take it otherwise. I want your help. Thank you very very much to give me the chance again. I apologize. Faithfully. (Supriyomj16022008 (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Anthony DiNozzo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not believe that a policy-based consensus for deletion (or merging/redirection) is discernible from this discussion. Outside of the nominator, the rationales in support of merging or redirection were "no need for character to have his own page" (which cites no policy basis for that determination), and "The duo might be a better target than the generic list, but I don't feel strongly" (same). The last !vote indicates the presence of Google Scholar sources, which appears not to have been plumbed as a direction for development, beyond the nominator saying "I cannot access the Google Scholar sources, so I cannot do an assessment of that", which is not a basis for rejecting such sources. At the least, I would suggest that this should have been (and should be) relisted for further discussion. BD2412 T 16:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Relist - After one week, the AFD had four noisy participants, three favoring merge or redirect, and one favoring keep. There was no strong policy-based argument, so that relisting at least once was a better non-close. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus or relist. The AfD had three participants supporting the eventual outcome, which is about the bare minimum for a close, and one opposed. Of the three who supported merge or redirect two didn't offer any meaningful arguments to support that and the nominator's arguments about sourcing were rather undercut by their admission that they haven't checked a number of suitable sources which obviously exist. As a result I don't agree with the closer that this result is better grounded in policies/guidelines. Hut 8.5 06:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist to better discern consensus. Stifle (talk) 07:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I actually think the close is defensible, but a relist feels like it would have been a better option here considering discussion was robust. SportingFlyer T·C 08:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (to no consensus), there was no such consensus, and discourage use of AfD for non-deletion rationales. AfD is poorly suited for proposed merged, and admin discretion applied to declaring a merge consensus is doubling the procedural problem. I agree there is a problem with the article, far too much WP:IN-UNIVERSE detail. The solution is editing, apply the advice at WP:WAF, and cutting back the article to what is covered by quality sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the content belongs at https://ncis.fandom.comview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Anthony_DiNozzo_Junior, but AfD is not the right forum, not unless maybe there is headstrong resistance by editors with different views, and even then, an RfC is the proper forum. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have a problem with AfD being used as a forum to propose a merge, particularly where the ultimate intent is, obviously, to remove most of the content. However, I don't think this discussion evinced a clear policy-based rationale for such a step. I doubt the intent of participants was for the entire 60k content of the nominated page to be merged into the list. BD2412 T 23:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do have a problem with AfD being used to propose a merge, and an afd-merge result proceeds to be an ongoing problem.

  An AfD merge vote is an aspiration. Merge !voting is ambiguous on what is to be kept or cut. Proposed merges should go to proposed merges. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Even proposed merges that go to proposed merges are usually pretty ambiguous about what is to be kept or cut. BD2412 T 03:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And they sit there a length.

  I observe, in accordance with simple theory, that an AfD closer can’t call a rough consensus to merge. The merge can be blocked so easily. Consequently, unless there is a clear and obvious agreement to merge, possibly overruling a few objectors, and AfD close of a discussion on merging should be limited to “keep” or “redirect with possible merging from the history”. In general, merge proposals should be referred to the article talk page, or the merge rage talk page.

  In this case, there is not a consensus to redirect.

  Failure lies with the nominator, tossing ideas into the wind to see what people say. If you can’t be sure what should be done, don’t nominate. Then also, the closer closed wrong. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Go get an RfC on this then. Your opinion - which you've continuously referred to in multiple DRVs now - is not how Wikipedia currently works and is out of policy. SportingFlyer T·C 10:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There have been RfCs on this before. Maybe they can be found via Wikipedia:AfD and mergers.

  Nominations to merge at AfD is not how Wikipedia works, it’s how Wikipedia doesn’t work, as seen repeatedly. I see there has been a recent rash of AfD closes as “merge”, not sitting backlogged for someone, not the nominator hey, to do. Seven days at AfD is not enough time to see if the merge actually works.

  In AfD, what does the D stand for? Deletion policy, WP:ATD-M, is a reason to not go to AfD. Read especially the clarification at WP:BEFORE#C4.

  What’s not working is the AfD nominations are not following instructions, AfD participants are humouring nominations that should be speedy kept, and closers are closing poorly, inappropriately and wrong, as in this case. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse or relist. A merge is and has been a perfectly reasonable AfD outcome, if rather clunky to implement. The merge/redirect !votes are agreeing with the nom that there is insufficient sourcing to support a standalone, although it would have been better if they had joined the discussion after the keep !vote brought up sources. Nevertheless, the keep !voter's new accessible sources were rebutted and it seems they couldn't access the GS articles either so it's not like they were attesting to those hits being SIGCOV. FWIW, the first link has a couple passing mentions of DiNozzo Jr., with slightly more content on his father (content about the character bolded):

whether it is Robert Wagner portraying Anthony DiNozzo Sr. (Michael Weatherly’s Tony DiNozzo’s father) on
NCIS ... Wagner’s subsequent performance as the father of Michael Weatherly’s Tony DiNozzo on NCIS completes the circle but also begins a new one. As Anthony DiNozzo Sr., Wagner essentially plays an aged Alexander Mundy, a bit of a criminal with a heart of gold, which is an awkward parent for the straighter-laced DiNozzo Junior.

The second has a bit more character background, but still is mostly indirect coverage (""):

In one episode of NCIS, ‘Frame-Up’, in Season 3, one of the agents, Anthony DiNozzo, was linked to a murder victim through DNA samples and bite mark evidence. The forensic scientist in the show, Abby, became distraught as she believed that science had ‘turned against her’: ‘I almost stopped believing in [forensic evidence] ... But now I know Forensics was just testing me’. By the end of the episode, her faith in forensic science has been reinstated as it becomes apparent that another scientist planted the evidence.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Original AfD in January 2023 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo jr) came to the conclusion that the article should be redirected. Since then, I had improved the page and published it, but it was suggested that it be merged with Cristiano Ronaldo. Besides the nomination for merging, the discussion had received three opposes and one support, but was closed as a result of the original AfD from January. With the article in its current state clearly not having a clear consensus on its notability, I feel it is worth a review. Davidlofgren1996 (talk)

• Speedy overturn to no consensus The closer of the merge discussion willfully ignored a lack of consensus to merge by citing a months-old AFD. Further, this AFD was incorrectly withdrawn and redirected after less than 14 hours. That can not be taken as consensus since any potential keep votes were deprived of over six days of voting time (and two redirect votes is nowhere near a WP:SNOW close). Even if there was broad consensus to redirect in January, Consensus can change. And it’s clear that there is now support to allow a standalone article based on newer sourcing. Relisting is a viable option as well, though my first choice is an overturn to NC. Frank Anchor 18:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse or Relist I think the people here are missing the point, The article was merged by AFD because of no notability (WP:INHERIT) not because of lack of sources or it needs improvement, the more of sources it doesn't change it status, Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. is not a professional footballer yet, he is 13 years old and he has been playing for juniors teams and that fails the guidelines in WP:ATHLETE, There are many sources talking about him because he is son of one of Cristiano Ronaldo one of the most famous football players in the world not because his career, so it clearly a WP:BIORELATED article. Therefore, Even if there were problems in the AFD; the main problem of the article can't be overlooked. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Start a new AfD The first AfD was poorly attended, there's been drama over what to do here, the merge discussion was probably closed correctly but was against consensus... undo the redirect and list it at AfD again. This needs discussion, not bureaucracy. SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:MINNOW User:Shushugah for the INVOLVED AfD close. Consider the AfD withdrawn. Consensus was to redirect (but that was long ago). If further discussion is desired, do so at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo.
  As no deletion has occurred, and deletion is not on the table, it is inappropriate to continue at AfD, and beyond reviewing the proper close of an AfD, this has no business at DRV. Structurism discussions belong on article talk pages SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert the redirect. Per Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo Jr.#Merge with Cristiano Ronaldo the most recent consensus was to keep the re-spunout article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The two discussions here prove nothing. Three people, drawn from one sample of the community, think the article should be redirected. From a different sample of the community, three people think it shouldn't be merged and two people think it should. The second set of people have no more authority then the first set here, and if anything have less authority due to WP:CONLEVEL. In any case, SportingFlyer is right above that what we really need is substantive discussion, mot meta-discussion, so Relist at AfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The two discussions, the January 2023 AfD (redirect) and the August 2023 merge proposal (contested and improperly closed) prove one thing very clearly: There is no case for deletion.

  It therefore doesn’t belong at AfD. Resume the merge proposal on the talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We really need is substantive discussion, mot meta-discussion the only meta-discussion we had so far, was actually the Afd from january bcause of it was at least transcluded into multiple wikiprojects by uninvolved parties, later got some support and had no single oppose, what is now even already acknowlged here by couple userscl[2],endorse. Meanwhile the recent one even was not RFC, as people did not wait to open that RFC to spread more possible participants. Article on cristianinho has too few pagewatchers to we could reach proper discussion with uninvolvded parties so talk page should be eventually transcluded to Cristiano Ronaldo Senior whih would be more proper place (+2000 pagewatchers). I am not sure what people which endorse AfD ask to create new article about mergre, in such case there should be discussion about Template:Split on the Cristiano Ronaldo page. 13 references is not much, article about Cristiano Ronaldo can very easy cover a lot of referenes about privacy life (or that is evidence about not trivial material related to Cristianinho "career"), we can talk about it at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion which is part of Template:Wikipedia community, and compare coverage with other Drafts Dawid2009 (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Disagree that there really is any such need. While the subject may be a child, there are no children protection or other BLP issues. That said, I note no ongoing coverage, and my belief that the child’s article should be redirected. The problem is that AfD is not good at non-deletion nominations. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe: After reading more your comments, and policies which you linked (thanks, BTW) at other DR, I changed point and can support revert redirect but just redirect with absoluetly neutral wp:edit summary that still there are doubts about notablity of the subject by many users, not revert as result of DR that AfD finished as withdrawn and concluded that disussion about mergre is pointless so. In contrast, not denied point about Wikipedia:Deletion by redirection If local consensus cannot be reached, take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and achieve consensus rather than unilaterally taking action. I also believe there are two possible places where we could talk about: "Talk page about Cristiano Ronaldo Senior with transcluded section to wp:wikiproject mergre or new AfD, both should be not controversial if we can ping many users who are interested to discuss football players notablity, though perhaps AfD could do longer wheel process. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pppery, (tangential question, feel free to ignore, it is just genuine surprise), how does a set of five users has less authority than a previous set of three users? Three users establishes a comunity consensus not possible to override by five? Note that I agree that even adding up to eight users that is a very very small sample. - Nabla (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close of the original nomination. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve submission of draft for review Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There appears to be no real likelihood of the article being deleted, so listing at AFD would be inappropriate. The January AFD outcome was appropriate and I endorse it. The discussion on whether redirect is still appropriate can be carried on at the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore This edit is flat-out wrong: the mere fact an AfD ended in a Redirect closure doesn't prevent all attempts at recreating the article without a listing at DRV. The two versions are not remotely comparable, this is the version listed at AfD, and this is the recreation. The AfD was sparsely attended and closed early by the nominator, which in itself would make the result non-binding. Given that there is clearly opposition to the redirect (as could be seen from the recent merge discussion), anybody who thinks the article should remain a redirect should start a new AfD instead of unilaterally redirecting. It is fine to start an AfD if you think an article should be redirected. Hut 8.5 17:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

anybody who thinks the article should remain a redirect should start a new AfD - anyone who thinks that article should be mergred and delte also can also make split nomination at Cristian Ronaldo Senior talk page before this deletion review will be closed, with good faith (and belief there is not much chance to split article about Cristiano Ronaldo's privacy life when are arguments about not notablity of Cristianinho), especially that article on Cristianinho was several times shorter than this discussion/review and such drafts. If we can so long talk here about that then why we can not copy paste content of former article to talk:Cristiano Ronaldo (he has more pagewatchers than AfD) and settle this as properly as it possible? - that's all, Dunno what do with the redirect (revert or not - I could remain ambivalent) but I completly disagree with is clearly opposition to the redirect, Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. is page which is pagewatched by microscopic fraction of percentage community which perhaps has perhaps inclusionist views about football players, on th contary Cristian Ronaldo page and other metadiscussions have a lot of. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is undeniably opposition to the redirect. Somebody proposed redirecting it and there was opposition. It might be that the article's existence isn't in line with community consensus, but there is most definitely opposition to the redirect. If there is a debate about whether the article should exist then the best thing to do is to have a discussion at AfD or a similar venue, rather than blindly redirecting it or even having a discussion on an obscure talk page nobody reads. And there hasn't been a meaningful discussion about this article's existence at AfD, since the prior AfD was withdrawn quickly by the nominator. Hut 8.5 10:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse or relist/create new metadiscussion, Per Ibrahim, see also comment of admin @Amakuru: here restoring redirect; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo jr. Fairly nothing particuraly changed since this and it was two months ago. Usage of some references were misrepresended, for example the guardian source absolutetly did not mention Cristianinho but just gradfather os Cristiano Senior, this Portoguese is gossip material that father of Cristianinho do not let him to have phone on his own - not material for encyclopedia, few others are focussed wheather cristianinho eat chips and drink cola or not etc. - no encyclopedic context). There was not consensus for mergre but there was not consensus against either and fairly thre was earlier consnsus to delte (not so long time before Amakuru action). I also agree with User:Nabla. Dawid2009 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, the default step after there is no consensus to take an action is to not take that action. In this case, the proper action is to not merge the page when there is clearly not consensus for merging. The fact that there was a prior AFD that was (improperly) closed as merge is irrelevant, particularly considering the current version of this page is not even remotely close to the version that was redirected over seven months ago (refer to links provided by Hut 8.5). Frank Anchor 18:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I boldly restored the redirect on this, per the original AFD outcome, but I was then reverted. And I didn't pursue it, because the rewritten page had been around quite a while and it's probably correct that an AFD "redirect" decision doesn't tie everyone's hand in perpetuity. So the original January AFD was fine, no need to overturn that, and probably discussion can continue on the validity of the new page. Personally I don't think an article on CR7 junior is warranted, per WP:NOTINHERITED etc. Sure, he has coverage in reliable sources, but so do many children of celebrities; the question is whether he warrants a page in his own right, and I don't think he does. So if this eventually comes around to a new AFD then I'd vote "delete".  — Amakuru (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the 28 August 2023 version, it has 13 sources and I reviewed the first three. The first three are non-independent sources. There could be an argument that the sources are not suitable sources for Wikipedia, and there is nothing worth merging, and so it should be “delete and redirect”. However, that argument has not been made at AfD, let alone has been demonstrated to be a consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I don't think it's good practice for the nominator to close in a way that supports their view when this is not a snowball result - and this one isn't. The nom acted too quickly, jumped the gun and so this should be given some more time, a relist, and then, unless it is clearly a snowball case, should be closed by a non-involved party. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• comment (I voted to redirect at the merge discussion) Are we really discussing having an article on a 13 year old kid that just goes along with the family? Well.. given we do... The AfD was a unfortunate close, you can't withraw AND conclude in favor of your nomination, so I deem any conclusion (but not the individual opinions) as invalid. As the closing of the merge discussion is based on a invalid AfD conclusion, itself can not be valid (again, the opinions are valid, and the close should be considered in good faith). So there is nothing here to be seen here! We currently have a redirect, if anyone wants to turn it in to an article, they may. If anyone does not like that let the process proceed. Go to AfD, start a merge discussion, whatever, but let it run, at least, it's normal time. - Nabla (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Nabla. If I come across a merge discussion for Christiano Junior, I will surely !vote “merge” or simply “redirect”. The spinout is a rush of coverage on a cute kid in a brief period that has not continued. However, the AfD was not a consensus to do that, and cannot be heavy handedly used to force the redirect in the face of opposition. Do it properly. Don’t do it direct from DRV; DRV is a process review forum. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The January AfD was not closed as redirect. It was withdrawn, and I have updated the article talk page to say that. Withdrawn means nothing happened in an AfD--that is, the AfD is not a basis for future action. The AfD was not closed as redirect, nor would it have been logical to do so based on the state of the discussion at the time it was closed. I'm surprised no one made this change before, as the change should have altered the course of the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was withdrawn, yes, but with a close by the original proposer as "Redirect". Now that may be wildly out of process, and you can challenge IT belatedly at this DRV if you see fit, but it was closed that way and the article was then redirected, making the result a fait accompli. To interpret this any other way would be IMHO unfair to the two editors who contributed to the discussion and voted to redirect. The whims of the nominator don't invalidate their votes.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And I've reverted and warned you for disruptive editing. The "close" was never a valid DRV close, and all I have done is correct the characterization. We do not put errors back into Wikipedia just because it's been months between when they occurred and when they were noticed. No one is saying the article wasn't redirected; it clearly was. The redirection was never part of any valid AfD closure ever. It's easy to AGF that the original participants didn't understand the error, and to AGF that later editors took the talk page AfD closure notice at face value in dealing with the future possibility of article vs. redirect. By correcting the talk page notice, this prevents future harm by correcting what appears to have been a simple, yet undisputed, error. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Jclemens, please read "you are not assuming good faith" at Wikipedia:Don't link to WP:AGF, and regardless of WP:Common Sense, you now made technical mess for uninvolved user which has to close DV. Technically closer of DR should do that, not someone who say in dealing with the future possibility vs. redirect, you seems agreed by nothing happened with Nabla, Amakuru and some other users but you just accused Amakuru for disruptive editing, despite fact there was no somethng like edit war or revert, " revert discuss cyrcle matter etc. here". Dawid2009 (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC) You seems to know what is going on but there is not difference beetwen admin and non admin regular in that context Dawid2009 (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

• What Jclemens said. There's exactly two possible results of an AFD closed by its nominator fourteen hours after they opened it: "an administrator speedy deleted it" (which didn't happen here) and "this afd had no result at all, and maybe someone edited the page after" (which did). Arguments that those later edits have the force of an actual afd consensus have no validity at all, and we don't have anything to do here except maybe to formally overturn and reclose that afd as "withdrawn" and nothing else if we've really got to make that clear. —Cryptic 12:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator as uncontroverisial redirect at the time but as wrong close what was acknowlaged nine months later at DR - I am deeply involved but I believe it would be bit more neutral tagging, see also: WP:Delete or merge: When discussions end in "no consensus", the dispute goes unresolved, and both sides of the dispute feel as though the other side is in the wrong., and additionally (though there was no AfD today): Wikipedia:AfD and mergers: If there is substantial discussion of merging, the closing admin may make a recommendation in the closing rationale.. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This didn't end in no consensus. It didn't end in anything at all. Shushugah started a discussion, then aborted it. That's not a discussion where the participants couldn't come to an agreement (which would have been a no-consensus result). Anyone's free to redirect the article, or merge it, or unredirect it, or start a discussion to redirect or merge or unredirect it, or to start a new afd. None of that requires DRV's intervention, and none of that is affected at all by what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo jr, except to the very limited extent that three people thought the page should be redirected and went ahead and did so before anybody had a chance to argue against it. Anyone who says differently is very deeply mistaken. —Cryptic 21:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I don't see why this can't just continue at AfD, especially now that more people are watching it.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• restore/allow recreation all without prejudice against a future AfD. A new article is a fine reason to allow a new discussion. And a bad/weird close is another fine reason. We've got both it seems. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Hut 8.5. The original redirection was a BOLD withdraw and WP:BLAR (or BLAR-and-moot), not a full AFD consensus, and the new article is not sufficiently similar for G4, not anywhere close to being so, so even if we assume a much broader latitude for speedy re-redirection vs speedy re-deletes this would be an overturn/vacate or list at AfD. Being as lazy as I am, I would much prefer to just pretend the re-redirection never happened (vacate). I would offer WP:CHIPS for everyone receiving fish here, don't bankrupt me please, ta. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The writer of the book Ved Prakash Upadhyay and the book also is notable and the afd was closed in a misunderstanding. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 17 and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad. 202.134.10.130 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close and I recommend speedy termination of this review. I opposed the close in the first deletion review but the community has spoken and I accept that review and Drmies’ decision to delete the article.

This was the most complicated and troubled AfD I’ve encountered since my return from a long wikibreak last fall. I was an admin myself before that break and I don’t envy the task Drmies took on. The thrice-relisted AfD hung around for perhaps a day after the deadline to close - no other admin wanted to touch it.

I’ll also note that my !vote in the AfD was “delete and merge” to the author’s article; it was not “keep”. So even had my talk page comments been seen, I think the article would’ve still been deleted - perhaps just also merged.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}< A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @ Robert McClenon as an active, neutral participant in the last DRV who looked at both sides of the issue both there and at the WP:ANI discussion of the DRV.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cad Crowd (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1. I don’t think the article should have been allowed to be nominated by an account w/ no history. 2. The article was improved, 9 references were added and the argument to support deletion refused to acknowledge this or any depth of coverage, even though it clearly meets the multiple sources requirement. 3. The AfD was nominated for a 3rd discussion which shouldnt have happened. 4. The closing vote by my count was 8-5 in favor of a keep. 5. There was apparently a sock account that voted but there was no crossover in this discussion and the editing history is pretty vague for a sock ban. There was no vandalism. 6. I asked the closing admin and he refused to even draft the article. 6. Also, there was extensive discussion and opinions offered on both sides, at very least this should have been a no decision. This article could easily have been improved, there are tons of reviews and comparisons available that were never used in the article. 7. The article included a NY Times, NBC News, Calgary Herald x2, Edmonton Journal, Engineering.com x 2, IEEE, Crowdsourcing.com, 2 book passages, 2 papers. The article was nominated and significantly improved references. 9. I know it shouldnt be brought up but attention was brought about other pages in the same category such as guru.com and peopleperhour who have pages and much worse referencing. Akikormin125 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Arguments above don't hold water and are mostly irrelevant to whether the AFD was closed properly. 1. Any editor may nominate an article for deletion; there is no rule that "allows" editors to do so, or disallows them, and this argument is irrelevant to the question of proper closing. 2. Good arguments were made against the sources, and the administrator evidently took them into account. 3. The number of times an AFD is relisted is irrelevant to the quesiton of whether the AFD was closed properly. 4. Vote counts don't matter as much as the strength of the arguments. 5. Sockpuppet and COI editors voting to keep are routinely discounted in AFD closings. 6. The decision of an administrator not to draftify is irrelevant to the question of proper closing. 7. Citations to reliable sources are nice, but coverage and depth matter more, and apparently this was found lacking in all sources. 8. No number eight. 9. Irrelevant WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft refund should at least be allowed in my opinion, I also voted to draftify in the AFD. - Indefensible (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the right conclusions as to consensus by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Submission of Draft - The title has not been salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The closing admin made good arguments with which I concur. Anachronist’s refutation is compelling as well.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I see the DRV-nom has been CU blocked. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not surprised, but where is the case listed? Were they separate from https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SharonAnama? - Indefensible (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Indefensible: A checkuser doesn't need a SPI case in order to block a sockpuppet. It is curious that Materialscientist provided no details in the block summary and didn't tag the user page, however. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, there must have been evidence but just surprised the other accounts were left untouched. - Indefensible (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and speedy close as a bad faith nomination. Correct close of a AFD infested with likely UPE spammers. MER-C 10:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and allow restoration to draft space The closing admin correctly gave more weight to the delete side, as the strength of the delete/draftify argument was much higher than that of the keep argument based on policy-backing. I do not see evidence that this DRV was made in bad faith. Frank Anchor 12:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The nom was blocked as a sock. SportingFlyer T·C 13:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying. Still no harm in letting the DRV run its full course. Frank Anchor 14:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shivkar Bapuji Talpade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Disagreement by participants about the validity of my "no consensus" close (originally I erroneously closed it as "keep"). See also this discussion on my talk page: User talk:Anachronist#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shivkar_Bapuji_Talpade. Bearing in mind that this isn't "AFD round 2", the question to be answered is: Did I close it improperly? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (involved) With 10 votes opposing stand-alone article and 6 voting to keep it, there was clear consensus to at least redirect the article. I had debunked all of the sources and nobody has disputed my points that: 1) there is no biographical coverage about this subject from reliable sources, 2) minimal coverage only concerns debunking the idea of his unmanned airplane, 3) the sources talk about the unauthentic subject in the wake of the movie Hawaizaada as clearly specified by them. Editorkamran (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There were not 10 votes to delete. I found no consensus for that. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, you should have relisted the AfD and pinged participants to ask what they would select if they have only 2 choices. Since none of the "keep" comments established GNG, you should have discounted them altogether. Early close (11 days) was not warranted at all. Editorkamran (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisted discussions are explicitly not required to go an additional seven days. Per WP:RELIST, A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting a further seven days. Determinations of consensus can also include determination of no consensus. Frank Anchor 04:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (involved). There is room for legitimate disagreement about whether to frame the material in this article as a biography or as a piece about the pseudohistorical narrative and myth-making associated with him. That there is material is not reasonably in dispute. Many arguments for deletion ignore or discount the provided sources without any basis in policy for doing so, and as such were correctly given lower weight. Of the numbered arguments above, (1) is demonstrably false, (2) has no bearing on the existence of an article, only on framing and (3) has no basis in policy, as I have exhausted myself explaining; it only matters what the sources cover, not when they do so. The sources I provided are not coverage of the movie. Were I uninvolved, as an AfD regular I would have closed this "no consensus" also, possibly with a note directing participants to discuss article framing on the talk page. There is an alarming degree of shrillness to both the AfD and the subsequent discussion with Anachronist that I consider quite inappropriate in a designated contentious topic. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC) The falsehood of a narrative has nothing to do with its notability, and it's perfectly acceptable for us to have articles about pseudohistorical narratives when the sources document them as such. The argument below (repeated multiple times at AfD) is both self-contradictory and has no basis in policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (involved) Since it was largely agreed that a separate article is not warranted, the closing admin should have analyzed the argument. It is not possible to find a single reliable scholarly source in history or aviation which would help this subject in meeting WP:GNG, let alone finding multiple sources. Yes Hindutva fake news peddlers love pulling out fake narratives but why should Wikipedia should help them gain notability only because some sources rightfully refuted them because of the release of the movie Hawaizaada. Closing admin should have looked into the analysis of the provided sources. CharlesWain (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did look at the analysis, and I saw good counter-arguments. Hence, no consensus. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me know which sources actually satisfied GNG. CharlesWain (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My job is to judge arguments and consensus, not impose my own view on the sources when I close a discussion. Expressing views about the sources is to be done in the discussion. Valid arguments were made for and against the sources. Hence, obviously no consensus, as I have already stated repeatedly. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete The closing statement and the talk page discussion makes it clear to me the closer selected between the three disparate options of keep, redirect, or delete instead of the binary "should this be a standalone page?" I think there's clear consensus that it should not be, even though ideas on where to redirect or merge was all over the place. In short, you had two arguments: one that this was a FRINGE topic that shouldn't be on the site, and the other that this wasn't FRINGE because there was GNG debunking the argument. The vote count was 2:1 in favour of "no page" with several weak votes on both sides, and with both sides strongly argued, I would have found a consensus to not have the page in mainspace. You only get a no consensus if you treat redirect as a disparate choice, which it's not. The closer then has a choice between delete or redirect, but there's no consensus on the redirect or merge target, so we get a delete. Note also I originally typed endorse and talked my way out of it - I've grappled with whether no consensus was a valid close here and I just don't think it is unless you treat redirect/merge as a disparate choice, even though Vanamonde did an excellent job arguing their case. SportingFlyer T·C 01:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• [T]here's no consensus on the redirect or merge target, so we get a delete is not how things work. There is no opposition to redirect among the delete/ATD voters, and having multiple possible targets is a surmountable problem and deletion is not the answer. The closer can pick the target that has the most support (in his or her opinion), and a retargeting discussion can be started if desired. Carson Wentz (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is how things should have worked in this instance. The nature of the ATD split along the same lines as the keep/delete arguments as a whole - I see for instance you've selected the very ATD target which there was clear opposition to. SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - No Consensus is usually a valid conclusion by the closer when there is no consensus. Other editors might have closed it differently, but that isn't the issue. Just as DRV is not AFD round 2 for the originator to argue Keep, DRV is not AFD round 2 for the AFD editors each to close it differently. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Robert McClenon: But strength of argument has to be observed. There was no substance in any of the comments that supported "keep". If I am wrong then you can let me know if you discovered multiple reliable sources that confirm WP:GNG for this subject. Editorkamran (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no consensus is a valid result as there was not consensus to not keep the article despite being listed at AFD for a month. Valid arguments for keep and for delete/ATD were made. Frank Anchor 01:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Frank Anchor: For a month? It was there only for 11 days. Can you also describe which valid "keep" argument are you talking about? Editorkamran (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I had this one mixed up with the other DRV listed today. 11 days is correct. Frank Anchor 03:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Users such as Vanamonde pointed out sources in the article and added onto the AFD which I consider to be significant. Also, the source analysis by Editorkarman was discounted by several editors, despite Editorkarmin’s attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the process at the AFD and the closer’s talk page and it appears to be the same on this page as well. Frank Anchor 03:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you name those 'sources'? Also, you don't seem to be understanding what is "WP:BLUDGEON". The last comment I had made on AfD was on 21 August. That is 10 days before the AfD was finally closed. How it is bludgeoning? Editors are required to bring discussion to closer's talk page when they are disputing the closer. It is not "bludgeoning". Editorkamran (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Notifying the closer is not bludgeoning as you correctly point out. Making multiple comments with the explicit intent to relitigate the AFD at the closer’s talk page is bludgeoning. Frank Anchor 04:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete (involved) I supported "redirect" because that was inevitable since the redirect was going to be created anyway. I had recently commented there and had asked one of the keep supporter to clarify their comment[3], however, the AfD was closed early in matter of hours. Since it was relisted and there were 3 new comments in last few hours then I believe it would have been reasonable to allow to let it run for full 2 weeks. Dympies (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (involved) In which world anybody would consider an off-topic comment like "Keep. Discuss reliability of sources on reliable sources noticeboard"[4] from a newbie editor who himself never edited WP:RSN?[5] The use of reliable sources for sourcing the information within the article and the use of reliable sources for establishing GNG in order to justify the existence of the article are two different things. Latter remains missing for this subject hence "no consensus" is misleading.Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect there appears to be slight consensus in terms of numbers and strength that the article should not be kept. Redirecting to Claims to the first powered flight received support from multiple editors and would be the best target in my opinion; a retargeting discussion can take place after a the page is redirected if anyone desires. None of the delete voters stated opposition to redirecting as an WP:ATD a couple supported redirecting as well as deletion. For that reason, I strongly oppose an overturn to delete. Carson Wentz (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to weak endorse as a further review of the AFD leads me to believe closing as no consensus was a reasonable close. Though I maintain my preference to a redirect over an outright delete. Carson Wentz (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging or redirecting to Claims to the first powered flight would be in violation of WP:FRINGE. Those are claims that may be incorrect, but are genuine examples of the history of aviation. This is a pseudohistorical narrative that is notable for what it is, but not as a part of the history of aviation. As such those arguments for a redirect were appropriately given lower weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• But no reliable source seriously states that Preston A. Watson, Richard Pearse and some more names from Claims to the first powered flight as the ones who invented the first powered flight. Supporting the addition of this fringe claim about Talpade to that article was more sensible than dedicating a standalone article to this Hindutva fringe claim. Dympies (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (involved) Only because my !vote was "merge", it never meant that I was fine with keeping. If choices were given between only delete and keep them I would select "delete". Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It was certainly within administrate discretion to find the AFD discussion did not reach consensus. Thincat (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I think there is no consensus here and you were correct. CT55555(talk) 14:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. So uh, y'all do remember that's an option right? Because I see a fair number of arguments that should really be argued in the AFD and a fair number of new comments close to the end of the AFD. Yes, this can be argued as within discretion or better closed as Y but why does that matter? We can give it another three or five or seven or however many days. Or, you know, come back in two months, that works too and it might be better to start fresh. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I said endorse, but this would be a satisfactory outcome also. CT55555(talk) 21:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no consensus close, no objection to relist. A valid argument against redirection as an ATD was raised, so that's really not an option without more discussion. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Failing to find a consensus in this discussion between the deletes and their equivalents and keeps was fine. Unlike some, I feel like this has seen enough discussion, and that a relist won't be helpful.—Alalch E. 01:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as clearly within the closer's discretion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I saw some confusion in delete votes starting with the editor who brought the AfD. WP:HISTRS isn't relevant, nor is the fact that some of the sources are post movie. I agree that this was within the closer's discretion. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Anachronist made a reasonable, thoughtful decision at the end of a murky AfD. Two other comments:
  1. Anachronist could have punted and let another admin take on a tricky decision, but he didn’t. Thanks.
  2. For a tricky AfD with lots of opinions, this looks like a civil, thoughtful discussion.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate it as well. Sometimes, you review an AFD and you just know that no matter what the closure, it'll end up at Deletion Review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz: @A. B.: Thank you. Yes, I felt it was inevitable, so I went ahead and created this Deletion Review of my own closure. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]