Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VfU)
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- 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
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{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:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
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".
I hate to do this because I respect the closing admins and their time, but I am hung up because the AfD was originally closed as no consensus, then User:JoelleJay requested that closure to be undone and relisted, which I actually appreciated because I always prefer when more editors can be involved. (Note that I participated in the AfD as well)
The issue was that since the relist, only new views in favor of keeping the article were expressed. Yet after the relist, the AfD was closed as redirect. This close was controversial and brought up to the closer as seen in this thread discussing it: User_talk:Star_Mississippi#c-BeanieFan11-20250315181600-OwenX-20250315162500.
Although I want to emphasize again that I actually have a lot of respect for User:OwenX and their contributions, I think some key points were not addressed in the closing statement, such as the fact that WP:NATH was argued to be met (two other subject-specific notability guidelines were mentioned in the closing comment but not NATH), and the fact that since the "no consensus" relist, only keep views were expressed and some new information was revealed about a source that made it more suitable for inclusion.
In general, I just don't see how a 'no consensus' decision can turn into a "OK, let's relist for more opinions" (sounds good so far), then the only new opinion comes in to keep, then the new closing decision is to redirect. I think the AfD reflects no consensus, at least.
Lastly I'll say I appreciate the humor in the comment, "Please keep that in mind when they drag me to DRV... ;)"
, but I don't view it as being "dragged" here, we have a process that exists for a reason and we can still respect each others' contributions throughout that even if we're on different sides of it. I hope you understand. --Habst (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note that closer was also addressed here: User talk:OwenX#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emil Kalous. --Habst (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment as closer: in the appellant's claim,
since the relist, only new views in favor of keeping the article were expressed
, "views" is a bit misleading. There was exactly one new view -- a weak keep from SportingFlyer, who was honest enough to admit that the source he cited was marginal at best. This was then addressed by JoelleJay, who demonstrated why the source is neither reliable nor provides SIGCOV, basically leaving us exactly where we were before that final relist. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)- Thanks, from my perspective there was only one new view since the no consensus, and it was in favor of keeping the article, where there were no new views to delete or even to redirect. There was also a counter to JoelleJay's response demonstrating why the source actually is reliable thanks to new coverage from Deník, and that was never rebutted in the AfD, so I think we weren't back to where we were on that. --Habst (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus. I had left a comment to the closing admin (that it seems he didn't respond to) that summed up my thoughts (1). Here it is, a little rephrased: The discussion was determined to have "no consensus" when Star Mississippi closed it – and in the period following the relist, the only further vote was a !keep. How on earth does it go from no consensus to then being "redirect" when more people support doing the opposite after the relist!? OwenX said in the close that we're "left with GNG" because NOLY
tell[s] us that an individual merely participating in the Olympics does not imply a likelihood of existence of sourcing supporting notability. That means that we cannot even accept the minority view that the subject's participation in the 1924 event likely resulted in SIGCOV
– but he's forgetting that equally important as NOLY is NATH, which the subject met as demonstrated by Habst at the discussion. Several sources besides the mentions shown by JoelleJay were presented, including the one arguably SIGCOV piece that although JoelleJay claimed was unreliable and of limited depth, Habst countered by noting thatIt's actually closer to a news site than a blog because it includes editorial review
(with evidence provided) ...[and] [t]heir article on Kalous goes far beyond the two paragraphs listed, for example who he was led by, his journey to the Olympics, his teammates, etc.
No rebuttal was made to this argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC) - ARGH from closer 1, said with respect and the utmost appreciation for the input from all who have commented here, at my Talk and at the AfD. Because everyone is making points in complete good faith and with their reading of policy, which makes it harder. ~ 2.5 years after the 2022 change to NSPORTS and every well-attended athlete AfD has turned into a(nother) referendum on those changes, especially when it's athletes from non English majority countries who competed pre internet era and in some cases, where the newspaper archives are not easily accessible online. (NB: While I was happy to relist as more eyes are never a bad thing, I still believe my N/C was the correct read because there is no consensus around policy. I also fully support OwenX's decision to close it as a redirect as that's a valid ATD). There was consensus to change the pre 2022 guidelines, yes, but there are still valid opinions that disagree with 2025 guidelines as well. Since there has been an interest in bringing some Lugnuts stubs to AfD, as is well within nom's rights, I think there needs to be a broader discussion on these athletes because we can't keep doing it AfD by AfD. Star Mississippi 20:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see a consensus here, either on our post-RFC guidelines or in their applicability to this individual article. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's interesting - I'm involved here, but I started another DRV recently to overturn a no consensus on a previous Olympic athlete to a redirect, and this should hopefully overturn a redirect to a no consensus result. The rule is designed to prevent stub athlete articles which are sourced only to databases. While this article was when it was PRODded, de-PRODded, and AfD'd, Emil was HEYed into a stub utilising non-database sourcing. Since SIGCOV can vary by time and place, the fact there's a genuine disagreement over whether it applies shouldn't lead to the article's redirection. SportingFlyer T·C 06:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC (involved, voted redirect). While I !voted to redirect and stand by my opinion, I do not see a consensus in the AFD that the article should not be standalone article. I see a few delete/redirect votes based on P&G, and also see a few keep votes bring up references that were not adequately refuted. Frank Anchor 11:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment For me, this AFD neatly demonstrates two characteristics. (1) The personalities of who participates in a discussion generally matters more than the topic of the article. (2) Often, notability guidelines, which are intended to reflect community consensus at deletion discussions over a period of time (descriptive, not normative), seriously fail to achieve this. Guidelines are usually changed on the basis of something like "far too many articles about xxx are being kept/deleted at AFD and we need to do something to correct this". WT:N then discusses changes on the basis of what people think ought to be done to correct future discussions. Scarcely any analysis is performed as to how AFD discussions have gone in the (recent) past. At subsequent AFDs, strident, experienced participants then carefully and in fine detail parse the text of the guideline as if it were relevant and canonical. Thincat (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus because the discussion led to no consensus, not even a rough one. Thincat (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Uzi Vishne (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was a pretty clear delete; the only dissenter was a user claiming to be the subject of the article, who dumped a list of his own publications cited in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I believe the closer mis-read both policy and consensus for this article. Consensus was 6–2 by pure head count to not keep this as a standalone page (maybe a weak 6–3 if we include the participant who didn't !vote). All 6 deleters/redirecters quoted WP:SPORTCRIT directly or indirectly, a valid policy which this article clearly does not meet, as a reason for not keeping, while the keep !voters cited NATH (which was challenged) or BEFORE (without presenting any easily found sources). This should be overturned to a redirect. I have discussed this with the closer. SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- "This should be overturned to a redirect." But at the AfD, you said "I am going to go a step further and say delete due to a complete lack of verification." Which is it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm allowed to advocate for the consensus position at the AfD even if that was not the position I !voted for. SportingFlyer T·C 12:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I also note this was redirected by another user shortly after the close, which was brought to my attention after I opened this. SportingFlyer T·C 12:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Leave as a redirect. I agree with JoelleJay's assessment of the two Keeps. "Surely sources must exist" has never been a convincing argument, especially for a BLP. This view is supported by WP:NEXIST, but often ignored. I do find Fortuna imperatrix mundi overturning Ritchie333's close to be a form of wheel-war that we shouldn't be encouraging, but reverting it as a rebuke would just be an act of WP:SPITE. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the promotion, hopefully I will justify your faith in me :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to redirect - As the nom says, there is a consensus when considering all the !votes and policy arguments that the article shouldn't remain, with only the detail of whether to redirect or delete leading to a three-way split. As such, taking the "less radical" option of redirect seems to reflect the community consensus. In fact though, despite the "no consensus" outcome, the closer in fact gave permission for and later endorsed a merge-and-redirect outcome so we've ended up where we should have, but the close doesn't reflect that. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is one of those situations where WP:IAR applies, there wasn’t a consensus to delete the article, but equally there wasn’t a consensus to keep it, so the default behaviour of a NC isn’t optimal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would have thought there was quite a clear consensus to delete the article in some form though... "redirect" and "delete" are both forms of deletion in my book, with the difference being mainly whether the page history is preserved and whether it's felt another page could provide sufficient useful coverage for readers of the topic in question. In this discussion, the "redirect" and "delete" votes outnumbered the "keeps" by 5:2 and in both variants they cited guidelines which seem to fairly clearly indicate that our rules don't support inclusion of the article in the form it was in at the time (and some analysis was also done to see if any other sources could be unearthed). As someone who has worked extensively in the African space I am well aware that some individuals are very notable in a particular country with strong local media support but have very little coverage online or in global sources, so I don't like seeing pages like this go. But overall I'm not sure an IAR was required here and I do think the "delete" and "redirect" supporters made a strong enough case that the outcome should have been "redirect", maintaining history and without prejudice to recreation if more sources turn up. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- "redirect" and "delete" are both forms of deletion in my book Interesting, they aren't in mine (or, I would say, policy cf: WP:ATD-R - ALTERNATIVES to deletion - redirection), principally because any editor can undo a redirect, or conversely any editor can turn an article into a redirect. But they can't delete or undelete articles. When somebody argues to delete an article at AfD, I assume they would prefer a resulting redirect to also be deleted. Ironically enough, the principal reason I didn't close as "redirect / merge" is because of the comments by SportingFlyer, who I assumed would object to such a close for those reasons.
- Also I considered the expansion and improvement here as backing up evidence for the "keep" !votes, so they weren't simply "Keep, must be sources" (which carry less weight). Those advocating redirection or deletion are welcome to refute that these are sufficient sources, but I don't think the views to keep carried no weight at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Two problems there - first, when I !voted, the sources in the article didn't match the athlete's name, so we hadn't actually verified this person actually existed. Second, the improvement did not use sources that passed GNG or SPORTCRIT, which everyone seemed to note - we don't base sports articles on database sites any more. SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- A comment about Amakuru's wording: As Ritchie333 wrote, "deletion" has a particular meaning here. I prefer to think about the similarities between redirect and delete as no stand-alone article and zero content retained, as broken down by the table at WP:Guide to deletion#Outcome summary. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, I agree that there was no consensus for an outright deletion. But this isn't first-past-the-post voting. Think of it more as an instant-runoff/ranked-choice situation. Given that the outcome isn't Delete, what would be the remaining preference by participants? I think you'll agree that a Redirect outcome would be preferred by far more of the participants in that AfD than a N/C outcome. No need to invoke IAR here. This is pretty much what ATD already suggests we do in such situations. When there's a clear consensus against retaining a page, it is up to the closer to pick between Delete, Redirect, Merge or Draft in a way that best reflects consensus. Your closing statement suggests you saw all that, but hesitated on pulling the trigger. Owen× ☎ 15:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Simply put, I think the participants in an AfD have a much better idea of what's what in an article and what to do with it than some random admin who's just turned up to to assess everyone's views. Indeed, I have written "A discussion on whether or not to merge this article can be done by ordinary editing outside of the scope of this AfD" on numerous discussions over the years. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Are you telling me that you genuinely didn't know if the Deletes on that AfD would have preferred a Redirect outcome or a N/C? Or is your approach such that by !voting Delete, a participant has essentially given up their weight on the side of Redirect? Because that is not what WP:ATD says. If you feel that as a "random admin" you are unable to assess consensus in such a case, why not just leave it for another admin to close? That's what I do for some AfDs involving WP:GEOLAND, where I feel other admins would be better equipped to weigh arguments. Owen× ☎ 15:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Simply put, I think the participants in an AfD have a much better idea of what's what in an article and what to do with it than some random admin who's just turned up to to assess everyone's views. Indeed, I have written "A discussion on whether or not to merge this article can be done by ordinary editing outside of the scope of this AfD" on numerous discussions over the years. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would have thought there was quite a clear consensus to delete the article in some form though... "redirect" and "delete" are both forms of deletion in my book, with the difference being mainly whether the page history is preserved and whether it's felt another page could provide sufficient useful coverage for readers of the topic in question. In this discussion, the "redirect" and "delete" votes outnumbered the "keeps" by 5:2 and in both variants they cited guidelines which seem to fairly clearly indicate that our rules don't support inclusion of the article in the form it was in at the time (and some analysis was also done to see if any other sources could be unearthed). As someone who has worked extensively in the African space I am well aware that some individuals are very notable in a particular country with strong local media support but have very little coverage online or in global sources, so I don't like seeing pages like this go. But overall I'm not sure an IAR was required here and I do think the "delete" and "redirect" supporters made a strong enough case that the outcome should have been "redirect", maintaining history and without prejudice to recreation if more sources turn up. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is one of those situations where WP:IAR applies, there wasn’t a consensus to delete the article, but equally there wasn’t a consensus to keep it, so the default behaviour of a NC isn’t optimal. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to redirect (involved, voted redirect). I see clear consensus to not keep the page as a standalone article, with two keep !votes that were not based in P&G and six non-keep !votes based on stronger reasoning, split between redirect (four) and delete (two including the nom). The ATD should always be selected over deletion unless a compelling case can be made against the ATD, which was not done in this AFD. Frank Anchor 14:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Even as someone who would've really liked to see this kept (in my estimate, there's a 90% chance he's notable), I don't see how this wasn't a consensus to redirect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- While I probably would have closed that as redirect, I'm not sure what the outcome of this DRV is. There is a redirect in place. Does it require a re-close to reflect that editorial decision? I personally don't think so, but not sure what I'm missing here. Star Mississippi 16:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I personally believe a formal change of the result is in needed, otherwise someone could revert the redirect (without improving the article) and point to the NC result as a reason to restore the page. Frank Anchor 21:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Frank Anchor, makes total sense (as usual with your input). Star Mississippi 23:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Someone can already undo the redirect; all they have to do is add sufficient sourcing that they can say in good faith the AfD result no longer applied. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- When I opened the DRV, I wasn't aware of the redirect because I didn't follow the link to the article. I completely agree with Frank Anchor's assessment. SportingFlyer T·C 21:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I personally believe a formal change of the result is in needed, otherwise someone could revert the redirect (without improving the article) and point to the NC result as a reason to restore the page. Frank Anchor 21:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Endorse“no consensus”, and strongly support the closer’s direction to address the possibility of “merge”. This must be done in a next WP:RENOM. However, the question is currently moot with a bold redirect done. No deletion has occurred, the AfD close was correct, this topic has no business at DRV. Resolve dispute at the talk page of the redirect target. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think this is a very strange close, redirect seems the obvious outcome to me. I didn't close it that way when I saw it earlier only because at the time I wasn't up to evaluating the "are these even the same person" issue SportingFlyer brought up. -- asilvering (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I see a consensus to delete.
- The merge recommendations were rebutted: Rosbif73 argued against an item at the airport article and redirecting. Rosbif73 also removed the entry, which has not been restored. Esolo5002 noted the removal at the AfD with over three days remaining, but no one responded anywhere.
- The delete supporters cited WP:NOTNEWS (shortcut to WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper, policy) and WP:NEVENT (shortcut to WP:Notability (events), guideline). They provided topic-specific rationales along the lines of WP:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents#Airline and airport articles (essay, shortcut WP:AIRCRASH). (No one cited it at the AfD – per its own recommendation – but Rosbif73's removal edit summary linked it.) In contrast, none of the merge supporters explained why a mention would be due.
- The delete supporters hold a supermajority.
The closer stated that they "would have no issue with DRV". Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Notification diff. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse 1) speculation that it won't have continued coverage is a reverse-CRYSTAL problem. Non-notable events failing SUSTAINED/NEVENT should be deleted for lack of coverage no sooner than six months after the event. 2) ATD was argued against, but not effectively rebutted, and ties go to the non-delete outcome. 3) NOTNEWS does not apply to aircraft incidents; a routine aviation mishap is still not "routine" in the sense used in NOTNEWS. 4) AIRCRASH is an essay and doesn't add anything beyond NOTNEWS. Very well put together DRV appeal, but Flatscan will undoubtedly be singularly unsurprised to find we disagree on how to apply deletion criteria yet again. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your numbered points and for the compliment.
- 1. I believe it is reasonable to assume that something quite unlikely – such as the revelation of an unreported detail – will not happen and edit accordingly. WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation/archive lists several incident AfDs over the last few months, including two closed as delete in February: WP:Articles for deletion/2025 Swan River Seaplanes Cessna 208 crash and WP:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1382.
- 3. NOTNEWS links to WP:ROUTINE (shortcut to WP:Notability (events)#Routine coverage), which seems to lean toward scheduled events. On the other hand, WP:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria (shortcut WP:EVENTCRIT)
4. Routine kinds of news events
includes "accidents" in its list of examples. I may check if the apparent discrepancy is intentional. - 4. Topic-specific points such as "AIRCRASH should not prevent a list entry because X" would have focused the discussion. Grffffff mentioned the engine fire as a noteworthy detail, but no one followed up.
- Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- You're consistent and principled and want to implement your best vision for Wikipedia, and should be commended for it, even if I differ on some of the finer points. Having said that, I think we understand each other, and I don't agree with your application in this case. I have no heartburn if nothing turns up and it gets deleted at RfD in six months, but I (and it seems I'm not alone in this, judging by later responses) don't think a presumption that nothing further of significance (i.e., no further RS coverage) will occur is a sufficient basis for deletion under NEVENT. As far as a disconnect between ROUTINE and AIRCRASH... I'm less certain that this is a distinction that makes a difference given the reverse-CRYSTAL presumption of no future notability. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your numbered points and for the compliment.
- Overturn and delete in line with the clear consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- weak overturn and delete there is a clear supermajority for deletion and while I am broadly sympathetic to selective merges where there is a viable target, there is a clear indication here that the target isn't viable. No beef with the closing admin, I prefer caution when merging or redirection is an option, I just feel that in this case it wasn't the best option. I'm weak because the close was broadly within the closing admin's discretion. I just think that deleting now will save an RFD down the road as the content hasn't stuck in the target Spartaz Humbug! 11:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I just think that deleting now will save an RFD down the road as the content hasn't stuck in the target
is not a valid reason to not redirect/merge. It is CRYSTAL-basaed speculation. Also, I do not see aclear indication here that the target isn't viable
. I only see one argument made against a redirect, which is equally speculative. Frank Anchor 12:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)- you are welcome to have a different viewpoint. Spartaz Humbug! 13:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. There was enough support for a merge to make it a valid ATD. Whether the content is kept at the target or not is an editorial question outside the scope of the AfD. The bar for retaining a redirect is much lower than that for retaining an article.
not worth creating a future RfD candidate
is not a valid reason to oppose a Merge/Redirect outcome at AfD. If the appellant wishes to have the redirect deleted, they should open an RfD, rather than try to overturn a legitimate outcome at AfD. Owen× ☎ 12:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)- I'm going to disagree with that last bit. In six months, sure, go to RfD as redirect may by then be unused/unneeded, but I think Flatscan has selected the correct venue to promptly challenge the AfD outcome as redirect. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- My quote wasn't from Flatscan's appeal here, but from Rosbif73's Delete !vote at the AfD. I fully agree with you that this is the right forum to challenge the AfD result. But the opposition to the proposed Redirect at the AfD was without merit, and the closer correctly discounted it. Owen× ☎ 09:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm going to disagree with that last bit. In six months, sure, go to RfD as redirect may by then be unused/unneeded, but I think Flatscan has selected the correct venue to promptly challenge the AfD outcome as redirect. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse - After merge was suggested as an ATD, there was roughly an even split between delete and merge/redirect votes. Merge was clearly not sufficiently refuted, as the only argument made against merging,
it is so run-of-the-mill that it won't remain on the airport page for long, so not worth creating a future RfD candidate.
is CRYSTAL-based speculation. Frank Anchor 12:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC) - Closer note just echoing what Flatscan said, that I have no issue with this community review. I really didn't see another way to close it once I'd reviewed at their request, and more eyes are never a bad thing. Star Mississippi 13:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. There was a numerical consensus to delete. There are two differences between deletion and redirection. The first is that a reader who enters the title gets a page rather than search results, which is more user-friendly. The second is that history is preserved for future editing. Both of these are reasons why a closing admin may use common sense to redirect as an alternative to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse there's a viable ATD at the moment - for how long is unclear as whether or not it remains on the Newark airport home page is a genuine question, but the closer didn't err by picking the ATD. SportingFlyer T·C 04:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse No "delete" !voter presented an argument why a redirection should not happen besides Rosbif73, but their argument is a poor one based on WP:CRYSTAL speculation that certain edits will take place at the target page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Are the current sources enough for notability? I searched for sources focusing on the subject directly but I don't know if they are reliable. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Can you please clarify what you are requesting here? Is it:
- To have Draft:Ko-fi, which was deleted in January as an abandoned draft, undeleted?
- To ask us to assess whether some sources, which you haven't cited or linked, are sufficient for notability?
- To review whether the AFD discussion from 2019 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ko-fi was correctly closed?
- Something else?
- Stifle (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- 1. Considering withdrawing the nomination to restore and continue with the draft as many sources are expected to be reliable. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- I see that the Draft:Ko-fi has been deleted twice as an abandoned draft, and submitted and declined four times for lack of reliable sources.
- The sources in the article at its last deletion were: [1] [2] and [3], as well as a link to Ko-fi's X page.
- Before we go through a fifth round of this, I invite you to share the sources that you propose to add to the draft, so they can be assessed. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- 1. Considering withdrawing the nomination to restore and continue with the draft as many sources are expected to be reliable. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse, since the only question that is properly formulated is whether the close was correct. Without a draft, it is premature to consider whether a URL Dump warrants unsalting. Submit a drart for review, and if a reviewer thinks that it should be accepted, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any proper discussion of the sources I provide in the AFD. Other than the TBS article, All of them have significant coverage of the guy. Due to my lack of knowledge in Japanese terms for football, or my football knowledge as a whole. I couldn't fully squeeze the sources I provided. I already WP:HEY'd it by adding some of the sources. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. I see a lengthy discussion of the sources, by three editors in addition to the appellant, two of whom are among our most experienced. In fact, a full 348 out of the 544 words in this AfD (64%) are just the exchange about the sources presented by the appellant, and that excludes the comment where he presented those sources (with a "Weak Keep"!), or his repeated, lengthy sig (which by itself consumes over 5% of the word count...). All included, over three quarters of this AfD was dedicated to discussing the sources the appellant presented. And then, one of those involved in that exchange, as well as an experienced admin, !voted to delete. Not a single Keep following the source debate. I don't see any basis for the accusation that there was no "proper discussion of the sources", and considering the amount of time and effort spent in the AfD engaging with the appellant in good faith, I find the claim borderline offensive. Owen× ☎ 15:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse largely per OwenX. There was considerable discussion, and rejection, of the sources presented in the AFD such that delete was the only viable close. Even relisting doesn't make sense as it is one keep !vote that was adequately refuted against several P&G-based delete !votes. Frank Anchor 19:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Request draftification and follow the advice at WP:THREE.
- Is there a native-language Wikipedia article? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, there is, as well as on the German wiki. Owen× ☎ 22:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. The sources got a good review.
- RE:
- I think the sources above have discussion about him is not. But, 9 out of 12 sources are primary, I taken some of the sources and the only useful bit is this and that's it and maybe this Miyazaki Shimbun article Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- I translated and reviewed these two sources, and find them to not qualify as GNG-qualifying sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse as the proper conclusion by the closer. There was discussion of the sources identified by the appellant, but that doesn't matter, because DRV is not AFD Round 2. The appellant's comment in the AFD that the ja.wiki article has a lot of press releases is irrelevant anyway, because, as was pointed out in the AFD, press releases are considered primary sources in en.wiki. The title has not been salted, and the appellant should be allowed to request refund of the article to draft space to find better sources. (However, it might be just as effective to machine-translate the ja.wiki or de.wiki version to get an inadequate starting point. Either the deleted article or a machine translation will need work. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Request temp undelete I'd like to see the finished product. The DRV appeal is credible that the !votes don't verbosely engage with the stated significant RS coverage. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Done Owen× ☎ 12:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)- Overturn to keep GNG appears to be met, based on my review of translations of refs 1-4. Ref 5 is a trivial mention. Miminity was not boasting in vain about a WP:HEY-level improvement; those five sources were all added by that editor and raised the quality significantly, essentially from stub to start and eliminating the issue of an undersourced BLP. While I'm not a sports bio editor, I am not convinced by my review of the sources that the editors participating in the AfD did, in fact, review the sources in translation to assess their reliability. This feels more like an echo of previous deletion wars over marginally notable sportspeople, but reviewing sources in another language is obviously more difficult. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- It’s not difficult to google translate the sources.
- Refs 1-3 are first-person perspective, containing explicit subject quotes for the bulk of the articles, without author commentary.
- Ref 1 is extensive quotations strung together with subject-sourced information.
- Ref 2 is only two paragraphs, the first quoting the club, the second is just one quote of the subject “through the club”.
- Ref 3 is four paragraphs, 1=facts, 2=quote from the clubs official website, 3=facts, 4=subject quote.
- All are patently non-independent, worthless for trying to demonstrate notability.
- Take it to draft, where a proper WP:THREE treatment can be performed without rush, and the reference bombing non-independent primary sources stripped, before requesting independent review. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- endorse There was an unusually engaged and detailed discussion about sources that went way beyond what we usually get. In this case, the final two delete votes are clearly influenced by this so it would be inappropriate for DRV to substitute a different outcome to that of the editors actually engaged in the discussion. If the nom has better sources then we can consider them but it would be abused of process not to trust the conversation in the AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 11:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - The two sources in the deleted article that are in English are database pages, and so are primary. I have not machine-translated the five sources that are in Japanese. At this time I am leaving my Endorse unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I’d like to request a review of the deletion of the Marco Trombetti Wikipedia page, replacing the previous version with a revised draft that addresses the concerns raised during its deletion process. I haven't published the draft yet, as I wanted to first discuss these key points with you and explain how the new references strengthen the article’s chances of approval. If you'd like to review the full draft, I’d be happy to send it over right away. WP:GNG – General Notability Guidelines:**
The revised article includes substantial third-party media coverage that I believe demonstrates Trombetti’s impact in AI, business, and language technologies: WP:BIO – Notability as an Entrepreneur:**
The revised draft focuses on WP:ENTREPRENEUR, as Trombetti’s business and AI contributions have been widely covered: In addition to his contributions in AI and business, I've found Trombetti's achievements in competitive sailing, probably meeting WP:ATHLETE criteria. I have identified several independent references citing his participation and victories in international sailing competitions. These references are also available in the revised draft obviously. References
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
PlayStation(R)4 (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Linked from some files' metadata: e.g. File:Nando Angelini 1964.jpg, File:Ivo Garrani - Gedeone.jpg, File:Sodoma e Gomorra (film).jpg, File:I due compari.jpg. --MSMST1543 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
.jpg){kind=link}
2025 Thiruvananthapuram mass murder (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Thiruvananthapuram mass murder The nominee only opposed the article topic with WP:NOTNEWS. 3 out of 5 editors just supported the nominee and did not clarify further. There were primary news sources ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]) that were able to confirm this event was a Massacre that brutally killed 5 people. But the AfD did not get the keep vote, this article should be reopened (drafted) to change its title (Thiruvananthapuram Massacre) and improve its content. Spworld2 (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Ali Niknam (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The page may need work, but it clearly complies with WP:N. Also, the user who closed the discussion and made the page redirect to Bunq, also made other page redirect there, which is odd. Spokeoino (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Relist it and allow an experienced administrator to make a decision. As the page is definitely notable with reliable sources and reasonable arguments to keep — including those provided by Fram, who gave a clear argument — it’s strange that two accounts one-by-one added a "Redirect" vote, and a third account (all of them inexperienced) closed it as a redirect. And there were no other "redirect" votes - only those suspiciously added by two users. Was this a coordinated action? I think we should consider starting an SPI. --Cinder painter (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Tayea six editors claimed they could not find any sources on the article subject, some of the participants began speculating whether the article was a WP:HOAX. I presented 8 sources, out of which at least 7 confirm that Tayea was a member of parliament and thus easily passing WP:NPOL. At that stage, it would have been an act of good faith if the nominator had withdrawn AfD. He made a comment, which in no way dispute the accuracy of the sources I presented. None of the other five editors that had claimed that it was impossible to source the article made any comment or self-criticism in the AfD. The closing admin, treating the AfD as a majority vote, seemingly made no recognition that new sources had been found in the latter stage of the AfD. Soman (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi, I'd like to request a review of the delete and the provided reason of G11 when reading the section that explains that reason it even says "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." and at least in my eyes that would apply here. I don't understand why my article shouldn't fit Wikipedia. I spent multiple hours looking for sources, references, getting all of the information together, and writing a rough initial version. That I thought would be sufficient and could be extended later. - Anyway, please at least userfy or e-mail it to me. And if possible please provide some constructive feedback as apparently the amount of effort I invest into writing here is inversely correlated to getting it accepted. I'd really like to know how to change that moving forward. I invested multiple hours into this article and now I'm left with nothing and don't even understand why or what I could have done differently. Agowa (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
It's amazing that I'm opening up a DRV for a talk page [redirect] discussion, but here we are. I informed the closer why I was requesting the discussion be reopened, essentially because their close comes off as incredibly WP:SUPERVOTE/WP:IAR-ish and, in effect, potentially a misuse of the admin toolset. But, since the closer would not reopen the discussion, here we are. In a nutshell, I think the close was out of line, incredibly POV pushing, and should be either left open or closed by a closer who can better articulate the reason for the closing in a consensus-based manner rather than the statement in the close. Steel1943 (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Rejected REFUND. The singer passes WP:GNG with enough significant coverage in reliable sources apart from WP:NMUSIC as well as having won multiple music awards (e.g. 1, 2, 3). The closing admin has been inactive since February 2024. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This discussion was closed as "no consensus" by IP editor 2600:1001:B1CE:93F6:9806:438E:34F4:2985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has a total of 8 edits, all of them today. The user also closed 4 other discussions as "no consensus" within a span of 4 minutes:
These closes should be overturned per WP:BADNAC:
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
<There are several reliable sources supporting the details within the article. Original closure did not accept these sources, nor has the deletion nominator. Additionally, while its not required, the deletion nominator failed to notify the relevent Wikiprojects, article creator, or substantial constributors. > Redacted II (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- Category:People with developmental coordination disorder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This page was deleted as per consensus involving six people per WP:NONDEFINING. This was because 1) the articles listed did not spend too much time on dyspraxia and 2) because dyspraxia is so common that the person who suggested it be deleted doubted that it could be defining except in severe cases (they went into greater detail in the category talk page but it has since been deleted, here is a link to a screenshot in case it's relevant). While I do not know what articles were originally in the category, I attempted to make a category myself without knowing that the category would later be deleted because of a decision made 4 years ago. As for the first point, in my category there were multiple celebrities who had another disability that did not receive any more focus than dyspraxia and yet they were listed in categories related to the other disability. This includes Tom Hunt (politician), who is listed in the category for politicians with dyslexia despite his article mentioning his dyspraxia more than his dyslexia and Olive Gray, who is listed in the categories for actors with dyslexia and people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]], despite dyspraxia being mentioned the same number of times as either dyslexia or ADHD. There is also Gage Golightly, whose early life section focuses mostly on her dyspraxia, and I would say at the very least, dyspraxia is clearly defining for her. What is even stranger is that some of these people are in categories for people with disabilities, despite dyspraxia being the only disability mentioned in their article. This includes Daniel Radcliffe, who is listed in the category for English actors with disabilities, despite having no other disability mentioned. As for the second argument, that 1 in 20 is too common, first off, how defining a disability is has no relation to how common it is. Second off, by that logic, the categories of people with dyslexia should be deleted too, as dyslexia also affects about 1 in 20 people and there are many people listed in multiple categories for people with dyslexia, and most of them do not seem to have severe dyslexia. This is clear double standards and I would like this category to get undeleted. I do not believe that this would have been successfully deleted if dyspraxia were a more well-known disability and I believe that the fact that dyslexia is well-known and dyspraxia is not is the main reason why there are many categories related to people with dyslexia, but you are not able to create a single category of people with dyspraxia. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately. (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately., arguments such as,
by that logic, the categories of people with dyslexia should be deleted too
, orThis is clear double standards
will not help you make your case. If dyslexia falls under WP:NONDEFINING or WP:TRIVIALCAT, then it, too, should be deleted. Fairness and equitability are irrelevant in categorization. This is an encyclopedia, not an agency determining social assistance. If you can show that dyspraxia is an encyclopedically meaningful defining characteristic, the category will be restored. Consensus can certainly change in four years, but I have no reason to believe the unanimous consensus we saw last time would tip over to the opposite. As a list, this already exists at Developmental_coordination_disorder#Public_figures. Owen× ☎ 00:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)- OwenX, as a minor point which changed my wiki-life: if you use {{tqq}}, it automatically specifies the
|quotes=yfor you :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)- Thank you! That is indeed useful to know. Owen× ☎ 10:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- OwenX, as a minor point which changed my wiki-life: if you use {{tqq}}, it automatically specifies the
- Endorse as the proper reading of consensus. I think that I disagree with the community and the close, but DRV is also not CFD Round 2. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- The close was obviously the only way to read that CfD, but the CfD didn't consider most of the questions raised here, so I think it would be reasonable to allow for recreation and a new discussion. However, I suspect
this would have been successfully deleted if dyspraxia were a more well-known disability
may be true, and I doubt that much has changed on that front in the last four years. UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately., you may have to content yourself with the list. -- asilvering (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC) - Allow recreation under WP:DRVPURPOSE#3. There's no killer new fact here, but there is an emerging awareness of some probability that the 2021 CfD consensus may not be so durable or relevant, because, for years since the CfD, the editing practice and tolerance toward similar categories have been more representative of a view that these disorders may be a defining characteristic—dyspraxia included. The Tom Hunt (politician) example is pretty interesting; it is true that he is categorized as "with dyslexia" but the article mentions dyspraxia more than his dyslexia. A new CfD is fair. —Alalch E. 09:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think I ultimately come down as allow recreation.I've been meaning to write an essay about CFD in the style of User:Rosguill/New pages patrol is racist, with all the appropriate warnings and labels and acknowledgement that it is absolutely not any individual's !voting, policy-writing, or anything which results in the current state of affairs. The WP:DEFINING test cares about consistent recognition in RSes. If that doesn't exist, we can't maintain the category. Invisible, less well-known groups don't get that sort of coverage. Rarely are you going to see someone introduced as [group] when that would require a digression explaining to the reader what [group] is.I think in this case, UsernamesArePublic.Unfortunately has made the case that this is a defining characteristic for at least some people, which is what is required for a category. Recreation, with a note that you should only place someone in the category if it is a DEFINING characteristic for that particular person, is a good way forward in this instance. As she noted in her post at the talk page, Gage Golightly, Olive Gray, Tom Hunt, Mel B, Will Poulter, Daniel Radcliffe, and Florence Welch all seem to belong there. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)