Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

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

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
  4. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify undeleting the page, and previously deleted content may be helpful for writing a new version of the page – provided that an administrator declined undeleting the page and their decision is being challenged;
  5. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
  6. if the deleted page cannot be recreated because of preemptive restrictions on creation that cannot be removed without a consensus after removal was requested and declined. Such restrictions include creation protection and title blacklisting.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. if the page was deleted on grounds which permits summary undeletion: place such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Deletion review can be used if such a request is declined. (Undeletion may also be requested there for pages which are not explicitly eligible for summary undeletion, but such a request is usually declined; it is worth trying when substantial new sources have arisen after an article was deleted.)
  2. to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless a preemptive restriction on creation is in place for which removal was requested and declined. In the case of:
  3. 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);
  4. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  5. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  6. 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);
  7. 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);
  8. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  9. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  10. to request that copyright violations, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
  3. Be aware that requests which appear to be written by large-language models will normally be summarily denied. Write in your own words.
  4. Disclose any paid editing relationships or other conflicts of interest you have related to the subject you are appealing about, if you haven't already.
 
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
|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=2026 November 13}}</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=2026 November 13}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 November 13|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.

The usage of large language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{temporarily undeleted}} 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 that requires a community consensus decision should remain on deletion review for at least seven days (unless the nomination was a proposed deletion). In such cases, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists after seven days. 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, 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.)

Early closes
  • An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as if it were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
  • Where the deletion discussion has reopened or changed, either by the closer of the deletion discussion or by an uninvolved administrator who has vacated a procedurally invalid non-administrative close, and nobody has endorsed. In this case, the deletion review may be speedily closed as overturned or relisted as appropriate. The closer should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Where the nominator of a DRV has withdrawn their nomination, and no one has recommended any outcome but endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so for them).
  • Where the closer of a deletion discussion acknowledges that their close was wrong, and no one has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
  • Discussions may be closed without result if they are entirely disruptive. (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, repeated nominations of the same page, a large language model is used to construct the request, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "procedural close".

Active discussions

13 November 2026

Bosniakisation

Bosniakisation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

This was a non-admin Speedy keep closure based mainly on AI suspicion and claims of bad faith/sockpuppetry. I wrote the nomination myself. The actual arguments about GNG, OR and SYNTH were barely addressed. I request a relist so the merits can be properly discussed. Popii12 (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Keep closed Editor's only contributions were adding the AfD template and AfD itself, and the nom was written using an LLM that they refused to apologize for and then accused someone asking them to rewrite it as also using an LLM. Obviously a sock account of somebody as noted in my close, so closing it as a bad faith nomination was the right thing to do and this was likely averting a TRAINWRECK. Finally, how does an account with less than ten edits even know about the deletion review process? Nathannah • 📮 17:59, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    I did not use an LLM. The quality of a nomination’s writing is not proof of AI use, and a low edit count does not establish bad faith or sockpuppetry. Calling this a “trainwreck” that needed to be averted is an exaggeration. The discussion had barely even started. Closing it prematurely based on writing style and account age, rather than allowing the community to assess the actual GNG, OR and SYNTH arguments, is precisely what prevented a proper discussion from taking place. The nomination should be relisted. Popii12 (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    The deletion review process is publicly documented. You don’t need an extensive editing history to find out that it exists or understand how it works. Having fewer than ten edits does not invalidate the arguments raised. Popii12 (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Please declare any past accounts you've had. Nathannah • 📮 18:16, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    As already stated, you have provided no valid justification for closing the nomination, and your comments make that clear. You have addressed neither the GNG, OR nor SYNTH arguments, instead relying on unsupported accusations about AI use and sockpuppetry. Prematurely shutting down a discussion on that basis is contrary to Wikipedia’s deletion review procedures. The nomination should be relisted. Popii12 (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Once again, please declare your past accounts. Nathannah • 📮 20:42, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Comment - The closer forgot to specify a Speedy Keep reason. Did they mean Speedy Keep 2, purely disruptive nominations, or Speedy Keep 3, completely erroneous nominations? Maybe we need a Speedy Keep 7 for nominations made by artificial intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Neither Speedy Keep 2 nor 3 applies. The nomination raised specific concerns under WP:GNG, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH regarding the article’s lack of independent academic coverage treating Bosniakisation as a distinct historical process. These are legitimate grounds for an AfD discussion, not a purely disruptive or completely erroneous nomination. The closer provided no policy-based justification for bypassing that discussion. Speculation about AI authorship does not establish grounds for a speedy keep, nor does it invalidate the arguments themselves. The nomination should have been allowed to proceed on its merits. Popii12 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
@Nathannah @Popii12 you've made your points. Please allow others to be heard lest this also be speedily closed. Star Mississippi 19:07, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Reid Motorsport (closed)

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

The result of this review was to merge Reid Motorsport into Anthony Reid, but these are not the same person. Midgrid (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Relist The first source says that The team, led by former Ultimate Formula 3 team-manager Anthony Reid. The article that we have, however, doesn't mention Ultimate Formula 3. The photo of Anthony Reid of Reid Motorsport is available here. He is from Wales, but the one with the article is from Scotland/England. So it is quite likely that these two are indeed different people. If they are actually different, then deletion is a proper outcome; a related Ultimate Motorsport AfD was closed as delete based on serious factual inaccuracies in the article. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • No fault relist noting in the discussion that a redirect is currently not a viable ATD until/unless we have an article on the correct Anthony Reid. NB, this could have been resolved on Owen's talk Star Mississippi 15:34, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Relist or overturn to soft delete. I agree there is no fault to the closer who made the correct close based on information available at the time. With no other input in two weeks, a soft delete may be the better option rather than an additional week of discussion. Frank Anchor 15:42, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

JetBlue Mint

JetBlue Mint (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

The discussion was closed as "Merge to JetBlue#Mint". As the creator of this article, I'm not seeing any consensus for a merger here. The discussion is 2-2 between keeping and merging. While discussions are not a WP:VOTE, I'm not seeing how the editors in favor of merging have stronger arguments than the "keep" comments. As an example, the final comment by Let'srun states What coverage exists appears to mirror company press releases. Looking at the version of the article nominated for deletion (i.e. Special:Permalink/1382874943), this comment is untrue. Multiple sources provide in-depth coverage that extend beyond what the company published in press releases:

  1. jetBlue’s Mint a great example of innovation; next phase now tests its premium model more widely
    • An in-depth analysis into the business model and market impact of the Mint product, two years after its launch.
  2. JetBlue goes 2.0 as low-cost carrier unveils Mint premium product
    • A news article targeting people in the airline industry which goes into details into the product, such as the types of seats used and an independent analysis of the product, beyond regurgitating any press releases published by the company.
  3. Flight Review: JetBlue Mint “Suite” Inaugural
    • A review of the product by a trade publication focusing on the airline industry, providing first-hand analysis of the product and service. More akin to a review of e.g. a smartphone than a press release announcing the product.

I have asked Spartaz, the closing admin, to review his closure and relist the discussion, in which case I will reply to the last comment in the AfD. Spartaz has refused, alleging without basis that what I wrote was AI generated, so I'm taking this here. feminist🩸 (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

That's not factually correct. I actually said I was amenable to a conversation but that I wouldn't respond to something that looks like it was written by an AI. Spartaz Humbug! 08:41, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Again, your allegation that my own words looked like it was written by an AI is baseless and I'd argue violates WP:AGF. I'm not a native English speaker, that may be why. In any case, I am happy to withdraw this DRV if you vacate the closure and relist the discussion. feminist🩸 (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Relist (uninvolved). Two points were brought up: Whether the article violates WP:NOT (opening statement) and whether there's sufficient coverage for standalone notability (Let'srun's comment). On neither front was there a consensus: the former was discussed mainly between the nominator and the article creator revolving around differing interpretation of WP:NOT and WP:CFORK, and the latter point does not have sufficient input (Let'srun's comment was the last one posted before close of AFD). Hence this should have been relisted for further comments.
As a side note, I looked at the comment on Spartaz's talk page. Personally I didn't really find it to resemble something written by AI other than the numbered points (subject to the caveat that I hadn't checked the links to verify the accompanying comments), and a few AI checkers I ran through all gave "100% human written" results. S5A-0043(🚎⬅Ding Ding Ding Ding) 09:27, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Relist for further discussion, as the points made did not give enough to form a consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Relist - There was limited participation in the AFD after one week and there was not a clear consensus , and a relist is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:07, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Relist I would have relisted this, as there isn't a clear consensus to merge, even if the right outcome was reached. It's just a poor discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Neither of the two Keeps engaged with the actual issue of PAGEDECIDE, opting instead to argue about coverage, which was never in question. The only arguments anchored in P&G addressing merger both support it. Yes, one is an article about a company, and the other is about its product. We routinely merge product articles to the article about the company offering them, when readers benefit from seeing one in the broader context of the other. It's disappointing that so many editors still think that "But they're not the same thing!" is a valid argument against merger. That said, seeing that we only have two !votes addressing NOPAGE, a relist is a good idea. Owen× ☎ 12:02, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Weak relist – I think the result was was correct, as this was a merge discussion and not a deletion discussion. When the nominator's statement is "it meets GNG but should be merged per PAGEDECIDE" (which was the fundamental argument), a response like "it should be kept because it is covered" doesn't make sense. But it would've benefitted from one more week of discussion. FaviFake (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Relist. There is clearly not a consensus to merge (or to retain) the article. I do not see any convincing argument on either side. Frank Anchor 15:33, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Relist more time for a firmer consensus doesn't hurt. Star Mississippi 15:35, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Relist all arguments in the AfD are weak. I see no reason to weight either the side for or against merging as stronger, so I concur with Frank Anchor that there is no consensus here. A relist is the best outcome Katzrockso (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

12 November 2026

Verdis

Verdis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

I have reviewed Draft:Verdis and the topic meets WP:GNG from the sources shown. Circumstances have changed since the last AfD and RfD discussions and there has been sustained coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown from the draft's references. SK2242 (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Courtesy link to all previous deletion discussions:
SK2242 (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
NumberReferenceRemarksIndependentSignificantReliableSecondaryMeets GNG
1https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/daniel-jackson-unclaimed-land-croatia-serbia-verdisA long article about Daniel Jackson and Verdis.YesYes about both Jackson and VerdisYesYesYes
2https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-01/verdis-president-daniel-jackson-eastern-europe-micronation/106279360Long-form article about Daniel JacksonYesNot about Verdis.YesYesNo
3https://www.dw.com/en/micronation-verdis-how-a-21-year-old-is-trying-to-build-a-new-state-between-croatia-and-serbia/video-78076588An interview with Daniel JacksonNo. An interview.Not about Verdis.YesYesNo
4https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/daniel-jackson-unclaimed-land-croatia-serbia-verdisA long interview with Daniel JacksonNo. An interview.Yes, both about Jackson and about Verdis.YesYesNo
5https://7news.com.au/news/president-at-21-meet-the-australian-running-a-self-declared-state-from-exile-after-being-deported-from-claimed-land-c-22104576Article about Jackson and about VerdisYesYes, about both.YesYesYes
6https://www.nbcnews.com/world/europe/viva-verdis-man-declares-country-unclaimed-pocket-land-serbia-croatia-rcna228004An interview with Daniel JacksonNo. An interview.YesYesYesNo
7https://radar.nova.rs/drustvo/slobodna-republika-verdis/A long article in Serbian about the claimed nation.YesYesYesYesYes
8https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/19/daniel-jackson-unclaimed-land-croatia-serbia-verdisSame as 1YesYes about both Jackson and VerdisYesYesNot as a separate source, because duplicated.
9https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/29/travel/verdis-micronation-daniel-jacksonPaywalled. Did not assess.??Yes?Not known.
10https://www.rapporteur.com/news/croatia-vs-verdis-the-eus-strangest-eastern-border-spat/?ref=biztoc.comArticle in publication about European Union affairs.YesYesYesYesYes

Several of them are interviews and so are not independent, or are about Daniel Jackson rather than about the so-called nation of Verdis. However, it is my opinion that three of them satisfy the requirements for general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Err, the Guardian article literally says when I arrive at the home of Daniel Jackson, president of the Free Republic of Verdis, it is neither magnificent, nor on the Serbian-Croatian border, where his country is situated, but on a small street round the back of a bingo hall in Dover, Kent. - interview with the interested party.
The next one says “I didn’t entirely agree with the views of similar projects, so I started looking into whether there was any unclaimed land,” he told 7NEWS.com.au. - ditto.
The next one says „Cilj im je bio da utvrde geološki sastav tla i mapiraju teren, kako bi se pristupilo izgradnji stambenih objekata, a potom i naseljavanju“, kaže nam Domagoj Budetić, ministar odbrane i spoljašnjih poslova Verdisa. - ditto. I guess it's nice they chose to talk to the "Minister of Defence and Foreign Affairs" for a change.
The next one says When I speak to Jackson, a flag hangs on the wall behind him. - ditto.
These are all interviews, human interest stories. There's no independent analysis here. --Joy (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
BTW, it's pretty grim that we spend so much time and effort on these sorts of stories, but have almost nothing on the actual realities of that border there. Nobody's going to spend so much time summarizing all the boring news coverage of that because it's just not that fun. --Joy (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Containing quotes doesn't mean the entire article is non independent. Katzrockso (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
hi robert, what about this article? ~2026-60366-68 ([[User:BoomBoomSwagger) 10:37, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I was not logged in when I typed that BoomBoomSwagger (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
i am confused aswell that you said CNN is behind a paywall and ABC is not about verdis or meets GNG? it is the public broadcaster of australia and in reliable sources page on wikipedia. there is a legal analysis about verdis at the lower part also talking about terra nullius and their 'settlement' BoomBoomSwagger (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The ABC article is an interview with the guy who invented it. It's not secondary coverage of the place. SportingFlyer T·C 11:04, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Do not recreate The table above is incorrect - all of the coverage of the place comes directly from the person being covered, and not the fictional place, which is not secondary coverage. I'm concerned with the OP's ability to review drafts, honestly. SportingFlyer T·C 11:01, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    both you and joy seem to have a lot of edits on Croatia–Serbia border dispute going back to 2019 and against micronations in general. i think Joy also fully removed the topic of Terra nullius from that article, which is weird considering the coverage. wether it is true or not, shouldn't it at least be mentioned? i am seeing a bias. i wrote this article in a neutral pov. i have mixed feelings on verdis my self but i think it warrants an article now. before the creations were just abusive as there was no notability BoomBoomSwagger (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    AFAICT this terra nullius concept was entertained a decade ago, but then someone actually removed it from terra nullius citing a source saying this does not apply in that case. I see in the history I reverted an unreferenced addition like that because it was contradicted by the rest of the referenced text, at the time there was a sentence there saying The Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs has rejected these claims, stating that the differing border claims between Serbia and Croatia do not involve terra nullius, and are not subject to occupation by a third party. Last year yet another editor reverted that idea again.
    It looks like a grand conspiracy against this wonderful idea for sure! It's not about the 100th WP:SPA hounding us... :eyeroll: --Joy (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    I don't see a "lot" of edits. I see a couple vandalism reversions. SportingFlyer T·C 11:41, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    You can disagree with my analysis of the sources (and Robert's too) but calling into question my status as a reviewer is pretty low. It is a borderline subject but I think in 2026 it passes GNG. SK2242 (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    The problem isn't that the subject is borderline, it's that these anonymous promoters are pushing their agitprop in a general encyclopedia. If we were able to have articles actually describe these sorts of projects rationally, as yet another random oddity, like a million others out there in the world, nobody would bat an eye. But no, they insist on their jargon from the get-go, saying "micronation" (it's an organization, not a very small nation), directly citing claims from the primary sources (as opposed to from reliable sources in the topic area), using the term "territory" to describe it (where there isn't actually any), having a pretentious {{infobox micronation}} (with e.g. maps placing this topic on equal footing with internationally recognized places)... It's using the encyclopedia to promote what seems to be pure cosplay as if it was the universal truth. It's a travesty of our basic policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV. --Joy (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    A Micronation is a completely normal way to describe it. There is a difference between micronation and Microstate. also no one here is an anonymos promoter. thats just rude. i wrote that draft rationally and in a realistic way, not feeding into making it look like a promotional slop. its very clear you just have a problem with the term micronations. and you are feeding pushing that view on wikipedia. just because micronations are a notable subject with notable specific micronations but you do not agree with does not mean it should not be on wikipedia. BoomBoomSwagger (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    It's still novelty jargon. This is a general encyclopedia, not a specialized encyclopedia of politics. --Joy (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    IMO, it looks like you make effort to remove anything that does not fit a croatian nationalist agenda. for example you try to suppress Srpska: The Struggle for Freedom when it is notable film. this probably why you remove terra nullius on croatia-serbia border dispute as well. BoomBoomSwagger (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Please don't cast arbitrary aspersions (WP:ASPERSIONS). --Joy (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

10 November 2026

EDP445 (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
EDP445 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Requesting relisting per WP:NOWEIGHTVOTES, the discussion was non-admin closed as SNOW after just 3 days without proper weighing of the arguments. SNOW itself argues against this. The arguments for keeping this article were numerous but rather unconvincing (many from non-extended confirmed accounts) and included:

  • "[he] may be known for one singular event but even so I knew and watched him before his controversy[...]" (WP:IKNOWIT, by a 58-edits account)
  • "Wikipedia has articles on MUCH more obscure people. This one can stay" (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)
  • "[the subject] is definitely notable enough to have his own standalone article, per all commenters above[...]" (This WP:PERX !vote was strangely posted alongside a batch of 7 other similarly short votes by the same editor: , who somehow made 8 !votes in just 8 minutes, one of which did not even have an argument and three were WP:PERXs .)
  • A duplicate vote by a 137-edits account that said that "he was a very notable YouTuber at the time, and the sting operations, documentary, and arrests are quite notable. These events are "historic" in terms of their impact on the internet, and are widely known even among general audiences[...]" (WP:JUSTNOTABLE, WP:IKNOWIT)
  • "He definitely is sourced often enough for notability. I knew him well before his initial sting. Don't know if there's many sources from before that but his post sting history is extensively documented." (WP:IKNOWIT, by a 117-edits account)
  • "He was well known before the sting. He was a decently popular youtuber well before it, and gained popularity in earlier YouTube years. Now that he's been arrested after several major incidents, it's hard to argue against this article's existence." (WP:Popularity ≠ Notability, by a 153-edits account)

There were about 4 keep !votes that at least tried to engage with the WP:BIO1E issue versus 2 (including nomination) to delete, many keep !votes were also contested. A full discussion should have been allowed, especially considering that this article was deleted twice at AfD (first discussion , second) and denied multiple times at AfC . V. S. Video (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Weak Overturn Early Close and Relist - The appellant makes a good case that the appearance of a Delete vote should have been followed by waiting to see whether the tide was turning, which it probably was not, but "probably" is not enough reason for an early close. The closer is an inexperienced non-admin and should have left the close to a more experienced non-admin, who might in turn have known to leave it to an admin. This is not meant as a criticism of the closer, but as a lesson that they should learn. The two previous deletions, on the other hand, were not in themselves a reason to keep the AFD open. Sometimes non-notable people become notable, sometimes by crime, and this was such a case. Relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    When taking a look at the members of that AfD, it didn't seem that many understood how AfD works, that is why I added Template:Not a ballot in this diff: . Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Vacating the close, as a non-involved admin in a case of WP:BADNAC. One quibble @V. S. Video:; as far as I can see, no attempt to engage the closer first was made before coming here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
During this discussion, an editor perhaps unaware of proceedure here created another nomination prior to me vacating the close. I've procedurally closed the 4th nomination and reopened the 3rd. Some further janitorial work is presently underway. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Thank you, Goldsztajn. Please close this DRV as resolved when you're done. Owen× ☎ 13:25, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I agree that vacating the close is the way to go, but I find the way the appeal is presented somewhat problematic. Editors with edit counts in the double and triple digits are just as allowed to participate at AfD as others, and trying to discredit their opinion partially based on this when they clearly are not newly made accounts is not nice; it also weakens your more persuasive arguments that many of these !votes were weak policy-wise. The way this is presented also seems to imply almost no "established" editors also !voted keep, which was definitely the case as well. I am less convinced that this is a WP:NOWEIGHTVOTES rather than simply a WP:BADNAC situation, and I hope that if it ends up as a keep this will not come back to DRV. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:05, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 November 2026

File:Muhammad Hilmi Gimnastiar.webp (closed)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Muhammad Hilmi Gimnastiar.webp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

This was deleted as Orphan, but it can at least be at this page? SportsLover1967 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply

That will be a no as we have no authorship information, meaning that we cannot attribute this image. There is simply no way to host this image. It's also Non Free and I can't see how the image could be used in a text list. Spartaz Humbug! 09:01, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
A lack of image would harm the reader's understanding of Hilmi Gimnastiar. SportsLover1967 (talk) 11:31, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Not attributing the image correctly will hurt the rights of the person who took it and holds the license. Spartaz Humbug! 13:37, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Could be "Unknown"? SportsLover1967 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
That is irrelevant; what matters is how it affects the reader's understanding of the concept of violence in sports per WP:NFCC8 (emphasis added):

Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

Left guide (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Endorse appropriate application of WP:F5, and no reasonable expectation that it can be used per above. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:18, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
It would be nice however. SportsLover1967 (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Keep deleted: The appellant's proposed application fails WP:NFCC8 and WP:NFCC1. An image of a single example person on a broad concept article by default fails these two criteria, and I'm not seeing any special circumstances to override that (such as the image illustrating the subject performing a violent act, which is not the case here). The appellant would effectively need to justify why this person's non-free image in routine football game action is necessary over free images available of the many dozens or hundreds of other people mentioned on that page. "Critical commentary" about the image (if it existed) would be out of scope for the article since it doesn't depict violence, so I don't see a plausible path to restoration. Note that this was at Muhammad Hilmi Gimnastiar which was deleted via WP:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Hilmi Gimnastiar. Left guide (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse deletion - The appellant's arguments to restore the image have made the case to leave it deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I withdraw my nomination. I surrender. SportsLover1967 (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Chen Xinwu and three others

Chen Xinwu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)
Luo Dongchuan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)
Kong Shaoxun (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)
Zhang Ximing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (revisions|restore)

This article's subject is a provincial leader in China, which is provincial-ministerial rank office and meets WP:N. Although I won't use LLM to create article, but if I recreate this article directly, this article might be deleted under WP:G4, so I am unsure it. Therefore, I would like to submit review under WP:LLMPRVOBJ. I would like to review references if this article is restored. If this article can't restored, I need to rewrite it by myself. Thanks. Shwangtianyuan Reach New Heights Continuously 16:07, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply

@Chen Xinwu The four articles were deleted following the expiry of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion tags, three of them WP:LLMPROD apparently. If you wish to create pages for these people, you should start with a draft, then build it up sufficiently before trying to submit it. In any case, do not use LLMs to write drafts please. If you wish to have access to the contents of the deleted articles to help restarting the drafts, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is the correct place to go to. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:19, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Those articles were not salted. You can still create them but do that in your own words. GenuineArt (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

8 November 2026

James Hemsley

James Hemsley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

The closer, User:Star Mississippi, stated that the "result was merge to EVA Conferences". However, I do not see a consensus for this: the nomination by User:IrisChronomia and the "per nom" !vote by User:FaviFake do support that, but the !vote by User:Kelob2678 is actually for reverse merge (phrased subtly as "Merge conferences to him"), and there is also a !vote by User:Jpbowen to keep.

I have not assessed the notability of each subject, but if we do merge, I think the article on James Hemsley would be a much more practical target, since it also includes information about the VASARI Project / VASARI UK, which does not seem to be directly relevant to the EVA Conferences. Accordingly, since there was indeed a consensus to do some kind of merge, I propose that we overturn and reverse merge (conference into person). What do you think?

Solomon Ucko (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

You could agree to reverse the merge through a discussion at the target talk page. The direction of merges isn't controlled by DRV Spartaz Humbug! 23:29, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Oh ok, got it, thanks. Should it be at the talk page of the originally-slated target (Talk:EVA Conferences) or my preferred target (Talk:James Hemsley)? Would that indeed override/modify the decision made at AfD?
Solomon Ucko (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
No decision was made at AfD. AfD makes no binding decisions on the title of articles. FaviFake (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Endorse per the guidance at WP:MERGECLOSE:

If you would like that someone else carry out the merge, make sure to specify in your closure where the article(s) should be merged into; merge closures without a specific destination are not permitted. If there was consensus to merge but no consensus on which article should be the destination, pick one at random and specify in your closure that the merging editor may perform it in the opposite direction. Likewise, if the title of the resulting article needs to be changed, such as when merging Jane Doe into John Doe, pick one as the target or invent one yourself (Doe family) and note that the new article will need to be moved boldly or after a move request. Then, follow these steps to add the articles to the merge backlog: [...]

You will need to create a RM discussion, or just do it boldly yourself. FaviFake (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
When did this (pick one as the target or invent one yourself) receive community consensus? Kelob2678 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Nowhere, it was intended to describe the current best practices. Since closers often incorrectly use the "custom" XFDcloser option to say that there is consensus to merge "somewhere", which cannot be tracked because merge templates intentionally require a target, there needs to be another option for the rare cases where editors agree to merge two articles AND the resulting article must be renamed, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. The point is that the title or direction chosen by AfD closers is mostly irrelevant and should be chosen boldly as the process used to discuss article names is RM.
I agree my wording is a bit off, I've changed it so it's more clear that AfD does not make binding decisions about moves, especially since merges are already carried out according to the merging editor's discretion, which may run contrary to the result (such as when the editor decides there is no suitable content to merge) FaviFake (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Why do you think this is the current best practices? The idea that we can somehow agree to merge, but without specifying what and where, does not make any sense. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, I agree with you, which is why I've added that paragraph. Did you read the TfD I linked? A discussion should result an an actionable result. Closers should provide the articles to merge, but they do not need to decide how the merge needs to be preformed, including at which title.
To clarify, before the TfD deleted that template, closers were able to close discussions as "merge somewhere" without even providing a second article to merge into/from.​ (please ping on reply) FaviFake (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The template was deleted because "Merge somewhere" was deemed to be an inadequate closure. But now closers can say "merge to the title I just made up". How is this better? Or current best practices? Kelob2678 (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge closers can say whatever they want, but what they say beyond "merge instead of outright deletion" is just a suggestion that is merely necessary for the articles to be correctly added to the merge backlog. Every merge editor already knows they can completely bypass the closure if, in their editorial discretion as an editor, they believe merging is not needed or cannot be done (e.g., article has too few sourced parts, or the result would be a total mess, or the participants made a mistake, etc.)
I think it's pretty clear from my new wording that the recommendation given on the how-to page is that they cannot say "merge to the title I just made up" unless it's necessary: (emphasis supplied)

if the title of the resulting article needs to be changed, such as when merging Jane Doe into John Doe, pick one suggestion for a possible title or, if none were proposed, invent one yourself (Doe family) and note that the move will need to be done boldly by the merging editor and may be challenged via a move request.

So, in case:
  • none of the participants propose a suggestion
  • the resulting article would not make sense if merged without being retitled
... then, with the sole goal of making the merge templates work correctly, they can propose a suggestion for a title that will be used in the templates and which the merging editor can choose to adopt boldly if they want.
It's better than a closer using "Custom" to close as "merge without a specific target", because in that case the articles will not be tagged and the closure will never be carried out unless someone notices that the close used "custom" instead of "merge". FaviFake (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The issue is not the presence of tagging or addition to backlogs. The problem is that such merging lacks a backing of community consensus that the AfD result implies. Word changes cannot overcome this. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't understand your reply. The community consensus will be implemented boldly by a different editor. The tags don't need to reflect anything, they just need to make sense and to link to the discussion. Why should the closer not be allowed to make suggestions for how to proceed?
And how exactly would you solve the problems I pointed out? This was the best I could come up with after months of seeing admins use the custom option and leave no trace of a pending merge. That is what lacks community consensus if we don't come up with a solution. FaviFake (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Bold edits are not community consensus. The difference between the two is that arguing against bold edits is normal, while arguing against consensus is disruptive and can be sanctioned (example). For example, you said, in their editorial discretion as an editor, they believe merging is not needed. This is incorrect, editors cannot use their discretion to ignore consensus reached in a formal discussion. Solutions to this are either restoring the template, because while it was flawed the current situation is worse, or just closing such a discussion as No Consensus.
In this specific discussion, 2 editors support a merge in one direction (the nom and you), and two in the opposite (I and the appellant). But if the appellant tries to merge in the way they prefer, that would be disruptive, as the close explicitly ordered the merge direction. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
From your comments it doesn't seem you're remotely familiar with the merge side of AfD. Or, rather, with PAM, which has managed the tens of thousands of AfD merges for a decade before being unceremoniously shut down.
You cannot restore the {{AfD/dated}} template when the discussion is closed, for obvious reasons.
So in your opinion, say, in a discussion with 10 participants who all agree that two articles cannot remain as standalone articles and that they should be merged, if at the last relist they cannot agree on the direction, the discussion should not be closed as "merge X into Y or the opposite", but rather "no consensus", defaulting to keep for two months, despite nobody ever arguing against a merge? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. WP:BARTENDER also applies:

A bartender's close in a discussion occurs where there is an initial proposal to take some action, and a discussion in which there is a clear consensus to make a change from the status quo, but not to make the specific change originally proposed.

Also, the merge process has never worked in the way you describe prior to being merged into AfD. For example, here's a fun discussion where there was consensus to merge but no consensus on the direction, then I merged the articles, an editor reverted it because they didn't like the direction, and a RM was opened and closed as moot two weeks later because the articles were not merged at the time the title was being discussed. This is what will happen if you want to force the direction to be appealed here.
If the editor had simply accepted my merge and opened a RM, as my instructions say, it would've been much better for everyone involved. And this is in fact what happens most of the time a similar disagreement arises. FaviFake (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
BARTENDER is an essay, it can't override consensus. Katzrockso (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Lol. FaviFake (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
By restoring the template, I meant Template:Afd-merge required which was deleted in a 3-1 discussion.
If there is a 5-5 debate on merge direction, then there is indeed No Consensus, but one side can just concede if they think the direction of the merge is not a big deal. But if one side says it is better to leave pages separate than to merge them in the wrong direction, then the pages should stay. As a side note, in the discussion you cited, the closer tried to emphasize sources, something that is typically ignored at these "merge AfDs", by both closers and participants. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
if one side says it is better to leave pages separate than to merge them in the wrong direction
Are you saying closers should value the !votes of editors who believe that whether the topic of an article is duplicate or satisfies another reason to merge is not relevant if the resulting article is titled incorrectly? And the solution would be to keep the articles separate rather than simply moving them? And that the binding consensus against such a move should be reached at AfD and not RM?
Besides that fact that I don't recall seeing even one instance of this kind of !vote in discussions where the direction of the merge has been contested, even if it did happen, and if, even more inexplicably, more than one !voter supported this absurd idea, the closer would still be right to discount those arguments if the !voters fundamentally believe both topics should not have standalone articles. FaviFake (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Closers should respect the editorial judgment of editors, even if they personally believe this judgment is absurd. There is no problem if the consensus on how to merge takes a few additional months to develop. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Why should the closer not be allowed to make suggestions for how to proceed?. See WP:Supervote. The closer should be the least important person in the decision.
How to solve the problems? Require nominators and closers to be explicit about the target. Where there is consensus to merge somehow, encourage a closer to relist: “There is consensus for a merge, but the precise target needs more input. Leading options are Article 1, Article 2 and Article 3. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Require nominators and closers to be explicit about the target
Even if that were enforceable, which it isn't, how would it possibly help? If the direction is being discussed then all active participants have already made their stance clear. FaviFake (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
If the direction is being discussed. Yes. But if it’s not?
If the nominator didn’t mention direction, it doesn’t invite later participants to discuss it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Thanks for the ping, @Sollyucko:. I reread the discussion and endorse my own close that the consensus was to merge the conferences with Hemsley-that they should be covered in one article. This does not mean that one title or the other is the preferred outcome, that's an editorial decision. Recommend following @Spartaz and FaviFake:'s advice on how to proceed. Star Mississippi 00:00, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse. I don't know why some people think "reverse merge" is the opposite of "merge". Reverse merge is a merge followed by a move. You don't need DRV to start a RM discussion. Owen× ☎ 02:52, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Reverse merge is a merge followed by a move, this is untrue. An article about the man with the conference as a subsection is different from an article about the conference with the man as a subsection. Solyucko explained a practical problem, namely that it is unclear how to cover VASARI in the combined article. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    What matters is that there was consensus to merge, not how it should be done or anything else. If this is controversial, which I doubt, it should be decide don the talk page. FaviFake (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Relist for discussion to determine the direction of the merge. There wasn't a consensus on the direction of the merge, and, after one week, it is often better to relist than to try to find a rough consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse (uninvolved) the conferences seem like the most valid place to merge the page; I don't see the issue here. The idea of a reverse merge was a non starter but could be interpreted as a !vote to merge the page somehow. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Could you please explain why you think that "the conferences seem like the most valid place to merge the page" and "the idea of a reverse merge was a non starter"? Solomon Ucko (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse I see no issue with how consensus was interpreted nor with the direction of the merge. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:08, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Relist to discuss merge versus reverse merge. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    What? Consensus on renaming an article cannot be reached at AfD. This should be merged boldly in the opposite direction, or if for some absurd reason it's controversial, taken to RM. FaviFake (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    What what?
    Relist because the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hemsley, and it was not completed. The merge target aspect of the merge discussion was not completed, contrary to the closer’s decision.
    Discussion to find Consensus on the merge target belongs in the same merge discussion.
    It could have been done boldly, many things can be done boldly, but the use of AfD and DRV means that it is not being done boldly.
    RM is not a good process to patch a broken process. If the merge isn’t done, RM is not appropriate. If the merge is already done, well, it’s not.
    A merge discussion is not complete without knowing which way it will merge. An article about conferences, versus a biography about a single person, are very different styles of an article, and the target decision needs to be known. The DRV nominator here demonstrates that the AfD close was premature.
    The AfD page, the merge discussion page, is the best place for the discussion to continue. Not here, not on the undecided ongoing talk page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply

RationalWiki

RationalWiki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

The verdict seems to be out of step with the actual discussion. The consensus of multiple editors who looked at the sources in question is that they do obviously constitute sigcov, which was ignored by the closer. The argument was not that there was one paper that provided sigcov, but that there were multiple sources that most editors (except for the nominator) agreed were significant coverage. There does not appear to be any actual "blatant canvassing" as most of the editors who voted keep, especially after the sources were presented, are longtime editors who have no apparent connection to rationalwiki. Even totally discarding all new/TA accounts the numerical and argumentative advantage here is by far on the keep side. Seems like a supervote by the closer. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Endorse This is the kind of AfD that most admins would have (understandably) lazily closed as no consensus. But AfD is not supposed to be a vote count. As the closing admin states, "It takes a fair amount of work to tease out the P&G-based arguments from the fluff....I spent close to an hour analyzing each !vote there." Appellant here is wrong in claiming that "most editors (except for the nominator) agreed were significant coverage" as several long-standing and well-regarded editors expressed a view that the sources provided did not meet the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, which states that "non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability". This was a good close that actually took the time to analyse the arguments and the accuracy of claims made regarding sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Almost all of the votes that questioned the sourcing came before mdm provided more sources. The sources brought up were academic sources, both independent and not self-published, so what relevance does that have at all? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn (uninvolved) - I am also feeling uneasy over the closure, especially when majority of participants supported keeping the article and GNG was clearly established. Koshuri (あ!) 17:31, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    If GNG was so clearly established, why did several experienced editors disagree? AusLondonder (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Even a greater number of experienced editors agreed that the GNG was established, so it's unclear why that's relevant. Katzrockso (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Which ones disagreed? PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    You can look at the AfD for yourself. AusLondonder (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    I've looked. The only established contributor that addresses the sources and found them inadequate besides you is CoffeeCrumbs, who voted weak delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    I generally try to keep my replies to my own vote because the discussion doesn't need to hear from me over and over again, but I'm not going to sit here and let you discredit me as a nearly 20 year Wikipedian (having joined in 2008, when I was still at teenager) with multiple DYKs and a (former) GA under my belt, not to mention plenty of participation in AfD, vandal fighting, and RC patrol over the years. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Your argument was that we should delete it because it was an WP:ATTACKSITE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Not established? AusLondonder (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    That vote's complaint is that the article is "too reliant on primary sources", so I interpreted that as reflecting the existing article, given nothing about the sources addressed above were mentioned given no primary sources had been provided in the discussion. Perhaps I was wrong in my interpretation of their comment and they meant to address these separately? If so, then you and them, sure, but that is still by far a minority compared to Ldm, me, mdm, Dylan Reed, Katzrockso, Simonm, Lavalizard, JBL, Randy, who all addressed the sources in question. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Wikipedian to Wikipedian, just WP:DROPTHESTICK man. You've made your point. Your user page makes your bias as obvious as mine does mine, even if you're not a member of RationalWiki. Neither one of us are this important. Blessings. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    The person who most needs to take this advice is you -- you have left dozens of comments that add almost nothing. Please work out your feelings about RW somewhere else. --JBL (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    In the AfD, I see 8 comments by PCHS Pirate Alumnus (FTR: 5 by JBL and 15 by PARAKANYAA). What "dozens" are you referring to? Did the discussion spill over elsewhere?
    Solomon Ucko (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    It ended up at ANI too. Katzrockso (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Ok got it. I see 9 comments by PPA at § RationalWiki is canvassing about its AfD, of which 4 are collapsed into "Affairs of RationalWiki belong there. Not here." That's a total of 17, not "dozens", though I agree that it is nevertheless quite many.
    Solomon Ucko (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    There were also comments at OwenX's talk page, as well as their own talk page on the topic. Katzrockso (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Even limiting to comments posted later than your list of sources, I see five users:
    Solomon Ucko (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn to No Consensus Whether sources contain sigcov should be decided by the participants, and in this discussion, there was no agreement among them. It is not the closer's job to break the deadlock. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse This is the fourth time the notability has been challenged for this article, and every single time people from RationalWiki and Conservapedia (and people with no affiliation but with strong opinions about them) bludgeon the vote into a no-consensus close. Finally, someone has the guts to put this article out of its misery. (For the sake of transparency, I am active on both RationalWiki and Conservapedia, I have limited administrative privileges on both sites, and I have had personal conflict with members of RationalWiki). Let the dead dog rest in peace and free the encyclopedia of unnecessary drama over a non-notable subject. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    None of this has anything to do with whether the subject passes the GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Sure it does. The article keeps getting nominated for deletion because it fails GNG, but it is retained because of collective WP:BLUDGEONing, primarily tilted in the pro-RationalWiki direction. It's often a 1-2 vs. 5-10 fight of us vs. them. It's ridiculous too; if you're here to take sides with RationalWiki or Conservapedia and not to do what's best for Wikipedia, then you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. If this deletion is overtuned, it's time for ArbCom to look into this and potentially do a fifth AfD on the article with a restriction of anyone associate with either RationalWiki or Conservapedia from participating, and a restriction of anyone who has participated in any of the previous AfDs on the article from participating, so we can get the closest thing to an unbiased discussion as possible, which I am confident will end with deletion or a redirect as we now have. If you don't have anything further to contribute other than the same argument regurgitated, please do not continue this argument per WP:BLUDGEON. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2026 (UTC) Edit to add a link to RationalWiki's discussion on this matter, where they so elegantly say we can "suck ass" for deleting their article (proving their vested interest in keeping this article). Note that this discussion isn't necessarily the only place they are discussing this. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    collective WP:BLUDGEONing is a strange way to say 'consensus was against me'. MrOllie (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Consensus of who? RationalWikians and others who are WP:NOTHERE? Of those responding to off-wiki canvassing? That's not how consensus works on Wikipedia. PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    It is probably easier to write off everyone who disagrees with you as a 'RationalWikian' or NOTTHERE, but that is not terribly convincing. Maybe that's why you keep ending up on the wrong side of consensus. MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Who in the discussion was responding to offwiki canvassing? And what blatant offwiki canvassing?
    By your own logic your own vote must be discounted, as you are, by your own admission, a rationalwiki user, unlike for example, me, who has never touched this website in my life. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    @PARAKANYAA: I would gladly agree to not participate in an AfD in which anyone with any connection with either site is barred from participating, and any Wikipedian who has participated in previous AfDs or discussions about RationalWiki is barred from participating. That would effectively eliminate most of the biased editors and give us a real picture of consensus rather than a bludgeonfest in which consensus cannot be reached. Of course, there needs to be grave, tenure-ending consequences for anyone who tries to circumvent the process (voting on behalf of someone, trying to get someone to vote on one's behalf, etc). PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:09, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Which contributors to the discussion, TAs excluded, do you think should not have contributed to the discussion? Either through canvassing or being a user of the website. Because excluding the TAs and you I am not seeing anyone who has any connection to the website in the discussion - and it comes out firmly on the side of keep with those editors excluded. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    I think you are misunderstanding my argument (perhaps I'm not being clear enough?). I'm not saying that it's a malicious act in which anyone did anything wrong per se (if so I would be in the wrong), I'm saying that many people participating are activists one way or the other because it is a highly contentious topic in which many have biases they may even be unaware of, and the only way to get real consensus is if the discussion is limited to people completely and utterly uninvolved and unvested, which admittedly isn't an easy task to enforce. But the thing is, if someone hasn't engaged in any discussion about the subject in any part of Wikipedia, and they're not a newbie, and there aren't votes from involved people to sway the bandwagon, you'll see a much more unbiased picture. Does that make sense? PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    That's not how AfD works, ever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn. I don't know how any editor can genuinely come to the conclusion that there is a consensus to redirect here without just discarding most of the !votes. Kelob2678 hits the nail on the head - the participants of the discussions are those who should be deciding whether or not the sources constitute significant coverage. Unless an editor makes a argument that manifestly contradicts policy (e.g. like saying that a company's website is a valid source that contributes to notability), the closer should respect the balance of views within the discussion. This is clearly set out in WP:CLOSE:
If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the larger number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. The closer is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate, and is expected to know policy sufficiently to know what arguments are to be excluded as irrelevant.
The point of deletion discussions are not for closers to decide which arguments they found most convincing personally, but to evaluate how particular arguments found support among other editors during the discussion. The argument that the sources in question satisfied the GNG found broad support in the discussion, though not unanimous. The arguments that the sources didn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV were significantly weaker and often contradicted PAG at points. Katzrockso (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
This close has the hallmarks of a classic supervote. It spends more time responding to a single !vote (seemingly Ldm1954's) than it does analyzing the actual main arguments of the discussion. It is highly confusing to see IAR discussed as if it were the main argument for keeping in the close when it was invoked by two participants: one supporting retention and one supporting deletion:
We don't censor, but per WP:DENY and WP:IAR, we shouldn't be covering this and giving it a search engine boost without clear, indisputable WP:GNG compliance - PCHS Pirate Alumnus
Last, and strongest, I will invoke WP:5P5 and the spirit of ignore all rules. - Ldm1954
The close also spends time addressing and rebutting third-level comments by participants, not only misrepresenting the thrust of the argument being made, but making it clear that this is not an uninvolved close, but a comment that serves best as a vote. More concerningly, the close spends significant time bringing up the unrelated and irrelevant guideline WP:NBASIC. No participant mentioned this guideline and it does not apply to any of the discussion in question.
I found further coverage not discussed in the AfD - - this source devotes 246 words to the topic and involves no mentions of Conservapedia. Katzrockso (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
At least half of those words are quotes from RationalWiki; there is very little there written by the article's author. Additionally, the article solely discusses the goals of the wiki and the tone of the content (plus a mention of its website domain name); it has nothing about its history, impact, or anything else that would make for a good general-purpose encyclopedia article. Solomon Ucko (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn to Redirect to List of wikis
Disclaimer: I am a user of RationalWiki. I am not here to dispute whether we are notable or not by your rules, only to question why if there is to be a redirect to Conservapedia. Yes, we were founded in reaction to that site; but that was 19 years ago and we have grown significantly away from being a anti-CP harassment/mockery site so an actual 'proper' wiki covering pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, fundamentalism and those who promote them. Not only are we being chained to a history two decades old but it's a history which stops there too - rendering the information being given as out of date and incomplete. ~2026-59458-75 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Well, list of wikis only lists notable wikis. Is the issue.
This ties into the problems with the RationalWiki redirect to Conservapedia where, if RationalWiki is not notable then it shouldn't even be mentioned in the Conservapedia article, because there is like 1 source connecting them from 2007. It's not WP:DUE weight to mention. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
What do you mean by "except for the nominator"? There were multiple people who agreed with me, near half of the votes. Koubaki user page • talk page • contributions 20:31, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
@Koubaki As far as I can tell (there are so many names counting it might be off by a bit, feel free to correct me) there are 15 keep votes, 4 redirect votes, 1 merge vote, and 5 delete votes. That is not "near half", and most of those votes came before the new sources were presented - 3 of the 4 redirect votes, 1 of the delete votes and the 1 merge vote came before the new sources were brought up. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Right, I have no idea how one can give such a high weight to the !votes that preceded the new sources. It contradicts WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS:
On the other hand, if an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but then an editor has added the missing references, that argument for deletion is no longer persuasive. Katzrockso (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
They didn't find any SIGCOV, and that's the problem. Koubaki user page • talk page • contributions 05:46, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, but that coverage was presented AFTER their votes. Their comments showing a lack of SIGCOV preceded the unearthing of new sources, so their arguments carry less weight in the overall evaluation. Katzrockso (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Krebs et al. were present in the article when it was nominated, so it is reasonable to assume that early voters knew about them, but did not consider them in depth enough. From the discussion it appears other sources were similar. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The comment by PARAKANYAA at 18:18, 28 October 2026 (UTC) contains sources not contained in the article at the time of its nomination. Of the 5 sources mentioned, only the Krebs source and The Register source were included in the article. The redirect !voters did not have access to these 3 additional sources at the time they made their votes.
When the source analysis begins, the strength of the argument is clearly towards the keep side, as the editors arguing for redirection make non-policy based arguments as to why the coverage is insufficient. Katzrockso (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm confused as to why the close only mentions 1 source in its breakdown when at a minimum 5 were offered to contribute to the GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The other sources have basically the same problem. Koubaki user page • talk page • contributions 18:24, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Consensus is not a vote. Koubaki user page • talk page • contributions 05:47, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I do not think it is particulalry helpful to say this to someone with 100k edits, let alone in a DRV discussion. There is enough noise in this section already, let's stick to arguments. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:04, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
What exactly is not an argument here? Consensus is not a vote, many of the keep !votes used arguments that are in WP:ATA. It doesn't matter if someone has 100K or 100 edits, what matters is what they are arguing. Koubaki user page • talk page • contributions 18:28, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Endorse, seems like a prefect exemplification of how WP:VIE should be put into practice. FaviFake (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Meh (involved). Contra the closing statement, the obvious problematic behavior in the discussion was the blugeoning by the nominator and another editor, both of whom have some weird axe-grinding thing about RW and Conservapedia. I see little evidence of any meaningful number of !votes from canvassing, as opposed to the silly decision to open a thread about it an ANI. There was a compelling source analysis that established in-depth coverage in multiple academic sources, and no similarly compelling rebuttal. But also I find it difficult to get worked up over this outcome. --JBL (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Was the canvassing problematic behavior too in your opinion? Koubaki user page • talk page • contributions 05:44, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse This was a very difficult close and to be honest, when I looked at it, I didn't have the time to did it justice and just mentally wished the closing admin good luck. Once again we have an article locked into the keep/delete dynamic and insufficient engagement by those arguing to keep on the merits of a redirect or merge. Kudos to the closer. Spartaz Humbug! 22:47, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Because the arguments to redirect or merge were on the basis that the subject wasn't notable, which was rebutted by the keep !voters who demonstrated there was SIGCOV. Katzrockso (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    But PAGE DECIDE is clear that aggregating two separately notable articles can be better but, so arguing that notability trumps a merge argument simply doesn't cut it. Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    That is correct, but an argument to be made at the AfD. It's not the place of a closer to insert a new argument made by precisely zero of the AfD participants, that's a supervote.
    Contrary to the false claims here, this was not a typical post-PM-AfD discussion where participants talked past each other about merging, but one where most participants argued to keep or delete and argued specifically on the grounds of notability. Katzrockso (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    a typical post-PM-AfD discussion where participants talked past each other, this is an often repeated, but incorrect characterization of such debates. Editors arguing to keep respond to what is actually written in the nomination. If it says, for example, "fails WP:NOT, WP:OR, no need for a separate page", the arguments against will be basically arguments against deletion, because the nomination is basically for deletion. A nomination along the lines "Merge because it should, but doesn't discuss A, B which are present in the target" will get far less "per WP:GNG" arguments. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse What a mess - I've probably spent 20 minutes on this deletion review alone. First, I think the close was possible - while the redirects numbered only a couple votes, it was largely argued on keep/delete grounds with redirect a proper AtD, and there were a number of keep !votes which could be discounted. I also checked to make sure there wasn't an error on sourcing grounds and I do not see the coverage clearly passing GNG enough for this to have been a simple error. SportingFlyer T·C 23:49, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Uninvolved clerking, @PCHS Pirate Alumnus and PARAKANYAA: you've made your point. Please move on and let us hear from others who have not weighed in. Star Mississippi 00:06, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse (involved) PARAKANYAA engaged in rampant overexaggeration of sources, and this DRV continues the - IMO incorrect - assertion that they had demonstrated SIGCOV. Most of the other keep !votes were based on PARAKANYAA's sources, rather than explaining exactly which sources were significant, indicating that they perhaps were aware of the weakness of the argument. The fact that Owen concurred the same is perfectly "rational" and there is no clear malfeasance here with regards to supervoting. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:03, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn, they are two different websites, separated by 19 years! That's like directing 'Conservepedia' to 'Wikipedia' because it was created due to Wikipedia. And overturn due to the close in which the closer made a good faith but major mistake in not taking a sentence as it was meant. Emphasis mine: "The claim that a redirect is worse than a deletion is contradicted by WP:ATD-R and WP:PRESERVE, and casts doubt on the P&G weight of the other arguments raised by that participant. Their claim that it is an unrelated website was not only rebuffed by other participants, but by the Kerbs paper itself, which mentions the two in the same breath." PARAKANYAA's wording was about this particular article, not about redirects and deletions as a whole, and includes the reason why: "this is an unrelated website". Which it is. But because of this mistake the closer seems to have mistakenly disregarded PARAKANYAA's entire source discoveries. There is more, but this mistake alone should overturn the close, regardless of the logic and arguments made in this review discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    The redirect should not point to the top of Conservepedia, but rather to the specific section Conservapedia#RationalWiki. Solomon Ucko (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    If this is addressed to me, no, a redirect should not point anywhere on Conservepedia. They are two different websites. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    I am well aware that they are different websites. However, there is no rule dictating that each website must have its own separate article, rather than a section of a related article. Solomon Ucko (talk) 07:09, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse The closer determined the strength of the arguments, alongside the potential comments resulting from canvassing by RationalWiki, not which side got most !votes. Also, you might want to consider what the closer says: This also opens the door to a future spinout discussion at the target's Talk page, if both sourcing strengthens and the amount of encyclopedic content in the section becomes WP:UNDUE. Koubaki user page • talk page • contributions 12:19, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
This is my final comment here, I've made my position clear (I'll only reply if someone specifically addresses me and asks me something). Koubaki user page • talk page • contributions 13:08, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Note: I have returned to the discussion. Koubaki user page • talk page • contributions 18:31, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm back to no longer participating here, unless someone specifically addresses me and asks me something, I made the comments that I think were necessary. Koubaki user page • talk page • contributions 19:34, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
About the "they are two different websites" argument that a lot of people here are using, it doesn't matter if a subject is technically separate, it matters what WP:RS say and if WP:SIGCOV exists. Again, I don't see why we shouldn't apply the sentence that I quoted from the closer. Koubaki user page • talk page • contributions 18:33, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Weak overturn to no consensus - Disclamimer that I'm involved as I !voted to keep. I was expecting this one to come down as no consensus. Per the closer: [v]iews were split abnout the Kerbs [sic] et al. paper, being the linchpin of sourcing for this subject. For me, a split on whether or not the key source has significant coverage is a sign of no consensus in the overall discussion. Furthermore, I am concerned by the closer stating [c]alls for retention per WP:IAR are often signs of desperation when the only user citing IAR was PCHS Pirate Alumnus, who was !voting to delete and also cited WP:DENY; I'm also not particularly happy with this discussion was tainted by obvious canvassing when, in my view, bludgeoning was the main form of misconduct taking place. I'm only a weak overturn because while I believe that the redirect target may cause NPOV issues, it's probably the best target if we are going down the redirect path. mdm.bla 14:11, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    I have become aware that Ldm1954 cited the fifth pillar, making part of my statement inaccurate. However, this actually increases the likelihood that the correct decision is no consensus, as it means that there's an argument that "we should ignore the rules and delete this article" and an argument that "we should ignore the rules and keep this article" present in the discussion. mdm.bla (t · c) 15:57, 9 November 2026 (UTC) I changed my sig!reply
  • Overturn. I stopped watching this AfD as it was fairly obvious to me that there was major WP:BLUD to delete the page, as well as probably significant canvassing on both sides. I was very unconvinced by the delete arguments, and I thought that many of them were, frankly, verging on WP:5P4 violations. (There were some in support which were also marginal, in fact this whole debate was one of the messiest I have seen in my few years here.) I definitely disagree with OwenX's statements that there were many WP:ILIKEIT etc arguments, most of that labelling was done by a deletion voter. I also disagree with the idea of redirecting the page to something which is only marginally related. To me there does appear to be enough WP:SIGCOV, and what should have been done is to ignore the various inappropriate statements and just look at how many people indicate that they believe multiple, smaller SIGCOV are enough versus those who don't. To me this is a clear no-consensus mess.Ldm1954 (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    All I think I need to say here is that I don't think there were many inappropriate statements on the delete/redirect side (I'm not aware of any), and that there were a lot of WP:ILIKEIT-style arguments on the keep side (one of them was yours, calling the redirect to Conservapedia as having "some basis" but a "disservice to the page"). I also don't see proof of canvassing on the delete/redirect side, unlike the canvassing that is happening right now about this discussion on the RW Saloon Bar, which started right before a lot of keep !votes that were repeating the same thing (at least one of them being from a person who says they are a member of RationalWiki in their user page). Koubaki user page • talk page • contributions 19:27, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Again the keep votes were due to the ANI, not the RW saloon bar post itself. And no none of the overturners are here because of the RW saloon that is the most ABF reading of others comments. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 20:32, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn to no consensus. Since apparently it matters here, I am uninvolved in the discussion. I struggle to see how a decision to redirect is in step with the actual discussion, just because none of the Delete !votes presents a valid case to oppose redirecting, or that some of the Keep !votes were weak. The discussion was heated, this DRV is heated, but that does not change the fact that many Keep arguments were not mere signs of desperation but actually backed by sources. Moreover, it is not because there is a link between Rational Wiki and Conservapedia relating to how the former was established that they are not two different websites, separated by 19 years, as Randy Kryn points out above. Like Katzrockso, I find it difficult not to see the signs of a supervote here. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 17:00, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Since apparently it matters here, I am uninvolved in the discussion
    I don't think it does? Although it would be nice to make DRV more like MRV by requiring that editors state their involvement. FaviFake (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    I think it should go without saying that whether and how much involvement in the associated XfD matters is something for the closer at DRV to evaluate; I mostly said that because I believe I saw more than one comment above pointing out the overlap in participants like it meant something special. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 12:26, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn (to keep). User:PARAKANYAA successfully refuted the deletion rationale in the nomination, and there was no consenus for a merge, which was not properly proposed. User:PARAKANYAA received considerable support from established editors, not “obvious canvassing”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • It was in no way a "successful refutation", though people certainly claimed it to be. People putting literally any form of coverage there to justify keeping regardless of its triviality is a very common AfD phenomenon, but it should not be allowed to game the system in such a way. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:22, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    User:Zxcvbnm, ok. On earlier read-throughs, I noticed apparent refutations, PARAKANYAA provided sources, and multiple established editors apparently agreeing. Few disagreeing. However, not I notice User:Koubaki in the threading making multiple strong detailed on point contradictions to PARAKANYAA, his sources, and brief !votes agreeing with PARAKANYAA.
    User:Koubaki was then intimidated away being accused of coming close to bludgeoning the discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    There aren't exactly specific policies on what constitutes significant coverage on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure where this comes from. Editors can reasonably disagree about what coverage qualifies as "direct" or "in-detail". Katzrockso (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • In the absence of a thorough analysis of the sources disputed through the AfD, I’m sticking with “Keep”, the case for deletion was not carried. There was no way it could have been closed as “delete”. Intractable dispute implies ATD is not a thing. It’s a case of WP:RENOM. What I see happened is that “redirect” emerged as a method to cut a Gordian Knot, not as the emerging consensus. The closer should have !voted, their decision was not the decision of the discussion.
    The repeated claims of burgeoning is evidence that multiple people were not posting concise logical !votes.
    The canvassing angle is complicated, hard to unravel, with no specific allegations unravelled. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Weak Overturn to No Consensus - Sometimes there really is no consensus, and there was no consensus in 2019 and is still no consensus. No consensus is always unsatisfying, and a closer may want to tease out a result, but the result that is teased out is also unsatisfying. "There must be sources" is a handwave and an Argument to Avoid at AFD, but were there reliable secondary sources in 2010 and 2016? Do those sources still exist? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn to no consensus. Redirect did not win out either in number or strength of !voting. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn to keep (involved) The sources presented by PARAKANYAA clearly demonstrated that GNG was met. This is a pretty clear supervote. Simonm223 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    On examination, I don’t think it is clear at all. Look more closely at contributions by User:Koubaki.
    A focused examination of the sources presented by PARAKANYAA is needed.
    Also User:Mdm.Bla, eg https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12647. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    @SmokeyJoe: I don't think there's consensus to keep, as Koubaki made strong, if somewhat overzealous, arguments and wasn't alone in the discussion. On the other hand, consensus didn't form against PARAKANYAA's claims, either. Per Robert McClenon, sometimes there just isn't a consensus in either direction. I do think that a detailed source analysis should happen at some point, but it probably belongs at a future AfD or on a talk page instead of DRV. mdm.bla (t · c) 23:31, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn to keep - Enough reliable sources to prove that the topic is notable. The current redirect looks problematic. TolWol (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn to Keep/no consensus (uninvolved) per nom. I don't see how the current closure can be defended. Digital folklorist 19:53, 11 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn per Randy Kryn. When we're going to merge two notable topics, whichever direction, there needs to be a clear benefit to the readers' understanding or the structural handling of complicated topics. Neither one seems evident here. Indeed the post here from PCHS Pirate Alumnus strongly suggests to me that political opinions about the sites in question have played too prominent a role in this entire kerfuffle. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Overturn to no consensus (uninvolved) I was observing the AFD for a week but did not put in a vote as my opinion was neutral at the time. I think the article is right above the edge of establishing GNG, however, there were some votes that disagreed, so there isn't really consensus on if this meets GNG. Overall, like the previous 3 AFDs, there does not seem to be consensus to keep, delete, or redirect the page, and it really is not the closer's role to break a tie (lack of better words, it is not a majority vote). Personally, I oppose redirecting to an opponent's article, however, it seems that this was chosen due to a lack of a better target and it is arguably better to preserve than delete. TruenoCity (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse (uninvolved) Whether or not the subject is, or is not, notable, the close represents an accurate application of our policies and guidelines and a reasonable reading of the discussion as it actually occurred; as opposed to how we wish it might have occurred. (That said, I'm also convinced the subject is not notable.) Chetsford (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Dubki (selo), Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast

Dubki (selo), Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

Even if agree with the AfD decision to merge, the direction of merge ("selo" into "settlement") is wrong. If you look at the map, Dubki (selo) (to the south) is 10x larger than Dubki (settlement) (to the north).

At the same time, this map shows that the two places are clearly separate entities. The Afd says but looking at Google Maps, they appear to be close enough together to be, de facto, a single settlement - well, they are not and should have separate article, since both satisfy (or not) WP:NGEO to the same degree. --Altenmann >talk 13:21, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

P.S. No complaints about the closer: it is !voters who did not exercise due diligence. --Altenmann >talk 17:29, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply

  • Void Altenmann is correct that I was wrong when I said they are close together. Google Maps, in contrast to Yandex Maps, did not label the smaller settlement and I did not notice it. I saw only Northern Dubki and thought that both legal places refer to the same visible settlement. I do not think that relist is a proper course of action, as we right now have another AfD about this place. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Relist following the closure of the other AfD. This is a relevant case of new information. Katzrockso (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
But is there clear evidence they are related beyond sharing a name? Being close to one another geographically and having the same name does not necessarily mean there's an overlap. With that logic you may as well also merge the adjoining settlement that doesn't share the same name. This was also raised directly in the discussion prior to the closure. That's why I am a tad skeptical that simply having the same name and being nearby justifies combining them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:25, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I don't know if they're related. All I'm saying is that GEOLAND tells us nothing when it comes to merging. We routinely merge pairs of articles where both are notable. Owen× ☎ 12:05, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Our typical PAGEDECIDE practice is much different for geographic locations than for other types of articles, something you recognized just a month ago. Katzrockso (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
There are many examples of this in Russia, where there are two places with the same name next to each other. For example, there is Pechenga and another Pechenga, where the former is an older settlement (well, actually a merger of at least three older villages) and the latter is a railway settlement. (I don't have a strong opinion on whether the two Dubkis should be merged or not.) --Kapulakone (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Relist because of additional information. If the issue is confusing/complex enough that it is getting discussed in this thread, it means it would benefit from more discussion in an actual appropriate thread about it. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 16:41, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Relist with the focus on which way to merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Relist to discuss which way to merge. There is more to discuss and the AfD page is the best place for that discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Well, I would suggest not relisting but just somebody renaming one of them (doesn't matter which) to just Dubki, Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast, then merge the other one in, and at the top say like "Dubkai is the name of two settlements in the Kolchuginsky District of Vladimir Oblast. One is a selo." Then 2nd level headings, one being "Dubkai (selo)" and one just "Dubkai" (I mean, "Dubkai" (settlement)" wouldn't really do cos they're both settlements; you could have "Dubkai (non-selo settlement)" but this seems awkward. We do have articles that speak of different meanings of a term (Girl group comes to mind) that aren't disambig pages. And I mean the sections are short enough, you don't have read thru lots of text to figure out which is which. This is a merge so it meets the requirement of the close, and we don't have to go thru this again. Take five minutes, doesn't violate the close; I'd do but I don't want to get on anyone's bad side.
Anyway, why was this even nominated for deletion? De facto, for geographical places, all we need is proof of existence; we do have tons of one-sentence articles that basically meet only this criteria, and why not. After all, the very first sentence of the very first of the Wikipedia:Five pillars is "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis added). You all could try to change that rule, but til then we're not supposed to ignore any core rules such as WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, or this one (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). Should have been a procedural close with an admonition to OP to read our basic foundational rules. So I mean ignore the out-of-rule deletion discussion and just merge based on common sense, presto chango ipso facto, non opus est tibi licentiam facere res communes, OP could have just merged on his own dime.
(BTW FWIW "settlement" should be "village" cos we are supposed to translate into idiomatic English not just robotically transcribe, and everyone knows what a village is but you'd get different answers for settlement, some referencing Laura Ingalls Wilder, some Colony, and so on. This is not a concept that I have able to get to penetrate editors' skulls much, but just saying /rant). Herostratus (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
You are suggesting someone to be bold. That’s one response to a faulty process. Another is to fix the process, Do not close merge discussions without consensus on the merge target.
“Anyway, why was this even nominated for deletion?”. Haha. You appear to be confused by “deletion” being in the page title, and the AfD nominator failing to be explicit that they were starting a merge proposal, not a deletion proposal.
Maybe AfD merge proposals should have titles, not “Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dubki (selo), Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast” but “ Wikipedia:Articles for merging/Dubki (selo), Kolchuginsky District, Vladimir Oblast”, and maybe formal merge proposal discussions should be required to include the word “merge”, and to explcitly nominate the target so that participants will agree or disagree on the target choice. If the nominator doesn’t know, or hasn’t thought that far ahead, a formal proposal is premature. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2026 (UTC)reply
"You appear to be confused by 'deletion' being in the page title". Haha. Imagine that -- expecting page titles to tell what the page is for. Please raise your children to not nominate articles for deletion when they want something else to happen.
We don't need an "Articles for Merging" process. Gone 25 years without it and OK so far. We also don't need an "Articles for Splitting" or "Articles for Enlarging" process etc. etc. either. We already have a process for this stuff, including merges: WP:SODOIT. If you're not sure -- perfectly understandable and often appropriate, altho probably not necessary in this case -- we got templates that say "This article has been nominated for merging. You are welcome to participate in the merge discussion..." Sometimes you get little or no response on these, which you can take as consensus to do what you think best, including nothing. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

7 November 2026

Christina Dior (closed)

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

Misschristinadior (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

@Misschristinadior: Anyone can start a new draft if they'd like, as long as it follows the rules it should be all right! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:04, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
hello, yes im aware anyone can start a new page, i started the original one myself. However the main reason for my message was i wanted the original one to be restored so i could edit it. nearly 17 years have pased since the deletion so i dont remember every single thing that was written in there, i do have records myself but im sure things have gotten lost in that time. I am therefore asking whether the previous deletion can be reviewed, and the old page restored to my user draft space or if you can send me a priavte copy so i can edit it and retrieve my previous content. Misschristinadior (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2026 (UTC)reply
One of those rules is to not to use an LLM to create it, like you did for your comment above. (There are some exceptions to that rule. None of them are relevant.) —Cryptic 23:10, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

My Snowboarding Skillz (closed)

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

This page was speedy deleted under criteria G11, which is for unambiguous advertising. This page was well-written and notable as it was about the second video ever uploaded to YouTube. If there is a concern about notability, AFD is the way to go, but I don't understand how it was speedy deleted. (Courtesy pings for @Tony Holkham and @BusterD) NewAccount7295 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

  • I couldn't say this is the best writing I've ever seen, or that I'm sure this would survive AfD, but I'm also initially skeptical of a G11 here looking at the deleted revisions. Is there a history to the page I'm unaware of? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:08, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I've restored the page and removed the redirect. I'll confess I misjudged this particular good faith tag by a trusted editor. I apologize for my carelessness. BusterD (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (International Newsletter)

International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (International Newsletter) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

The ICMLPO (in both its emanations) is a very well-known international organization, cited by numerous sources (on Google Books and Google Scholar)—sources that were evidently not taken into account during the AFD (in which only two opinions in favor of deletion were expressed). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

@theleekycauldron For example, I can mention: "Warianty komunizmu na świecie: Stalinizm, maoizm i eurokomunizm" by Willem Brownstok; "Dawn of the International Socialist Revolution" by Stefan Engel; "Maoism: Revolutionary Legacy and Contemporary Impact" by Fouad Sabry; Unmasking the War on Terror: U.S. Imperialist Hegemony and Crisis; "A History of Nepalese Maoism since its Foundation by Mohan Bikram Singh" by Benoît Cailmail. We can agree that it is not the most recognized international organization, but it is nevertheless cited in several books and papers that were downplayed by the AFD. It is no coincidence that articles from both branches of the ICMLPO are present in all the main language editions of Wikipedia.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
@Scia Della Cometa: "significant coverage" means more than a simple citation; it means in-depth coverage, at absolute minimum 100 words. Regardless, you don't need to go to deletion review. If you find suitable sources, I would recommend creating a draft with those sources as best you can and submitting it to WP:AfC. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:08, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Endorse — same reason as for twin review request: nothing procedurally wrong with this more than one year old closure; a draft can be started to try to rebuild a viable article. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 22:31, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
I apologize for that. But I can't revert an AFD closure upon request, I would have directed you here. Liz Read! Talk! 19:54, 13 November 2026 (UTC)reply

International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle)

International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations (Unity & Struggle) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

The ICMLPO (in both its emanations) is a very well-known international organization, cited by numerous sources (on Google Books and Google Scholar)—sources that were evidently not taken into account during the AFD (in which only two opinions in favor of deletion were expressed). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Endorse — I see nothing procedurally wrong with this more than one year old closure. If you believe an article could stand on its own two legs, you are free to start a draft, and potentially to ask for a WP:REFUND to use the contents of the deleted page. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 22:26, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
Endorse. The close reflected the consensus of the discussion, there was no other possible way to close the discussion. Katzrockso (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2026 (UTC)reply

6 November 2026

William Entriken (closed)

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

[It's in the history if anybody really wants to wade through three thousand words of slop. —Cryptic 06:04, 6 November 2026 (UTC)]reply

[Having read the AI slop, it isn't worth reading the AI slop. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2026 (UTC)]reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Core Security Technologies

Core Security Technologies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|revisions|restore)

On 2026 Jan 5, User:SecuriDAD1992 made an edit that, unless I am missing something, is incorrect, indicating that "Core Security by HelpSystems" changed its name to "Fortra". However, the cited source indicates that the parent company, HelpSystems, rebranded as Fortra, and makes no mention of Core Security.

On 23 September 2026, User:331dot, presumably mislead by this false statement in the article, opened an AfD, stating, in part, "Fortra purchased CSS and rebranded it to Fortra". This discussion concluded in a decision to merge it into Fortra, without much rationale beyond its supposed renaming.

Almost half an hour ago, I fixed the article, and am now requesting that the AfD decision be reconsidered. The content of the two articles is almost entirely separate, and I don't think merging them would work well: if most of the content is copied, that would give this subsidiary undue weight, and otherwise we'd be removing sourced content for no clear reason.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Relist. The arguments to merge are weak (and apparently some of them confusedly incorrect) and the appeal here presents a good case. The editor with a COI presents a reasonable point too - there are many subsidiaries of Fortra. Relist to allow for further discussion on these points. Katzrockso (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Endorse. Which entity changed its name is immaterial to the editorial decision. The fact remains that Core Security doesn't meet NCORP, so if it can't be merged, the page should be deleted. The appellant says, if most of the content is copied, that would give this subsidiary undue weight; that's correct, which is why most of the content should not be copied. Core Security should be covered by a brief mention at the target. WP:UNDUE in this case is a reason to change a merge to a redirect, not to a keep. Owen× ☎ 14:57, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    Nobody in the discussion suggested that Core Security didn't meet NCORP, so it's unclear why that would be a relevant consideration. The nominator suggested the merge target (Fortra) didn't meet NCORP. Katzrockso (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Relist Core Security may not meet NCORP, but this was a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. A relist would allow for a better discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    It seems the appellant is looking for an overturn to Keep, so NCORP is very much relevant. Are you expecting the relist to end in a Delete outcome? Owen× ☎ 18:33, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    I'm struggling with the concept that since we've moved merges to AfD, that delete could be a possible outcome for a merge discussion. (Struggling with the concept in general honestly.) If you previously proposed a merge, the results were either merged, not merged, or no consensus/not merged. Now every option is on the table and notability is one of the first things you check for. So perhaps I'm arguing against previous consensus, but I just feel like a relist would allow for a 'not merge' or 'no consensus/not merged' result, followed by an AfD. Perhaps this isn't considered an efficient use of time anymore. I just think it would make the discussions better. SportingFlyer T·C 12:39, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    I agree with this course of action. My recollection from a quick look was that this subsidiary was farther from meeting NCORP than its parent, but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a fair shake at AFD. Notably, there was functionally no quorum: one "per nom" vote, my vote commenting mostly on the substance of the merge target, and a COI editor. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Weak Endorse as a valid judgment call by the closer. I would have preferred a Relist, but there was no error by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    There was a procedural error in the discussion, in that it was based on a false/erroneous statement by the nomination. All the subsequent votes are tainted by that. Katzrockso (talk) 03:07, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    There was no procedural error. One of the participants--namely, the nom--made an incorrect statement about the subject. An incorrect statement by an AfD participant has never been enough to invalidate the entire AfD, and it certainly is not a procedural error. Owen× ☎ 12:54, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
    If every !vote in the AfD was based on that incorrect statement, then the closer has no choice but to discard all the votes. Katzrockso (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply
  • Relist — New information has emerged since the closure that could reasonably have influenced the outcome of the discussion, that is a good reason to relist. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 22:20, 7 November 2026 (UTC)reply

Recent discussions

  • (None at this time)

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2026 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1381254645"