Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard

For bot-related matters:
Bots noticeboard

Evaluating consensus before closing:
Discussions for discussion

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

Shortcut

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.
Shortcut

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. to request undeletion of a page 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).

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions

Shortcut

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
2.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
3.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2025 December 11}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

4.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 December 11}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 December 11|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

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

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

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

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

Closing reviews

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

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

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

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

Speedy closes

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

11 December 2025

10 December 2025

Royalnasty (closed)

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

I believe this is a BADNAC and should have been relisted or closed by an admin. The whole discussion also reeks of UPE, in my view. If everyone here feels the same way, then I think we should relist this. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Evan Luthra (closed)

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

The Subject Evan Luthra has been appointed twice the Minister of IT for Liberland. and I feel this makes him borderline notable enough to have a mainspace article on WP. Here are the sources of him being appointed Minister of IT [1] [2] my purpose behind opening this DRV is that I see him passing WP:NPOL and I feel a consensus over the same will make a clearer decision Thanks Suryabeej   ⋠talk⋡ 10:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse this clearly falls under WP:FRINGE to the point where it could be speedily closed. SportingFlyer T·C 11:21, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The page was unanimously deleted at AfD twice. Of the two sources presented here by the appellant, one is primary, from the Liberland government, and the other is more than likely a pay-to-play NEWSORGINDIA. "Minister of IT" of an unrecognized micronation? I bet you can score a Liberland Minister of Public Relations position with a small donation and an "overturn" vote here. With all due respect, what the appellant feels about borderline notability has no bearing here. Owen× ☎ 14:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse but the nomination reads like it was AI generated. However, the lack of notability appears proved and the sources offered her are less credible than the ones found wantimg in the nomination. Spartaz Humbug! 19:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - This is a frivolous request. The close was correct, but the appellant is not challenging the close, but seeking to reopen based on new information. Such requests are often made in good-faith error based on the thinking that they should go to DRV, but we shoulod not care whether he is said to be a cabinet minister of a self-designated micronation. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 December 2025

User:201.141.106.52/MP-68

User:201.141.106.52/MP-68 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

page was deleted erroneously. did i not specifically specify to not delete the page under G8, because the (most recent) target was being deleted to make way for a move. Oreocooke (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oreocooke, this page has no substantive history; it has 5 deleted revisions with a max of 160 bytes (!) of content. What is your interest in undeleting it? Sandstein 12:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
let me clarify some things: while the page does not need to exist, it was erroneously deleted. Oreocooke (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

8 December 2025

Mohamed Bentiba

Mohamed Bentiba (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi, This is about an international footballer who played in the Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 for over ten seasons and played for one of the biggest clubs in the country and on the continent, MC Oran (links: El Heddaf[3], Radio Algeria[4], Eurosport[5], Liberté[6], DZfoot[7], Compétition[8]). He is also an international player who has represented Algeria U23 team (Liberté) and Algeria A' national team (La Gazette du Fennec, FAF official website "archives"). Best regards. Fayçal.09 (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Bentiba. As closer, I note that this does not address the reason for which the AfD was closed as "delete", i.e., nobody in cited specific reliable in-depth coverage establishing notability. If in the estimation of the appellant the sources now provided are enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, they remain free to recreate the article, but no argument to that effect has been made either in the AfD or in this appeal. Sandstein 11:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised this was deleted, but I !voted. I should have done a better job of presenting sources as the problem with the discussion is that it assumed all of the coverage presented in the AfD was the extent of the coverage. Still, just to give a flavour of what is available, competition.dz alone has almost 50 articles where his full name is mentioned at least once, many including a paragraph of coverage such as [9] [10] [11]. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. I see no problem with the close. The Deletes carried more P&G weight, and the damning source assessment table wasn't adequately rebutted. The fact that the two relisters were hoping for a clearer consensus, and the only subsequent !vote was a Keep (not based on P&G!), doesn't mean the discussion was trending anywhere or lacked consensus. But as always, if new sources have since been found, I have no objection to REFUNDing to draft to improve the page. Owen× ☎ 16:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Faycal.09: or @SportingFlyer:, any chance of suggesting the best WP:THREE sources? Given how the AfD went, Sandstein really closed it the only way possible. I'm not willing to explicitly endorse the last comments there, which conclusorily claim that once someone has "played" a source assessment table card, that source assessment table needs to be explicitly countered with an improved one to "count". But it seems sourcing was insufficient, a lot of arguments were barking up the wrong tree (where he's played rather than sourcing), and SportingFlyer's wait-this-can't-be-right argument was deemed unpersuasive by 3 others. It seems there's no lack of sources overall, just not clear if enough independent, in-depth ones. So whether someone wants to incubate a draft, or wants a blessing here (based on "new information") first, what are the 2-3 best sources will come up anyway. I can see us overturning this here if 3 clear GNG-qualifying sources are present in all of the above, allowing recreation, or refunding to draft to improve if it's close but debatable. Not volunteering, since I know nothing about football. Martinp (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    which conclusorily claim that once someone has 'played' a source assessment table card, that source assessment table needs to be explicitly countered with an improved one to 'count' - I hope that wasn't implied by my comment, Martinp. My point was that a meticulous, mindful source assessment cannot be dismissed with a generic, "I see lots of coverage" or "Over 50 fully pro appearances". Owen× ☎ 17:25, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @OwenX:, not at all implied by your comment. But it was implied by one of the final comments at the AfD. I agree with your point. Martinp (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Martinp, the problem here is that there are lots of articles about him, over his entire career, and many of them are borderline for notability in the sense that we would understand it, but the fact he was covered does show notability. That being said, Libertie Algerie has written a few good articles directly on him: [12] [13] [14]. There are also additional articles in Arabic, as I mentioned in the AfD, but I can't access those now since the article has been deleted.
    The problem with a source review is that it is always presented as definitive, but there are dozens of articles written about this player. Obviously not all of them are good for GNG, there are a lot of published interviews, but he's definitely had lots of normal coverage as would be expected for a notable player in Algeria. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These Liberté Algerie sources seem enough, and (as you say) there are probably others. Therefore allow recreation and refund to draftspace to allow those and similar-calibre new sources to be incorporated. Others here are recommending going through the AfC process from there֫. That is a safe, but possibly lengthy process. Based on the sources found by SportingFlyer, I'd see nothing wrong with someone taking a risk and moving directly to mainspace once the article is improved, with in-depth independent sources prominent and not lost in a wall of trivial mentions. But I'd encourage proponents to be sure the draft is ready before doing that, and AfC is a solid choice for ensuring that if they are not confident of their read of policy. Martinp (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll adopt it and source it if refunded to draftspace. SportingFlyer T·C 11:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and Allow recreation ideally through AFC so the sources can be evaluated. There was no error in the close. --Enos733 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but WP:REFUND so the applicant can write a better version. Seems like a fair close but it also seems like there are sources to be evaluated. If the applicant adds appropriate refs and rewrites the context, I think the encyclopedia would be improved. If someone wants to argue about the sources afterwards, they can then do so. JMWt (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable assessment of consensus. The only keep !vote that held any weight was Sporting's as the others were based on criteria depreciated by WP:NSPORT2022. And Spiderone's source analysis table was not adequately refuted. That said, refund to draft to allow interested editors to improve the article, ideally through the AFC process. Frank Anchor 20:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the right close of the AFD, and Allow Submission of Draft. Sporting Flyer writes: The problem with a source review is that it is always presented as definitive. It should be definitive with regard to the article that is being considered for deletion. It is not definitive about the topic. I think that we are in agreement about that distinction. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. The person doing the source analysis may mis-analyse a source, the table does not include sources not yet identified, and the table creates an air of authority. Note I'm not arguing they aren't useful. SportingFlyer T·C 11:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SportingFlyer is right, in that what I wrote was poorly worded. A source analysis should be intended by the reviewer to be definitive about the article as it is at the time that the table is written. I agree that the other reviewers in the AFD should consider whether the analysis really is definitive based both on whether they agree with the analysis and whether new sources are added. I think that we still agree to endorse the close and to allow submission of a new draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or relist, whichever. I'm going to get outvoted here, and that's OK, but the principle stands that SportingFlyer noted more sources were available, no one rebutted them--in fact, one respondent just pointed to the previous source analysis table as if it were complete--and they were, in fact, both extant and worth discussing. The BEFORE obligation to bring sources belongs to the nominator, who didn't. There were two relists in which time none of those arguing for deletion found the sources which SportingFlyer had, analyzed them, and presented findings in the discussion. To say that the one !vote which referenced these new sources wasn't P&G based is necessarily ABFing that that editor had not viewed the stated sources. WP:NONENG certainly applied, as well. Overall, SportingFlyer has admitted a more thorough listing of the sources identified during the discussion would have been ideal, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that this was a notability discussion and NEXIST clearly applied. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens:, there is merit in your arguments. My thinking mirrored them, but I reached a different conclusion. Now that @SportingFlyer: has pointed to 3 pretty good sources (above), it is clear we have an instance of a frequent, unfortunate pattern. 1) An article gets written, with many but weak sources. 2) Someone (in this case @Svartner:) considers NEXIST, looks for better sources, doesn't find them due to needle in haystack problem, nominates for deletion. 3) Discussion is loud on inadequacy of current sourcing and (as in this case) non-policy-relevant matters. 4) Someone (here SportingFlyer) does find better sources, but doesn't articulate it compellingly in the AfD. 5) Discussion ignores their contribution and spirals. 6) Closer assesses discussion that did happen accurately, rather than discussion that could have happened, and concludes Delete. There is indeed consensus, it just turns out to be wrong -- since everyone did a B+ job in the discussion and no-one stepped up to do a A-grade job. However, given where we've ended up, I don't think a NC overturn or relist now would help. There was a consensus, and another relist would at best just rehash what has been said here at DRV. I think a refund to Draft, improving the article including adding the meaningfully better sources (which SportingFlyer has offered to do), and then a move to mainspace, whether directly once G4-proof, or via AfC, is the best outcome. I think we actually too often have much worse instances of this pattern, where someone explicitly gives better sources in the AfD and gets completely ignored; here Sporting didn't get around to doing that at the time. Martinp (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could the article be temp undeleted? The AfD was a bit handwavy regarding the sources so I would like to know if such sources were in the article in question. Jumpytoo Talk 06:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the undeleted article I see no blatant error by the participants of ignoring sources so I would Endorse. But given the request for drafting, refund to draftspace and allow recreation through the normal process. Jumpytoo Talk 17:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not impressed by the mendacious old-afd banner that was on the talk page. —Cryptic 13:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That does indeed raise questions. @Faycal.09, can you explain why in this edit all the way back in 2012, you created the article talk page with a link to an apparently non-existent AfD "keep" outcome? Sandstein 09:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh no, not at all. In 2012, when I created the article, the link definitely existed. I think there's currently a problem with the link; sometimes it's visible, and sometimes it isn't. Moreover, the link was able to be viewed. because a comment about the link was added in the table included on the removal request page (edit here). Fayçal.09 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4 December 2025

Net Zero Conference

Net Zero Conference (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was also nominated for Speedy Deletion and subsequently deleted as the nominator said it fell under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. However, I would respectfully argue that they are not unambiguous advertising and do not fall under this criterion. I made sure everything included was a fact with a citation to back it up. I did not include any promotional adjectives or "flowery" language as far as I can tell.

The user who nominated them seemed convinced that I was being paid, but I am not and am not sure how else to prove this. The user stated that since I uploaded a logo as my own work that it proves that I work for them. However, I did that by mistake as I am still new to editing and am not sure how I did it. I mentioned that if I was actually a paid editor, it would be pretty silly of me to mark something as my own work, so in a backwards way, I hope it actually shows that I have no association with them. There was quite a bit of back and forth about it on my talk page, User talk: jonasstaff, where another user seemed to believe me. I am happy to go into any further detail. Jonasstaff (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Decline to hear. I don't buy the whole by mistake as I am still new to editing story. The appellant has a checkered history of copyvio and likely-UPE promotional content creation, and received a littany of warnings. Either they lied about the logo being their own work, or else thy're lying about being unrelated to the subject. It's clear that they'll say whatever they need to say to get their articles published, veracity be damned. A quick review of their contributions suggests that this should be handled over at COIN or ANI, not DRV. Owen× ☎ 00:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Jonasstaff:, what made you discover Verdical Group and Net Zero Conference and make you want to write about it? Jumpytoo Talk 03:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone please temp undelete for review. Appellant does seem to have had challenges creating appropriately sourced, non-promo-toned articles in the past. Some of their drafts have not made it into main space, some have been deleted, but also some have made it through AfC and even been kept after discussion at AfD. This particular article was marked reviewed in 2024 by @Trainsskyscrapers:, so someone at some point thought it was ok in mainspace. While concerns about appellant's writing and potential COIs definitely remain, the highly unfortunate tone of @Praxidicae:'s responses on the appellant's talk page to @Asilvering:'s pushback lead me to be willing to at least entertain the possibility the paid-COI concerns are more heat than light, and the speedy (and others' "decline to hear") have been affected by poisoning of the well. So while I have my doubts we will ultimately overturn here, I think it's appropriate to take a proper look whether G11 was warranted, focusing on article subject and content rather than anyone's conduct. Martinp (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's quite unlikely that the appelant does not have a COI, and the page was moved to mainspace without going through AFC, so I don't think it should be in mainspace either. The sources are poor; there are two whole sections that should simply be removed. But it's clearly not unambiguously promotional in terms of language, and I think it was an error for BusterD to delete it as such. Buster, would you consider undeleting this one and moving it to draftspace? @Jonasstaff will then have to get it through review, at the least. -- asilvering (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the temp undelete. Having now reviewed, I agree a) this shouldn't be in mainspace in its current state, b) it's not blatantly promotional enough to qualify under G11, c) it and the whole cluster smells of COI. If we want to follow process, we ought to oveturn the speedy and send to AFD; have a painful discussion there on notability, sourcing, promotional tone, and likely COI; decide (could go either way) to delete or move to draft; and (if delete) force appellant to ask for a refund to draftspace, which may or may not be granted based on how that COI discussion goes. Or we could just short-circuit the process and restore to draft and be done here. If people want, they can work on it there and see if it will pass through AfC. It will take a lot of work and I'm just not sure the notability is there, but they can (harmlessly) try there. Martinp (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the, yes, fundamental promotion, these are both subarticles of Verdical Group (AfD discussion). —Cryptic 14:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the G11, because the removal of the promotional material will not leave enough to make a credible claim of significance. Maybe this should have been deleted as a combination of G11 and A7, but that would be an unnecessary distinction. I haven't seen Verdical Group and so don't know whether G4 might also apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There is no article left after the promotional material is removed. I find the claim of no COI unconvincing. Aside from the logo, there is also the claim of "own work" on c:File:Net Zero Conference founder, Drew Shula, keynoting the 2024 event at the Anaheim Convention Center.jpg. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm really confused by some of the above comments. Neither A7 or G11 apply to this article. It is not unambiguously promotional - we have seen far worse than this, typically full of of puffery, flattery, and weazel words. Where is that here? It contains a credible claim of significance, which is a far lower standard than notability (being one of the largest conferences on this topic). If the concern is that the conference isn't notable, that's an AfD concern. OwenX raises some valid concerns about this but I don't think in this case it justifies going out of process. Local Variable (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Think of it this way - it would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become an actual encyclopedia article. Promotional doesn't mean puffery, flattery, and weasel words - it means the only intent is to promote, and the fact this could be a web page for the conference clearly makes it a G11. SportingFlyer T·C 09:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer, that's not what WP:G11 says. The wording is, in fact, crucial: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. -- asilvering (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't specifically quoting G11. It should also be noted that the text you cite doesn't mean that the article is written using neutral language, it means that the article is written from a neutral point of view, which this one is not. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it need to be fundamentally re-written? A common theme of these kinds of borderline G11 calls is this quagmire: the things that appear promotional are the very same things that provide a claim of significance necessary for it to clear A7. If they were removed, the response would be "well, why does this justify an article on Wikipedia?". Local Variable (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you'd lose all of the keynote speakers and award winners, and once you start thinning out acceptable sources there's nothing left. A7 is a really low bar. SportingFlyer T·C 18:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If we're going to hear this at DRV, it's a crystal clear WP:G11. I don't even see one good source. SportingFlyer T·C 09:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Endorse deletion. It may not meet the strict requirements of WP:G11, but it is the product of a WP:COI editor, and it is WP:Reference bombed starting with non-independent references. Without improvement, it would certainly be deleted or draftified via WP:AfD.
Strongly advise the proponents to read and follow advice at WP:THREE.
- SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It appears to be WP:PROMO, and I am highly skeptical about the author's claim they are not a paid editor due to their ongoing pattern of issues. While the page doesn't necessarily have puffery-type language, WP:REFBOMBing pages to seem notable is also a type of spam, which is certainly demonstrated here. A few good sources would've been more useful than 23 poor ones. The author has had more than enough time to think about what they may be doing wrong or need to improve to seem like they are on the level. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11, as a technicality. Not exclusively promotional as required by the policy. While the majority of the article would need a re-write, There is some descriptive content which is not written in a promotional tone. Move to draft space because there is zero chance this article would be kept in an AFD and that would just be a waste of everyone's time. This will allow time for any interested editor to re-write in a more neutral tone and to find better references if available. Frank Anchor 21:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redraftify Thank you everyone for your comments. I am enthusiastic about green building and sustainability and believe this article is important, but I can understand the need for better sources to show notability. I am only asking for the article to be moved back to my draft space. I worked hard on the article and just want the chance to improve it as I believe I've found some better sources. I do struggle with how to show notability and significance without being "promotional". Aren't a person/company's accomplishments how you show that they deserve a place on Wikipedia? Regardless, I am happy to go through the AfC process and will read all the articles that people have suggested here to better understand how to have a proper article for the main space! Jonasstaff (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Three questions for @Jonasstaff:
    1. You mention you believe you've found some better sources. Is there a reason why you haven't shared those sources with us during the six days since you filed this appeal?
    2. In April, you uploaded a photo you took of Drew Shula at the 2024 Net Zero Conference, apparently taken from a front-row seat. What was your role in that conference?
    3. is your username related in any way to Mr. Jonah Swick, a key organizer of the Net Zero Conferences, or is this just a random coincidence?
    Owen× ☎ 19:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your questions. Here are the answers below:
    1. I didn't know I was supposed to provide more sources. Since the article was deleted, I was just waiting to see if the article would make it back into drafts to add the sources. Is that not the correct process?
    2. The Net Zero Conference is a public event and I've been really interested in green building, so I decided to attend the event. This is how I know of the conference and decided to write an article about it.
    3. No, I've never heard of Jonah Swick. I just googled the name and it looks like he was a past speaker?
    Jonasstaff (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your answers, Jonasstaff. Re: I was just waiting to see if the article would make it back into drafts to add the sources. Is that not the correct process? - That is entirely up to you. But presenting such sources, if they exist, would certainly go a long way towards establishing your position. Otherwise, this just comes across as an empty WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Owen× ☎ 22:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Shula (closed)

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

This page was nominated for Speedy Deletion and subsequently deleted as the nominator said it fell under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. However, I would respectfully argue that they are not unambiguous advertising and do not fall under this criterion. I made sure everything included was a fact with a citation to back it up. I did not include any promotional adjectives or "flowery" language as far as I can tell.

The user who nominated them seemed convinced that I was being paid, but I am not and am not sure how else to prove this. The user stated that since I uploaded a logo as my own work that it proves that I work for them. However, I did that by mistake as I am still new to editing and am not sure how I did it. I mentioned that if I was actually a paid editor, it would be pretty silly of me to mark something as my own work, so in a backwards way, I hope it actually shows that I have no association with them. There was quite a bit of back and forth about it on my talk page, User talk: jonasstaff, where another user seemed to believe me. I am happy to go into any further detail. Jonasstaff (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Decline to hear - see above. Owen× ☎ 00:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temp undelete for review, at Draft:Drew_Shula. Appellant created page in Draft space, then moved it to mainspace. It was moved back from mainspace to Draftspace as not ready, and then deleted 12 hours later from Draftspace under G11. As in the discussion immediately above, while the appellant's/draft creator's article creation history is not stellar (and unilaterally moving from Draft to mainspace can backfire...), they have in the past successfully incubated drafts into mainspace, the tone of some discussions of the creator's talk page make me worry about poisoning the well, and as a community we have a habit of occasionally being overaggressive with G11 in draftspace. So let's take a quick 2nd look whether a G11 speedy from draftspace was really appropriate. Maybe it was, but enough going on to take a look. Martinp (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the temp undelete. Having reviewed, overturn G11, restore to Draft, require AfC before moving back to mainspace. Far from ready for mainspace, and subject to the same issues as Net Zero Conference being reviewed above, and Verdical Group mentioned there. But draftspace is the right place for people to figure out if there is something here. @Jonasstaff:, I'm choosing to assume good faith about your editing pattern, but the nature of your editing here seems highly suspect, and the outcome is just not meeting the standards (tone, sourcing, notability) needed for mainspace. If you do have a COI, you should stop. If you don't, and are editing in this topic area purely out of enthusiasm, then realize that you need to get a lot more familiar with our norms for your drafts to "stick", and it seems very likely that quite a few of your article ideas just do not qualify. Martinp (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. There is some promotional language in this draft, and I doubt that the creator will be able to get this through AfC review, but that's what we have AFC for. It's not nearly so bad that it should have been G11'd in draftspace. -- asilvering (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn the G11 to restore to Draft:Drew Shula. This draft will not pass notability, but drafts are not deleted for lack of notability, only declined for lack of notability. This will be a useless draft, and we should Leave Useless Drafts Alone. This would be a clear G11 in article space, but the promotion is not blatant enough for a G11 in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The appellant writes: I did not include any promotional adjectives or "flowery" language as far as I can tell. That sort of statement is characteristic of a conflict of interest editor who is working to avoid showing their conflict of interest. A neutral editor doesn't need to try to avoid being flowery. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After three years of observing the editing process, an editor should have learned to avoid obvious mistakes. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The G11 was in draft space, so I'm happy to re-draftify, but I can't see this person ever passing an AfD after a before search and there appears to be a COI interest, so I'm also happy with just keeping it deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 18:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redraftify Thank you everyone for your comments. I am enthusiastic about green building and sustainability and believe this article is important, but I can understand the need for better sources to show notability. I am only asking for the article to be moved back to my draft space. I worked hard on the article and just want the chance to improve it as I believe I've found some better sources. I do struggle with how to show notability and significance without being "promotional". Aren't a person/company's accomplishments how you show that they deserve a place on Wikipedia? Regardless, I am happy to go through the AfC process and will read all the articles that people have suggested here to better understand how to have a proper article for the main space! Jonasstaff (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Recent discussions

2 December 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Country data Quisling regime (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This template that I created was deleted under the rationale that the Quisling regime itself was not a country, and also that the flag had never been officially used by the Norwegian government at anytime in history. While the latter part is true and was an oversight on my part, I don't agree with the decision to delete based on the fact that the Quisling regime wasn't a country. There are plenty of country datas that are used to refer to specific regimes in specific countries even if said regime didn't exist as a country in their own right (see Template:Country data Vargas Era, Template:Country data Orontid dynasty, Template:Country data Military dictatorship of Chile, Template:Country data Empire of Japan, Template:Country data Greek junta, Template:Country data Allied-occupied Germany, Template:Country data Duvalier family, Template:Country data Fascist Italy, Template:Country data Ba'athist Iraq, Template:Country data Ba'athist Syria, and Template:Country data Chetniks, plus subnational entities such as Template:Country data Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, Template:Country data Utah, Template:Country data Northern Ireland, and Template:Country data Rome. Per this 2017 RM, the template clearly isn't meant to just be used for countries. With these years of precedent, I don't think that a deletion based on the fact that there was no country called the "Quisling Regime" should have occurred; it would have been better to have just altered the flag. — Knightoftheswords 05:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Deletion review is not a second round of XfD; it is not for making arguments that should have been made in XfD but were not made there. There are no procedural flaws in this "delete" closure of an unanimous TfD. Sandstein 06:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A close of delete was the only reasonable close of the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - We know that DRV is not AFD Round 2. DRV is also not TFD Round 2. The close was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Tentative endorse. I generally agree with the others above. However, experience has shown that poorly attended discussions about highly specialized "innards" of Wikipedia can make for uninformed decisions, and if that has happened here, we should be willing to overturn. I'm not saying it did happen, but it could have. Can someone (appellant?) explain what these templates are used for, and what generally determines what regime(?) they are meaningful for? And ideally let's hear some uninvolved voices (about this one instance) but experienced in the area of using these templates more generally. Absent such voices, I'm endorsing, but happy to change my mind and !vote Relist if someone explains why this was a hasty/uninformed decision, how the encyclopedia would be being harmed (e.g. by creating a gap in some articles where use of this template would be parallel to ones for other regimes being discussed?) by letting it stand, and therefore that a longer discussion with additional, better informed voices would be helpful. Martinp (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Werklig (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article draft was neutrally written, well sourced with multiple independent and reliable references, and submitted through Articles for Creation. It contained no promotional language and therefore did not qualify for CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion), which it had been flagged under. Drafts under AfC aren't normally subject to G11 unless they are unsalvageable or pure spam, which this wasn't. Following COI rules, a clear conflict-of-interest disclosure was provided on the Talk page. Requesting undeletion so that the draft can proceed through the standard AfC review process. Esa Matinvesi (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Temporarily undeleted for review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Looking at the undeleted version there was no hope for this article. Fully promotional and no sources were even close to meeting WP:SIRS. Recommend appellant to read WP:BOSS and heed that advice. Jumpytoo Talk 04:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: Sure, the draft is promotional and has sourcing issues, but I don't know if it's in G11 territory, as it has some neutral information in it. I think the appellant should have been given the chance fix it, rather than be forced to start over from scratch. I won't comment on notability, as drafts aren't checked for that, and this Deletion Review isn't about whether the draft should have been accepted. Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, that was clearly eligible under G11, but I wouldn't have used it on a draft article. SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I see pages like this in CAT:G11 that on the surface have neutral(ish) diction but obviously cherry-picked content, I typically don't speedy it myself, but remove the promotional parts - here, it'd be everything but the lead - and leave it tagged for another admin to reassess. It's been literal years since such a page wasn't speedied anyway, though. —Cryptic 11:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and optionally send to MFD. Much of it is written in the tone of an advertisement, but it is not not exclusively promotional, as required by G11. This draft can be improved without having to fundamentally rewrite it. Frank Anchor 16:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn. I agree with Chess enjoyer and Frank Anchor that this was not unequivocally exclusively promotional and requiring a complete rewrite. And Draftspace is exactly where we incubate drafts like this without excessive deletion zeal on tone, notability, or immediately sufficient quality of sourcing (or let those dratts harmlessly expire if such issues don't get fixed). That said, @Esa Matinvesi:, what you have experienced here is a demonstration of the heightened sensitivity here about promotional articles and editors with a conflict of interest. The current state of your draft is far from the level of multiple independent sources that would meaningfully cover the company in a way acceptable for a mainspace article, and it is far from clear there is enough notability to warrant an article at all. I'd suggest rather than mildly improving and AfC submitting, you do a lot of reading on our approach to sourcing, notability, and COI, and I think if you get a future version of this draft through AfC, it will look very different. Sufficiently different that I'm not sure keeping this will actually be that helpful, but that is not for me to prejudge. Martinp (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as moot. I agree that this deletion did not adhere the letter of G11. But the author's rush to AfC, and his self-assessment of the draft presented in this appeal, makes it clear he'd only be wasting AfC's time with premature submissions at this point. He now has access to the draft in the history, and can continue working on it offline, while familiarizing himself with NCORP and SIGCOV, creating a new draft when he is better equipped to do so. I see no value in restoring the draft just to decline it. We may as well treat this appeal as a request to access the deleted content, which has now been granted. Owen× ☎ 17:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 November 2025

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

Requesting review due to procedural issues (collapsed keep rationale, misapplied policies). Full explanation below. Lebootimes (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC) I am requesting review of the closure of the AfD for Ali R. Jaber. I believe the result should be overturned or relisted because the discussion had multiple procedural and substantive problems that affected the outcome.[reply]

1. A major keep vote was collapsed as “AI-generated,” and then excluded from consensus. The keep rationale addressed sourcing, policy citations, use of WP:AUTHOR, WP:NEWSORG, and WP:NONENG. It was collapsed based on the AI template, even though the points themselves were sourced, policy-based, and verifiable. That collapse materially altered the weight of the discussion and removed the only detailed policy argument on the “keep” side.

2. Several delete votes relied on misapplications of policy. Multiple participants dismissed Lebanese and Arabic-language outlets as unreliable solely due to being regional or having minimal “About” pages. That is not supported by WP:NEWSORG or WP:NONENG. Regional, non-English sources are routinely accepted for non-controversial biography. Reliability was rejected based on assumptions rather than policy.

3. WP:AUTHOR was applied incorrectly. The expectation of international-level reviews (such as Al Jazeera, The National, Banipal, etc.) is not part of the AUTHOR guideline. Several delete votes argued that only formal book reviews count, or that WP:AUTHOR requires the level of coverage of major award-winning writers. That is not what WP:AUTHOR requires. The subject had multiple independent, non-trivial secondary sources covering the author and his works.

4. Key sources were repeatedly mischaracterized. Bimawdou3ia, SpotLeb, Kawalees, LebTalks, and CBHerald were described as “promotional,” “PR,” or “unreliable” without evidence of syndication, paid placement, or copying. Several are authored feature articles with narrative reporting. These were dismissed based on speculation.

5. The AfD became dominated by a single line of argument, and later voters simply cited earlier comments without adding new policy reasoning. The later delete votes were brief endorsements of the same argument. This created the appearance of unanimity without independent evaluation of sources.

6. The closure did not address the procedural irregularity. Because the only detailed keep argument was collapsed, the closer evaluated a discussion that was not balanced. The collapse directly influenced the apparent consensus used for closing.

Request: I ask that the deletion be overturned or the AfD be reopened/relisted so that participants can evaluate the sourcing and policies without the collapsed keep rationale being removed from visibility. The article had multiple independent sources, and the core issue was not discussed with complete information after the collapse.

Thank you for your time. Lebootimes (talk) 05:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: not exactly a boomerang, but a case could likely be added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nicolina Altera. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
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=1320957679"