Wikipedia:Deletion review

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.


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 significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. 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);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. 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);
  4. 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);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.

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


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


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:

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

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

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2023 February 3}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


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=2023 February 3}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2023 February 3|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.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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. 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 finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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
  • 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 nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".

3 February 2023

Ferrari Challenge

Ferrari Challenge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn to keep - An attempt to discuss with the closer, Daniel (and another editor, 78.26 who posted first to endorse the close) was met with Drmies using profanity towards me before the closer could respond, so he simply referred me to here. I will paste my original comment from the closer's talk page:

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Obviously, I'm INVOLVED, but I don't see how it can be closed as anything other than keep. None of the delete/redirect !voters did much of anything to explain how the links posted by 5225C and Jovanmilic97 didn't meet GNG; Drmies attempted, but using phrases like The second, the Italian source, it's better (while also misrepresenting the scope of the article, which he later doubled down on when corrected by HumanBodyPiloter5) and The fourth, from Racer, that's OK doesn't come off to me as very dismissive of them.

It has nothing to do with wanting vindication of the article in the state it is in. But AfD is not cleanup and GNG is not concerned with whether the sources are present in the article, but whether they exist (please correct me if I'm wrong here). - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 04:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • (Invloved) Overturn to keep - This was one of the most bizarre deletion discussions I've been involved in (admittedly not that many). Firstly you have the repeated BLARing (by an admin) rather than simply following the recommendations of WP:BLAR (which thankfully the nom did do). Then the very strange rationales/comments given which at times didn't relate to this article (eg "The article's subject is not a car, it's a race.") ignoring of WP:NOTCLEANUP, and a failure to refute that the sources presented met GNG. Some users cited WP:TNT, but that states "Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up" and thus doesn't really apply in this instance. And finally the close which looks nothing like someone interpreting consensus, but everything like someone giving their own view on the state of the article (and I don't see how this close is valid anyway, what "procedure" was an issue here?). I !voted to keep this article, and I really can't see how someone can honestly say they did not see a consensus to keep. A7V2 (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (Involved) Overturn to keep - While I do agree to a significant degree with the concerns that this article is poorly structured and unclear in scope, WP:NOTCLEANUP applies and WP:GNG has been clearly demonstrated just through a quick search of recent sources that are easily accessible online, let alone the thirty-odd years of less-easily accessible coverage the subject has in print sources. I have no idea why this would be closed as anything other than keep, or at least an WP:ATD like draftifying that would keep the edit history. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to keep - as an uninvolved editor, I don't believe the closer has reflected consensus nor policy in unilaterally deciding what will happen at a following AfD. I accept that many of the sources are not independent, however it is hard to see how they could be anything other than they are given that the information about races and drivers comes from a database held by the organisers. Where else is this information to come from? That's not an indication of clean-up to me. There are sufficient sources to show notability. I can't see that there is any problem here that requires solving. JMWt (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to keep the procedural close result reads to me like a WP:SUPERVOTE. Ther e was clear consensus to keep and that WP:GNG had been met. Frank Anchor 18:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1 February 2023

747 Uppingham–Leicester

747 Uppingham–Leicester (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Firstly the rationale Non-notable bus route with no significant history to make it worth retaining. is flawed as it asserts the route is not notable but doesn't explain why. Worth retaining is a strange comment as there's no size limit to Wikipedia. We don't have to pick and choose what to "retain".

I put forward a source assessment table that demonstrates that the article passed WP:GNG.

The delete voters largely use terms like "run-of-the-mill" and "routine" but fail to cite any policies or guidelines. Some mistakenly cite WP:ROUTINE which is inappropriate as it refers to events. Then there is the mistake that "local" coverage is not valid, it absolutely is. GNG does not exclude local coverage.

Terms like "non-enclyclopedic" and "interesting" were used which are just opinions and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While WP:IAR exists, one must put forward an argument for how deleting content improves Wikipedia, and nobody did.

Overturn to keep or no consensus. Garuda3 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Overturn to merge to Uppingham#Buses (or any other target suggested, I think this was the best one presented in the AFD). Or relist to see if consensus on a merge target can be achieved. The keep and merge votes demonstrated there is some notability, even if not enough for a standalone article. None of the delete votes stated an opposition to merging. Frank Anchor 21:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Frank Anchor, like I said in the closing statement, I've got absolutely no objection to facilitating a merge, if some consensus can be developed on whether such a merge could happen and where it ought to go. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your closing statement was a very good assessment of the discussion. However, it is far more likely that such a continued discussion to gain consensus on a potential merge target would occur if there is a venue for the discussion, such as a relisted AFD, the article's talk page, or the talk page of the merge target (and restored history would make it easier to facilitate this discussion). Frank Anchor 13:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. As per the AfD outcome. GNG was deemed to have not been met by a number of contributors (except the article creator themselves), even when closely analysing the sources' reliability and depth of coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Where do people say that, and how do they back their comments up? You can't just claim "the coverage is too local" without actually pointing to the bit in GNG that excludes local coverage (which as far as I know, doesn't exist) Garuda3 (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Most participants did not agree that the four near-identical items of news coverage of how the local government decided to keep funding the bus service for another year, which is coverage of an event, presents significant coverage of the subject, and so deletion gained significantly more support; merger ideas did not provide clarity on how the target article would benefit from the added content. Later !votes were exclusively to delete which means that the closer was reasonable to believe that further relisting would not produce more clarity regarding merging. —Alalch E. 15:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse it's entirely reasonable for the participants to decide that a few fairly short pieces in UK local newspapers (which are of dubious reliability) covering the same funding announcement bu the local council isn't strong evidence of notability. I'm sure it can be restored if there is a concrete merge proposal, but the people supporting a merge either didn't suggest a target at all or suggested adding a list of bus routes in the article about the settlement, which would be an odd thing to do. Hut 8.5 18:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as a reasonable conclusion by the closer. DRV is not a re-argument of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (involved). Your arguments lost, Garuda3. DRV is not an appeals court, and it has been repeatedly explained to you why this article did not meet GNG (and it is being explained again here). This is just a generic statement of extreme inclusionist beliefs without any real attempt to prove the close was in error. You don't have to agree, but you do have to respect consensus. You can't just claim 4 local publications posting essentially the exact same story counts as a GNG pass and expect everyone to accept it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

29 January 2023

Abhaya Sahu

Abhaya Sahu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Delete rushed through, without any broader participation, with some boilerplate arguements about lack of notability coverage. The notion that Times of India (3 largest newspaper in India, 1.5 million daily readers) could not be used as indicator of notability is ridiculous (whether TOI is reputable source for factual claims is another issue altogether). Checking available materials,

very long list of references (refactored by —Alalch E. 17:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Ping Liz. --Soman (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment - The Delete was not rushed through; it ran for the full seven days. The above URL Dump is too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. The close was the only possible close, as there was no reason to relist. However, the deletion discussion focused on political notability, and the appellant appears to be saying that the subject satisfies general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Allow Review of Draft to establish general notability as if the deletion had been a Soft Delete, because GNG was not discussed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse correct interpretation of a unanimous vote for delete. However no objection to recreation with the above references, subject to its own AFD. Frank Anchor 13:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse, allow draft. This person may or may not be notable, but that was the AfD's job, and now DRV's job is to review the AFD closure, which was the only interpretation of 2 delete !votes. Clyde!Franklin! 23:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist Looking at the massive list of sources is not hugely useful because there are just too many. If you can't meet WP:N with the best 3 or 4, you can't meet WP:N with a wall of them. That said, the discussion didn't really discuss the sources and the level of participation, combined with the quality of the discussion, probably puts it as a WP:SOFTDELETE. That said, please be sure to indicate the 3 or 4 sources you think are best at meeting WP:N even if you list the rest in a collapsed box at the AfD. Hobit (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist while it's a low level of participation, on the face of it, crosses the threshold for delete. However, the nomination actually contains no policy/guideline based reason for deletion. Not satisfying NPOL is not grounds for deletion (or retention), it is simply an indication that presumed notability cannot be accorded. Furthermore, the nominee and one of the participants have a history of tag-teaming and canvassing at AfD [1]. Given all this, while one could possibly argue proceedural keep, there's one delete contribution that makes a policy/guideline-based argument. Therefore, I would give less than normal weight to the nomination and the other contribution and would seek more input. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The AfD nomination was brief, but an unelected politician who fails NPOL is certainly a reason to delete (or Draftify) and this is a common outcome. Election candidates are frequently the subject of promotion, quite understandably, and the sources are usually promotional, non independent, on can be native advertising that is aggressively rejected by Wikipedia.
    Warn the tag teamers that tag teaming is WP:GAMING and could result in them being sanctioned, however, to make a case to sanction them you need to show a more egregious case of deletionism. Ideally, anyone invited to a discussion should declare their invitation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse The comment by M.Ashraf333 in the deletion discussion addresses the quality of the sourcing, "Nothing about him in reliable sources." There was no controversy in the discussion, the comments were based on policy (yes, saying a subject does not meet NPOL is a policy-based statement), and the participation was sufficient. No error in this close. --Enos733 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, saying a subject does not meet NPOL is a guideline-based statement, just one that has, per se, no bearing on deletion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Have you carefully read WP:DEL-REASON#8? Notability guidelines require subjective interpretation appropriate to guideline status, but on making the connection of the appropriate notability guideline, it is pseudo-policy by virtue of explicit inclusion as a reason in WP:Deletion policy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    NPOL (with NPROF) stands in distinction in that it accords *presumed* notability when satisfied, it's not derived from the GNG and therefore failure to satisfy cannot be seen as analogous to failing the GNG and implying a lack of general notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would not disagree with the point made here, but many people use "Fails NPOL", "Fails NPROF", or "Fails NSPORT" as shorthand for both failing the SNG and GNG. I think the argument should be discounted only when another person does suggest that GNG is (or might be) met. - Enos733 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    “Presumed” notability evaporates when the article is nominated at AfD. Presumed notability is a good threshold for starting articles, but by sending to AfD someone has formally challenged that assumption and article proponents have to do better than point to the presumption threshold. Ideally, AfD nominators should address the GNG, but in the absence of any comments on the GNG, the failing of a subguideline is a reason to delete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse, but Draftify given the long list of references. Endorse the AfD close as appropriate. To contest such a deletion, use draftspace and follow the advice at WP:THREE, and submit through AfC and/or ask the deleting admin. This need not take long, it can all happen in a day. DO NOT present dozens of references. If the best three are not good enough, there is virtually no chance that the rest will be better, and it is unreasonable to ask an independent editor to review dozens of references. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

28 January 2023

  • Ushna Suhail – The discussion was reopened by Iffy. While a literal interpretation of WP:NACD ("Deletion-related closes may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; or by consensus at deletion review", emphasis in original) means that it should have been an administrator that did this, considering the circumstances I personally support the action. For the avoidance of doubt should anyone wish to dispute Iffy's actions, I am happy to underwrite the action as an uninvolved administrator. Daniel (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ushna Suhail (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Discussion was closed by the non-admin user Vecihi91 as keep just after one day run. Although the number of votes are keep but my concern is, the closing of AfD as a non-admin and as well as before the time. @Sportsfan_1234 (talk), please leave your input here for this closing. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.
Bhupenddra Singh Raathore (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Discussion was closed by the nominator as speedy keep as they had withdrawn their nomination, however there had already been one delete !vote (mine) so the discussion should have been left to run its course. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I withdrawn because there were 2 Keep votes, and it had completed it's 7 Days. I am now out of it, very less number of editor are really interested in the discussions. Rest is upon you. I also withdrawn Vinod Adani's AfD. I'm really very sad after these 2 bad incidents that i took it to Discussion and others are not even Participating well. Thanks --- Misterrrrr (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if there are incivility/harassment issues, then kindly report to admins. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Vacate close and allow an administrator to close it or relist (if relisted, the nominating comment should be stricken). AFD ran its full seven days and in my opinion there is more policy-based reasoning to keep than delete. However, it is not the place for the nominator to close their own AFD when there are other delete votes standing. Frank Anchor 17:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.
Joe Williams (guard) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Closer (non-admin) !voted the same way in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruel Redinger, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Robb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marv Smith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Comer (American football), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Flattery, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ja'Quan McMillian. Closed after less than four hours, he was voted Second-team all-pro by Collyer's Eye, I'd like to see what others have to say on this before the nomination closes. I'm not opposed to keeping but the discussion seemed cut a bit short. That's his only real claim to notability so far. Also now that there's no NFL NSPORTS guidelines anymore, so he has to have had SIGCOV, which is still lacking. Therapyisgood (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OP made no effort to discuss this with me before bringing it here. He also reverted without discussion a talk page note from another editor. I stand by my close. If it gets overturned, you can expect a wave of keep !votes from editors who understand how notability works. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse several policy-based arguments were made for keep (establishing notability and citing WP:IAR as justification for having the article despite less WP:SIGCOV when he played in an era in which SIGCOV did not exist even close to today’s level). There was really no other way this discussion could have went. It was a bad nomination (though I believe made in good faith) that I was planning to non-admin close as WP:SNOW keep myself in the next day or so, but another user closed it ahead of me. Frank Anchor 11:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse the Keep close. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to relist The AfD was closed less than four hours after nomination after three !votes despite the subject having not been shown to pass any inclusion criteria. There are no sources of WP:SIGCOV in the article and none was presented in the AfD. Regarding him being a Second-Team All-Pro, if I understand this correctly it is based on a selection made by E.G. Brands, a correspondent for Collyer's Eye in Chicago, which I find an insufficient reason to use WP:IAR. With all that in mind, I find it highly premature to close the AfD by an editor heavily involved in similar AfD's after such a short time. Alvaldi (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Funny how it's such a big deal to close an AfD after four hours when it was clearly headed toward a keep result, but the OP can AfD an article 3 hours after it was created and nobody bats an eyelash. This is a farcical situation. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to relist per Alvaldi's concerns. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 18:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Void NAC and trout those who think otherwise We don't let NACs IAR close things early, we don't let reasonably involved anyone (admin or NAC) close AfD discussions, and SNOW has historically required at least 6+ unanimous rejections of the rationale over at least 24 hours. This close is so not appropriate that it calls the policy understanding anyone here suggesting that it is appropriate into question. Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Contrary to what you may think, this was not an involved close and I resent the insinuation. Maybe my close was ill-advised, but I completely reject your implied assertion that I was formally out-of-order in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore, I've been editing off-and-on (mostly on) for over a decade, and I don't believe I've ever heard anything about a specific numerical requirement for a speedy close. If y'all want to reopen it, whatever. Be my guest. But I hope you haven't forgotten that we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia rather than looking for loopholes that allow you to dismantle what we already have. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    One of the things about doing NACs is that you are held to every expectation of INVOLVED as an admin is, and that includes Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. (emphasis mine). A spot check of the appellant's assertions about your !votes in specific similar discussions substantiates them. This is not a new expectation. In the ~5 years I spent as an admin, 08-13, I deleted about 20,000 pages, precisely because I am a curationist, which many find indistinguishable from an inclusionist. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I suppose your interpretation verges on reasonableness at least in some respects, and I see little point in dragging this out further. I've had enough bricks thrown at me for one day. I have vacated my close and reopened the AfD. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note from original closer: I have vacated my close. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.
Chance Odolena Voda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Years-old redirects should not be speedy deleted per G6, but instead brought to RfD if they are thought to be incorrect. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No objection I haven't had a chance to review, but it makes sense at first glance. It seems to be a good faith request. I completed the speedy but got caught up at work and haven't had time to re-review.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 January 2023

Marta Grigorieva (closed)

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

The person is not little-known, and the article is not advertising.

Exhibited on the websites:

Published in articles:

Published in the magazine:

She has her own book:

Listed on the site: Jhin435 (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse - The close reflected the consensus. The appellant appears to be relitigating, but DRV is not a second AFD. The appellant should be allowed to submit a draft, which should be substantially different from the deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse per Robert. signed, Rosguill talk 17:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse Not a great discussion, but if the sources listed above are the best we have to meet WP:N the decision was correct. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse correct close of that discussion and the links above wouldn't overcome the reason for deletion (WP:N). Hut 8.5 18:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse – the discussion couldn't have been closed any other way, and the sources above don't give me any confidence that allowing recreation would lead to a different result. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - there's no other way to read that discussion, it was a clear delete result. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse and this new user really should disclose whether they had another account as the article was UPE/publicist magnet. Star Mississippi 21:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Badnaseeb (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think that this closure incorrectly assessed the discussion, wherein keep !voters failed to substantiate any of their claims regarding the depth of coverage available. That this is a subject which has been previously deleted at AfD is a further reason to consider "no consensus-keep" a poor outcome. Beyond that concern, it's an example of WP:BADNAC cases 2 and 4, as a close-call closure in a discussion that could result in a non-actionable result for a non-admin. I raised my concern with Superastig on their talk page, to which they responded I know that the "keep" votes are weak, but they still have merit whatsoever. And I don't see enough consensus for it to be deleted or redirected either. Therefore, I don't see a reason for me to revert my closure. signed, Rosguill talk 02:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse the no consensus closure as after three weeks of discussion there clearly was not consensus to delete or redirect. However, WP:TROUT User:Superastig for performing a NAC as those should be reserved for cases in which consensus is more obvious. Frank Anchor 03:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect. This is a case where there's enough of a strength-of-argument disparity to overcome the split in numbers, in my view. The delete/redirect !votes made specific arguments that the available sources didn't meet the GNG for specific guideline-based reasons (reliability, depth of coverage, etc.), while the keep !votes didn't rebut those arguments and just asserted with minimal reasoning that the sources were sufficient. (Tellingly, questions like "what do you feel are the top three sources in the article that have significant coverage of the show and are not interview pieces?" and "Could you identify precisely which sources you believe add up to meeting GNG?" went unanswered.) Consensus isn't a vote, and "unsubstantiated personal opinion[s]" about the sourcing don't outweigh well-argued, guideline-based !votes. (I'd feel the same way if the roles were reversed: if the keep !voters presented sources and explained why they meet the GNG while the delete !voters said nothing more than "delete; fails WP:GNG", the proper closure would be keep regardless of the vote !count.) There's thus consensus against a stand-alone article, so redirect (as an unrebutted ATD) is the proper closure. And that's all without considering the BADNAC aspect of this, which I think is an independent reason to overturn the close. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to Redirect - This would have been a dubious close by an admin. The closer refers, on their talk page, to the Keep !votes, and does not state how they weighed the IP votes. In my opinion, the IP votes should have been either discounted completely, or treated as one vote by one human behind the two IPs. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse per RosguillFrank Anchor. Anyone wishing to redirect the article would be welcome to do so as an normal editorial action. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Rosguill opened the DRV to challenge the closure- are you referring to someone else? Thanks and apologies if I missed anything. Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Whoops. Brainfart fixed, thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • weak endorse No keep really specified the best sources, only the nomination really discussed specific sources. I think this is a NC, but leaning toward delete pretty hard. I tend to be supportive of NACs, but this one is not a clear NC (yes, those exist). Given the closer is, if memory serves, very experienced at closing these things, I don't know that I'd overturn on the basis of being a NAC. But vague waves to the article's sources by the keep !votes aren't very convincing given the rest of the discussion. Hobit (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect - I don't think this was a WP:BADNAC as the closer is experienced, a plain headcount of !votes does suggest no consensus, and the discussion had already been relisted twice. However, good policy-based arguments for deletion were made, and really were not refuted. Several editors provided a cursory review of the sources and generally agreed that they amounted to passing mentions, and that notability was not established. A new source was added during the discussion, however when evidence was provided casting doubt on its reliability, the keep !voters either did not respond or simply asserted its suitability without providing any evidence in its favour. The weight of policy is clearly with the delete !voters, however redirecting the title is preferable to deletion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    FWIW, regarding appeals to Superastig's experience as a closer, they have been warned against closing close or contentious AfDs when brought to DRV before (June 2021, November 2021, November 2022, and an ongoing discussion at January 2023). I'm not sure what the positive side of their unchallenged closes look like so I'm not trying to build consensus for a ban, but given that they seem to rarely engage with the actual DRV discussions, it seems that someone (I am obviously not an ideal messenger here) should have a word with them regarding when it's appropriate to NAC. signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Non-admin closers who continuously do BADNACs aren't helping themselves towards administrator tools. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I did a quick check of last couple of dozen closes and I think I have some level of objection to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatih Mehmet Gul (none of the 'keep' arguments are doing much for me here) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Association of Chartered Surveyors (per Liz's relist comment). Definitely need to sit down and read some more to work out where I actually sit on them. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Vacate to allow an administrator to close. Per WP:NACD, non-admins should not perform no consensus closes of AfDs; apparent "no consensus" situations are inherently "Close calls and controversial decisions". Another outcome may be preferable, but I don't think it's necessary to get into that here. —Alalch E. 20:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to Redirect per Extraordinary Writ's analysis. I am involved (I voted redirect), but from my involved point of view the keep votes are somewhat weaker in that the 2nd and 3rd keep votes are a bit vague, and are from IPs who have both only edited on a single article, List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (a related article that I proposed a redirect to). This might also be a controversial non-admin close that falls under WP:BADNAC criteria 2 (though I understand that is an essay). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment WP:BADNAC doesn't say that NACs can't close AFDs as "No consensus" and it isn't uncommon in AFD-world for them to do so. So, while you might want to overturn this closure, it shouldn't be on the basis that NACs shouldn't close discussions as "No consensus". BADNAC warns against close calls but not all No consensus closures are close calls, sometimes it's the only sensible closure to make. Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn & redirect. This was pretty even off headcount, but the delete !votes seem to have more merit, and redirecting is an ATD. Clyde!Franklin! 23:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn / Redirect The keep arguments are generally weak and fail to respond to the far stronger counter arguments and source analysis presented by the delete/redirect proponents. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse per Frank's and Hobit's argument. I agree with the closer that the keep !votes do have merit as the delete !votes. So it's unfair if they should be discarded. However, the NC isn't that clear for a lot of editors. So the closer needs some explanation to carry his closure. SBKSPP (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

24 January 2023

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

A couple of months ago, I created in my user draft a lengthy and well-sourced article on the late rapper Speaker Knockerz using sources deemed reliable by the community (see WP:MUSIC/SOURCE). 8 years prior to the creation of my version of the article, a poorly sourced article on Speaker Knockerz was published and went through an article for deletion nomination where the topic was deemed non-notable and consequently resulted in its associated article being deleted and salted. Seeing as the page was previously salted against creation, I made a request to remove the protection on the title so that the article could be created. An administrator fulfilled my request and a couple of months later, a contributor opened a second article for deletion claiming that my article was an identical version of the 8-year-old article and requesting its deletion. An administrator found the contributor's words sufficient and closed the discussion a mere 6 minutes after it was opened failing to look further and leave room for debate. My version of the article was not only far from an identical copy of the deleted version but also automatically rated as B-class with information coming from numerous well-known sources. Although he might not have been Wikipedia standard notable at the time of his passing, Speaker Knockerz's legacy was solidified post-humously with him now being known as an influential figure of modern trap, being cited as an influence to numerous prominent modern-day rappers, and even being the subject of a musical tribute by Kevin Gates which landed on the Billboard 100. I find it extremely disappointing to see my hours of research in order to document the rapper's legacy erased in such a rushed and careless manner. Célestin Denis (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If an administrator could provide an archive of my deleted version of the article it would really be helpful to solidify my case. Célestin Denis (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I'm interested in what uninvolved administrators have to say about the similarities between the two versions. WP:G4 only applies to essentially identical copies, so it should be easy to see if there's been a mistake. Are admins able to see multiple deleted versions? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The page was temporarily undeleted and history is now made available. It is now clear that the 2014 version of the article is not similar to my version. Célestin Denis (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: Temporarily undeleted for DRV. (I have undeleted all revisions of the history for G4 review purposes, not just the latest incarnation of the article.) Daniel (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Célestin Denis: Please advise the administrator who most recently deleted the article that you have opened a DRV, as required by point 2 of "Steps to list a new deletion review" listed at WP:DRV. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Callanecc: Célestin Denis (talk) 7:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Overturn and finish discussion: Looking at those couple versions, WP:G4 clearly does not apply. Notability is another question entirely - Looks like it passes my standards, but I'm pretty lenient and I realize this isn't the venue so, at a minimum, the AfD should be allowed to run its course. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and relist G4 is not appropriate in this situation. The article was not salted, at least through an AFD discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy overturn and relist You can't shrodem a shrug but you can shrug a shrodem. Errr... Do not G4 articles that aren't close to being identical. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist WP:G4: "not substantially identical to the deleted version". Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist Per all above. G4 does not apply here. Frank Anchor 03:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist - I have not seen the 2014 version of the article and am relying on the opinions of administrators who have seen the two deleted versions and said that they are not the same. There are a few matters that make this case confusing, but it appears that:
    • The article was first created in 2014, shortly after the death of the subject.
    • The article was nominated for deletion, citing notability and sourcing considerations. The AFD was closed as Delete in September 2014 and the article was deleted.
    • The article was recreated three times in 2015, and was deleted three times in 2015 as G4.
    • The title was salted in 2015 due to the repeated recreations.
    • The appellant requested in 2022 that the title be unsalted so that they could create a new article on the subject.
    • The new article was nominated for deletion in January 2023. The nomination was an AFD, but the rationale was mostly G4 rationale. Maybe the nominator did an AFD rather than a G4 because they couldn't see and compare the 2014 article.
    • The AFD was closed as Delete, not Speedy Delete, but the closure was done almost immediately after the AFD was opened. The log indicates that the deletion was G4, although the AFD just says Delete. I see the close of the AFD as sloppy in not stating in the AFD that it was a G4 Speedy Delete.
    • If the 2014 article and the 2022 article are not substantially the same, a seven-day deletion discussion is in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robert McClenon You can see the 2014 article from history, as all revisions have been undeleted starting with the initial creation. —Alalch E. 10:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy overturn and relist. Obvious error. —Alalch E. 10:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • relist This is very much a WP:TROUT case. I'd really like to hear from the deleting admin. Hobit (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn G4, restart AfD Per all of the above. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Akinlolu JekinsRelist. I see slightly more support for relisting + recategorizing this as soft deletion as opposed to endorsing the hard deletion. While soft deletion may have been an appropriate AfD close, it is clearly not a valid final outcome in this case since this very DRV is itself a request for restoration. It's generally a good idea to relist whenever the DRV is longer than the AfD and DRV consensus is not 100% clear one way or another. King of ♥ 10:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Akinlolu Jekins (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Following the AFD discussion,Chagropango (talk) hinged her argument on the reliability of PulseNG as a valid source of information, and stated expressly that it is a pass if PulseNG is credible. We editors on Wikipedia are known to be researchers, so I'd kindly request 1) the jury looks into accuracy of content from PulseNG, 2) Check for other sources if the information stated in PulseNG exists elsewhere.

For the record, PulseNG is the most authoritative source of entertainment news in Nigeria. This information should kindly be researched and confirmed/debunked.

DOOMSDAYER520(TALK|CONTRIBS) admits he 'comes close' to notability and said he needed more coverage, and the article may be an a promotion attempt. I disagree for the following reasons;

1) the article did not have promotional content to it, and no other reviewer seconded a motion that it was promotional.

2) It was speedy deleted and I challenged successfully for a review of the content before it was re-instated. Furthermore, if the article comes close to being notable and needs more coverage, does it not imply obliterating the article is not doing justice to our goal of curating and serving encyclopedic information, especially with developing pages on Wikipedia? If it was a stub and given some time for upgrade like the many others we currently have on Wikipedia?

Thirdly, the page obviously had a bad history I was not aware of; I feel strongly that influenced this decision to delete this page.

Finally, I recommend the draft page be made available so it can be further developed. Thank you. Pshegs (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Endorse - DRV is about reviewing whether or not the closure of the deletion discussion was performed properly. It is not the place to relegislate the merits of the article. As I read things, there were two respondents in the discussion. One had a strong case that cited multiple policies on notability that the article failed to pass. The other was on the fence due to the potential questionability of PulseNG. Given these responses in the discussion, Liz closed the discussion as delete. This looks correct to me. I recommend that Pshegs discuss at WP:RSP about adding PulseNG to the list of perennial sources to remove the issue regarding using that website as a source for notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to soft delete (if the page was eligible for soft delete. Otherwise endorse). There was one delete vote along with the nom. There was also one "weak keep or weak delete" vote, which I will interpret as "neutral." With minimal participation in the AFD, I have no issue with restoring this page (my preference is in draftspace because the reason for deletion was a lack of WP:SIGCOV). Frank Anchor 14:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: Temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Endorse - A valid conclusion by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - while the final !vote appears on first glace as indecisive, a thorough reading shows a sentiment more towards delete, than keep. There's an overall, policy/guideline-based consensus for delete. While the nomination fails to identify a procedural flaw with the close, purely for informational purposes, the NPP source guide indicates no consensus on the reliability of PulseNG. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to relist I don't think we have consensus on the sources at this time. It's not been relisted and only one person other than the nom stated a clear opinion. I don't think this needed to be closed yet. And frankly, I think it's a close call--the sources are hard to evaluate. Hobit (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - the discussion consists of two policy-backed delete !votes, plus a comment that is back and forth but appears to be leaning delete. That strongly suggests a consensus to delete. I might have considered soft delete owing to low participation, but I don't see any indication this needed to be relisted. I would support draftification. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 January 2023

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hurricane Polo (2014) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Only 3 participants, 2 merge and 1 keep. Should be relisted for broader participation amidst a small and non unanimous discussion. (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Participation was limited, but the only keep vote, which I presume was yours, did not provide a policy-based reason for keeping. No evidence of notability was put forward, and no evidence was put forward to show that a standalone page was needed. Rather than wasting more community time here, and (if relisted) at AfD again, why not expand the target article yourself? A merger does not rule out a future spinoff if sufficient encyclopedic material is found. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist, as AFC accepting reviewer, meaning that I thought it had a >50% change of passing AFD. The guidelines for tropical storm articles are vague, so that both a strict interpretation and an expansive interpretation are consistent with the guideline, and AFDs show that lack of clarity. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse, there is no need to relist a deletion discussion in which nobody - even the nominator - has argued for deletion. The debate about whether to merge or not can, if necessary, continue in article talk space without the need for a misleading and ugly red box on an article. In this case, considering the lack of any policy-based rationale for the "keep" vote, I think Vanamonde's closure of merge is reasonable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as the lone keep vote was not at all based in policy, while the nom and other merge vote properly cited WP:NWEATHER and WP:NOPAGE as to why this subject is not notable as a stand-alone article. While more participation would have been ideal, it is not a requirement to assess consensus. Frank Anchor 17:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as correct reading of consensus after weighing the arguments of everyone involved. —Alalch E. 19:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. The merge side is IMO substantially stronger (citing WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOPAGE compared with the lone keep vote, which opined it was notable and participants could look into more information without specifying a policy or guideline. VickKiang (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The storm is fundamentally notable. It killed 1-4 people and caused $7.6 million in damage(which is a lot in Mexico), and we have articles on a lot of less significant US storms. Seems like ethnocentrism to me. (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Systemic bias is absolutely a problem on Wikipedia, but the solution to other articles of less significance existing is to nominate those for deletion rather than having yet more non-notable subjects. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable reading of consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Archives, by year and month
Year 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