 |
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:
Deletion review should not be used:
Before listing a review request, please:
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
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:
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
The usage of large language models such as ChatGPT to create deletion review nominations or comments is strongly discouraged and such contributions are liable to be removed or collapsed by an uninvolved administrator.
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{temporarily undeleted}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
A nominated page that requires a community consensus decision should remain on deletion review for at least seven days (unless the nomination was a proposed deletion). In such cases, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists after seven days. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
Ideally, all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly. But, in cases where the outcome is patently obvious, it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
The article is about one of the most important electrical substations in Sri Lanka. It has recently gained more press coverage due to Sri Lanka's first and largest BESS system being installed at the same premises. The article is well written and sourced, and in my opinion well Wikipedia-worthy. The BESS facility warrants its own article (as other BESS facility articles on Wikipedia), but I feel this combined article compliments a better coverage of the subjects, instead of having two separate articles. This was my response to alleged AI-use. For what it's worth: I work in the energy industry, and have been writing about the subjects since 2008. Rehman 03:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Many of the people saying merge did so before the article was expanded, and a relist was probably more appropriate in this instance.~2026-57013-66 (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
During the discussion, there was a consensus that the subject meets GNG and a disagreement among editors whether it should remain as a standalone page, with 8 supporting retention and 7 preferring merge. The discussion was closed as "merge selectively" because Keep participants failed to address the merge rationale. The nominator (and 3 "per nom") provided three reasons for their proposal, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, disagreement with article content, and that There is nothing demonstrating this needs to be talked about outside the context of the streamer
, the last one not being a substantive argument that can be addressed. The closer discounted Keep !votes that appealed to the sources, weighting them less than mostly opinion-based Merge !votes. This is contrary to the general approach to Wikipedia in which source-based positions should be given preference over personal opinions of editors. Merge discussions in general should be less formulaic than delete discussions, and the views of editors on whether it is appropriate to merge shouldn't be dismissed without a good cause, and there was none. For WP:NOPAGE to be applicable, it is necessary for the nominator to convince participants that a merge is desirable. If they fail to do so, as happened here, a merge shouldn't be done. This discussion should be overturned to no consensus. Kelob2678 (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
There is nothing demonstrating this needs to be talked about outside the context of the streamer or History of the iPhone#Oversized bills.was an objectively false statement, as the targeted section was already the summary style parent of the more detailed and GNG-passing article. Thus, with no policy-based reason for deletion, just PAGEDECIDE pernoms, I see no basis for a merge or no consensus outcome. Very disappointing discussion all around, and demonstrating what I would consider an inappropriate general bias towards merger on the part of the nom, participants, and closer. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
When this AfD was brought up in an argument in an unrelated DRV, I wasn't convinced at all that this AfD decision to Merge was the correct one. Personally, I decided to bring it here, when after the AfD was closed as merge, FaviFake posted at the talk of the previous closer,
See? An admin found consensus to merge because they weighted the different arguments based on how rooted in policy they were, as if the whole exercise was about policy-based analysis and not challenging closures until the AfD is closed by an admin with a shared POV on these discussions. Kelob2678 (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
so much hatefor the topic. The highly experienced editors, including two admins, !voting Merge or Selective merge were not advocating
that this needs to go away. A merge discussion is a debate about where the content belongs, not whether it does. This is a common misunderstanding. Three weeks ago, an admin chided a nom for bringing a merge proposal to AfD, seven months after we collectively decided to combine both venues. Perhaps Spartaz was right in saying PAM should have never been merged into AfD. Too many editors still respond to a merge nomination as if it is a call for deletion, and "defend" the article with arguments of notability, which wasn't contested in the AfD at bar. Looking at the AfD again, I see five guideline-based arguments for a merge, and two supporting them. Contra those, I see two P&G-based arguments against merger, in this case citing UNDUE, and six votes opposing the merge purely based on notability, without addressing the actual question of NOPAGE or why we need two pages to cover one topic (or three pages, if you count History of the iPhone#Oversized bills). Decades of deletion debates resulted in many editors seeing a standalone page as an award a subject wins for being notable, without considering whether our readers would benefit from seeing the content on a separate page, rather than in a broader context of another page. NOPAGE isn't an "inappropriate bias"; along with MERGEREASON, it's how the community chose to adjudicate merge discussions. NOPAGE was deliberately written as a section under WP:N to explain that notability is not sufficient to retain a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 09:32, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
The fundamental WP:PAGEDECIDE argument was mentioned in the nomination statement), when it was not. In fact, FaviFake seems to be the singular editor arguing from that basis. OwenX appears to have read the whole discussion, glommed on to one argument made late by one editor and refuted by two others, and SUPERVOTEd as if that had been an unanswered question all along. The argument was INDISCRIMINATE, not NOPAGE, and unless there's some massive page history shenanigans gone on that I haven't dived into, the closer's reading of the arguments at play is fatally flawed. Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
even a paragraph or two may cause undue weight, and declined to explain when asked why two paragraphs about one of this YouTuber's most famous videos, in a 3,000-word article about her, would be "UNDUE". So giving full weight even to the two "undue" !votes is a stretch, but I still counted them as meritorious, albeit weak. Your accusation of SUPERVOTE is odd. I have no views about the article. I didn't even read it or the proposed target. Instead of spending 40 minutes carefully evaluating the P&G strength of each !vote, it would have been far easier for me to just close it as "no consensus" based on nose-count. Although as Star Mississippi points out, such a close would have likely also been challenged here at DRV, and in that case--rightly so. Owen× ☎ 21:59, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
"We should do so here: this is fundamentally a rather trivial human interest story of no lasting importance whatsoever, and merits a brief mention at best"as
"readers would benefit from seeing this content alongside a more general article". You can equally assume that Keep !voters said
"readers would benefit from seeing this content in a separate article."Kelob2678 (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
all arguments against merging were exclusively predicated on GNG. Two were based on UNDUE, albeit with questionable basis. I already elaborated on that. Please read my previous replies to avoid repeating questions or points that were already addressed. Owen× ☎ 00:24, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article
This would almost certainly be a no consensus rather than not merged if closed as-is. Upon some consideration and rereading the discussion, I was inclined to agree. The nominator had made an evidently and obviously irrelevant reference to NOTINDISCRIMINATE, but nobody on either side had made convincing arguments within the purview of WP:PAGEDECIDE (and it seemed reasonable not to exclude that from consideration merely because it had not been explicitly cited). "It would be undue weight" and "it wouldn't be undue weight" are both assertions relevant to PAGEDECIDE, but they are hardly substantive arguments. After the second relist, there was a very numerically close divide between supporters and opposers of merging, with neither side managing to convince anyone on the other side of the correct application of PAGEDECIDE to the article. Toward the end of the discussion, two editors brought up WP:SUSTAINED, and one source from 2026 was provided in response. At the end of the discussion, I don't see any consensus emerging, if that wasn't apparent enough from the fact that we are reviewing the fourth close of the fourth AfD on this article. Kisseran (talk) 11:12, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
editors who always vote to keep everythinghave just as much weight as those made by editors who often !vote differently on different AfDs. I almost always !vote to merge at AfD, but that does not mean that my (or others') arguments should be discarded. I really hope you don't take an editor's !vote history into consideration when you close discussions yourself.The point is that the "keep" arguments were weaker than the "merge" arguments in this specific case. If the arguments made by the
editors who always vote to keep everythinghad been stronger for this specific article, then they would've weighted more. FaviFake (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
It seems curious that so much hate would be directed at a sufficiently sourced article. It seems disproportionate for people to advocate so passionately that this needs to go away--I simply fail to see why it is such a big deal."), I have decided to simply copy and paste verbatim this section of Wikipedia:Notability, with additional emphasis supplied and irrelevant parts removed:
FaviFake (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2026 (UTC)When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes.
- Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. [...] One should particularly consider due and undue weight. Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept.
- Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page [...]. Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).
[...]
When a standalone page is created, it can be spun off from a broader page. Conversely, when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections.
In this sidebar, preserved here, which had the corollary article Far-right politics, there were many articles included within it that explicitly have "far-right" in their titles:
In it were other articles like Right-wing dictatorship that also clearly belonged, despite not explicitly saying "far-right" in their titles.
Can we honestly say that all of these articles are not clearly enough related to warrant a sidebar connecting them together? I believe this sidebar was deleted in violation of WP:BEFORE (If proposing deletion, consider whether the article could be improved instead
), that any issues that purportedly existed regarding bidirectionality should have been addressed in a way that was more productive than by starting a deletion discussion (which seems like it was really reaching), and that a review of the deletion is warranted so that we may re-open the discussion to others for further consideration, especially considering the weak nature of the consensus formed for deletion.
If you want the truth I am a bit uncomfortable with how the deletion, started by User:PARAKANYAA, was replied to by User:Sirfurboy 6 hours later. I am going to assume these two editors, who have been going from sidebar to sidebar making mass WP:BIDI deletions and defending those deletions on the sidebar talk pages, are purely interested in keeping our sidebars tight and on topic. That being the case, there appears to be an understanding among them that WP:BIDI can now be aggressively applied beyond the norm to take down any sidebar they don't like (either to damage it in part or to remove it in whole), because no sidebar in Wikipedia follows these standards so stringently.
We need to be reasonable with our deletions. And the consensus that has been reached in this discussion exceeds reason. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
weak nature of the consensus formed for deletion.I am also uncomfortable that someone is uncomfortable with me taking part in a discussion that I found organically because the SIDEBAR was added to an inappropriate page that I was watching. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
If you want the truth I am a bit uncomfortable with how the deletion, started by User:PARAKANYAA, was replied to by User:Sirfurboy 6 hours later. [...] these two editors, who have been going from sidebar to sidebar making mass WP:BIDI deletions and defending those deletions on the sidebar talk pagesThis template was placed onto numerous articles I watchlisted. The implication that you are making, I suppose, is that me and Sirfurboy are secretly colluding in order to destroy sidebars, or something? Whether that is or is not what you are thinking - not so! I am upfront in my dislike of sidebars. The vast majority of sidebars are bad. I think the encyclopedia is better off without them yeah. But that I think they're bad doesn't mean that them being violative of the only guidelines on them we have is in any way acceptable. This one in particular was very bad. People who care about article subjects are likely to vote about them. And it's not like Sirfurboy and I are always in agreement (see our disputes on reference formatting... on NAUTHOR.... etc) And we were only 2 of many editors in that discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
the consensus that has been reached in this discussion exceeds reasonto me actually clearly shows that this is an attempt at re-litigation and that no fault is found with the close itself. Choucas 🐦⬛ 16:04, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Sirfurboy; we already have so many such terrible sidebars, let's try to cull the ones we have instead of making ever worse onesand that was the extent of your participation. There is no argument I could present in response to this kind of contribution that would create an internal contradiction in the closing logic because the argument presented is so minimalistic that it's essentially just a vote. And the XfD closed with the simple closing note
The result of the discussion was deletewithout explaining the arguments on either side/the rationale that went into the XfD closing. Yes this is re-litigation, and re-litigation and review by additional eyes are fully warranted considering how obviously the sidebar connects a set of dozens of explicitly related topics to the sidebar in question. It does not strike me as prima facie plausible that this kind of decision could soundly be made to justify deleting the sidebar in its entirety, as opposed to productively addressing issues per well-established guidelines like WP:BEFORE. To be clear this is an attempted relisting. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
I know I haven't been really active lately due to Wi-Fi limitations, but I'm coming on behalf of an article that was nominated for deletion back in 2023. I personally think the close was terrible because it did a lot of damage for users who especially have the possibility to clean-up and merge. At best, the AfD should have ended as Redirect. Alternatively, someone else could have done a bold redirect before the debate even started. However, I didn't have time to vote, nor was I aware of the it. Taking to this deletion review, should we restore the page's original revision, so some users (including me) finally have time to merge the list into the parent article myself? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
the history being merged under the redirect
It's a relatively new thing that discussions like this are expected to default to the ATD.
Hi.
There should be a reconsider for this merging. The article should be a standalone, the White genocide in south Africa is different from the main White genocide conspiracy theory. I think most of the other editors forget that actually this article is about South Africa only. It documents the topic in regard to south Africa, it should not be merged. The selective merging is not a good idea because that will show selective context, it will cut important sections. If a reader wants to know the full white genocide context, they should read the main white genocide article, this article doesn't attempt to classify what the white genocide claim is, it just talks about it in relation to south Africa. I would like more opinion on this and a reconsider, for the article to be standalone. Omniking2100 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The AfD was given a WP:NAC a single day after it was opened, citing WP:SNOW. The problem is that most of the !votes either didn't address the nomination or gave unconvincing arguments, so there was absolutely still time for consensus to change. I don't believe I am being a sore loser in this scenario by thinking 1 day is too short to gain consensus. While I argued this to the closer, they refused to reopen, so I was forced to bring it here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:08, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Substantial obituaries on the BBC and the Manchester Evening News point to his significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I request that this AfD be relisted for further review. The original discussion did not fully evaluate dedicated coverage in LADYGUNN, CanvasRebel and VoyageMIA spanning 2020–2026. Additional sources document a Graphis Gold Award and published work in Harper's Bazaar, Billboard and SPIN. While some references were photography credits, others provided coverage of Nigro's career. A fuller source-based review under WP:GNG and WP:NBIO is warranted. ~2026-55485-88 (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The closer appears to have treated the discussion as a vote, rather than a !vote. When I took it to their talk page to discuss the guideline-based reason for deletion (that editors have only pointed to a single, routine article of SIGCOV), the closer's response was to chastise me for bludgeoning. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi. You recently deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenade_(company) under criterion G11. I was in the process of reviewing the deletion notice and preparing a response, but unfortunately the page was removed before I had an opportunity to contest it. Having reviewed the situation, I recognise that the previous version of the Serenade article may not have met Wiki's expectations regarding neutral language and tone. However, I believe there may be a legitimate case for the company's inclusion based on its coverage within the music industry, particularly where that coverage comes from independent, reliable secondary sources rather than company announcements or promotional material. Would you be willing to restore the deleted article to allow for a substantial rewrite? I would be happy to remove any promotional language, reassess the existing references, and focus exclusively on independently verifiable information that meets Wiki's requirements. Once revised, I could submit the article through the Articles for Creation process rather than publishing it directly, allowing an independent reviewer to assess whether it meets Wikipedia's standards if you wish. I would for sure respect the outcome of an independent review. I would be grateful if you could consider this request, or advise whether there is a more appropriate route to pursue. I am an independent music industry guy in the UK and this is one of my first articles so still learning the ropes but help in reinstating this would be appreciated. BillyMusicLover333 (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Brief background: Villegas is the Democratic US House candidate in CA-22. Villegas' article was AfD'd twice:
I don't contest either AfD. Dr vulpes closed the 2nd correctly. After I WP:BOLDly recreated the article, they reverted and suggested I seek consensus here first. The deleted version and proposed version are very different (not WP:G4). Deleted version had 12 sources. Proposed version has 53, which include well over 8 independent reliable sources with substantial coverage of Villegas and their broader significance to US politics: AP, full article; Bloomberg Government, ~10 paragraphs; CalMatters, full article; CalMatters, full article; CalMatters, full article; CBS News, full article; CBS News, full article; El País, full article; KVPR, full article; LATimes, full article; LATimes, ~8 paragraphs; LATimes, ~7 paragraphs; NYTimes, full article; Politico, full article; San Francisco Chronicle, full article; American Prospect, full article; American Prospect, ~17 paragraphs; The Sacramento Bee, full article; WaPo, full article; WaPo, full article. Villegas clearly meets WP:GNG. But AfD practice usually requires more from political candidates (see WP:NCAND and NCAND2), who must have extensive coverage (shown above) and must not fail WP:BLP1E. Villegas passes #3, which rejects articles where the Therefore, I request permission to recreate the article. CopyleftEverything (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |