Wikipedia:Deletion review

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

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

Purpose

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

1. 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:
   • creation protection – request removal of the protection from the protecting administrator or, if the administrator is unavailable or non-responsive, request at Wikipedia:Requests for page unprotection.
   • title blacklisting – file a delisting request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist.
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

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=2026 February 3}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 February 3}}</noinclude> If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2026 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.

Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:

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

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{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

• An objection to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though it 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

31 January 2026

Template:WikiProject Writing/litspotlight1

Template:WikiProject Writing/litspotlight1 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The claim and the deletion reason at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 June 22#Template:WikiProject Writing/litspotlight1 was that the template was unused. It is actually used as a preload template inside the <inputbox> tag on the page Template:WikiProject Writing/litspotlight. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• WP:REFUND the template per nom. Jumpytoo Talk 19:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
• relist as there is clearly further discussion to be had. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Also did you discuss this with Liz first as she is usually very open to a well reasoned appeal?Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

28 January 2026

Pueblo, Indiana

Pueblo, Indiana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I propose overturning this AfD to a redirect. The primary reason is to restore the edit history of the article to allow the attribution of this edit [1] to refer to the original contributor(s) per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Additionally, the PAG-weighted evaluation of consensus also supports a redirect, given that no PAG rationale to support a deletion over a redirect was offered, while the reverse is not true. Previous attempts to resolve have been unsuccessful. Katzrockso (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• You're seriously saying that the statement that it "do[es]n't actually exist" isn't based in policy? When any administrator could have unilaterally deleted it on that basis without even having to bring it to AFD?
  The merged sentence is trivially rewriteable to remove any copyright interest, if it's even merited in that article (which seems unlikely). —Cryptic 03:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  The statement that it doesn't exist is factually incorrect, and any vote on that basis would be accurately discounted.

  I'm saying that no editor offered any policy-based reason not to redirect.

  It can be rewritten, but it still exists within the edit history of the article and still requires attribution per WP:CWW#Hyperlink, which states A statement in the edit summary such as Copied content from Page name; see that page's history for attribution. will direct interested parties to the edit history of the source page, where they can trace exactly who added what content when. A disadvantage with this method is that the page history of the original article must subsequently be retained in order to maintain attribution (bolding mine, but italics are in the original).

  The purpose of DRV is not to litigate content disputes, but to evaluate procedural errors and the like. Katzrockso (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Restore the history I do agree with Cryptic that it would be easier to just rewrite the content, per WP:NOATT, attribution is not necessary in that case. But I also don't any harm in restoring history on good faith request. Jumpytoo Talk 04:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse Nothing seems to have been done wrong here. The proposed redirect is a clearly unhelpful redirect due to the minuscule amount of info at its target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse for two reasons. First, the close of Delete was the right close, reflecting consensus. Second, I don't understand what the appellant is requesting. I probably would endorse the closure if I did understand the appeal, because the close was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse, closure reflected consensus. If there is an attribution dependency, which there does not appear to be, that can be resolved with a null edit naming the relevant contributors. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Is that a valid form of attribution when the WP:HYPERLINK method has already been used? Katzrockso (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  The Creative Commons licence is not very particular as to the method of attribution. The relevant username in the history is sufficient (as are some other methods). Stifle (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse. No credible argument has been offered (here or at the AfD) why the redirect would be helpful. While the appellant did point to a policy page in their redirect !vote at the AFD, that page assets that a redirect could be created, not that it should. Apart from the appellant, no-one seemed to feel it was beneficial to do so. As to the edit attribution argument, the edit in question is a single sentence, stating a simple fact with a source for that fact. While potentially inspired by someone's edits on this now-deleted page, there is not enough independent editorial contribution in such a sentence to require us to keep an otherwise unnecessary page, merely to maintain chain of attribution. In the extremely unlikely case exactly that became relevant in the future, deleted page history is available to administrators. Martinp (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn to Merge 1) A presumably valid ATD was mentioned in the discussion, and later delete !votes did not refute that it was appropriate. 2) But it was a redirect to a place where the name of this article was not mentioned, so a bare redirect would not be helpful. So, merging the content was the rough consensus that incorporated all feedback in the AfD: Wasn't a town, shouldn't've had an article, but was a post office at one point. Not sure why this needed to turn on some obscure CWW policy: we don't delete (or fail to create) probably useless redirects, just harmful ones. Jclemens (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Jclemens I did merge one sentence from the deleted article into the target article (see edit linked above), because in the past I have been criticized for proposing a redirect when the target isn't currently mentioned at the destination. Katzrockso (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to redirect It's clear that this did exist ([2] given the existence of a post office. Given that, I'd assume it's in "Indiana Place Names" (Indiana University Press), but I can't find an online version of it to search. In any case, redirect was suggested and no good reason was given to not do so, so per WP:ATD a redirect is the appropriate outcome. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • All that says is that there was a post office named Pueblo. That site's page for the state and county I'm living in shows post offices named for, yes, towns, but also streets, neighborhoods, and an amusement park. Even the same county as this supposed Pueblo shows a post office named Gentry's Store, probably in what is now Gentryville, Indiana. That doesn't mean there was ever a locataion called Gentry's Store, Indiana, any more than we can verify that there was ever a Pueblo, Indiana. If you're going to reargue the AFD here, at least do it with a new source, and one that says what you say it does. —Cryptic 00:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, Indiana Place Names is on the Internet Archive here. I don't have an account there, and I'm not exactly enthusiastic about registering one since their book viewer doesn't play nice with my preferred browser anyway, but I'll happily withdraw all opposition if it's verifiable there. Or, really, anything remotely more reliable than GNIS. —Cryptic 00:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
    • Not in Indiana Place Names. Prosperity - Providence - Pulaski (county) - Pulaski (village). —Cryptic 01:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
      • Thank you for that, I couldn't find it anywhere and didn't consider the wayback machine. Cool. I agree that weakens my argument. But I still think we have enough for a redirect and that, per ATD, (with WP:V met from the source above) redirect was the right closure of that discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

        ATD doesn't say articles may never be deleted. AfD is supposed to be decided on consensus, not one editors preference for a redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

        • Indeed. ATD is an enabling policy, not a mandatory policy. It does not, and has never, stated that !votes to redirect/merge/etc. automatically override !votes to delete. The decision of whether to use an ATD, and which one is appropriate, is taken by consensus, just as are all decisions on Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

      @Cryptic I had forgotten why this name was familiar to me. It's the post office in Africa, Indiana, a small community of African-Americans in Ohio Township settled after the Civil War. [3] article states "but the post office is named Pueblo". You can also verify that the post office existed there with lists from the Official Register of the United States (published by the US Civil Service Commission) [4], which lists the postmaster as B. F. Boltinghouse. The Spencer County Historical Society website had the date of foundation January 17, 1898 – Pueblo Post Office Established - Benjamin Boultinghouse First Postmaster on their home page until recently they changed it to February dates [5], but the Google preview did not change.

      I think we might have a good reason to suspect why a post office serving a community of African-Americans might not be listed in some common databases. Katzrockso (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

      @Hobit you might find this information relevant too. Katzrockso (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to redirect (first choice) or relist (second choice). After Katzrockso's redirect vote, no credible argument was made against redirecting. Consensus is not required to enact an ATD. Also okay with a relist to allow for discussion specifically related whether redirecting is viable. Frank Anchor 13:37, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Endorse close The main point here is that the close correctly assessed consensus. This seems an example of an inappropriate deletion review namely "disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment." What part of WP:DRVPURPOSE does this review comply with? Some editors seem to believe that as soon as anyone invokes ATD, everything else in the deletion policy is overridden. WP:DEL#REASON says "Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)" are eligible for deletion. Unfortunately, some editors are using ATD as a backdoor to avoid deletion of non-notable articles. AusLondonder (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  WP:ATD is precisely meant to offer an alternative to deletion for non-notable topics. WP:ATD-E (a policy) states that If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. I don't know how it gets any clearer than this - editing "can address all relevant reasons for deletion" in this case, so the policy directly states that this should be done rather than deleting the page. A reason for deletion (not being notable) does not provide a reason against redirection. Katzrockso (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Alternative is defined as "(of one or more things) available as another possibility or choice." Redirecting was a possibility, so was deletion. Editors chose deletion.

  Numerous editors above have questioned the necessity and accuracy of a redirect for a place that never existed. That provides reasons against redirection in this case. The consensus at the AfD was to delete and you have failed to provide a valid reason to overturn it per WP:DELREVIEW. AusLondonder (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse Among the two editors who voted delete after the proposal, one consistently opposes all redirects, and another supports them from time to time. From this I conclude that their opposition was not due to a lack of awareness about the ATD. Regarding copyright, I don't think that the sentence was original enough to be protected by it. By adding that information to the article, Katzrockso violated WP:EDITATAFD#5 which states, Participants in deletion discussions should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another page unilaterally before the debate closes. While not a guideline, it is relevant in this case. In general, the appeal feels like an attempt to force a desired outcome via technicality, which is another reason to endorse. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Kelob2678

  Thanks for sharing that page, I was not aware of it and will take it into consideration for future editing during AfD. As I noted above, I have been castigated for not adding material to the proposed destination for a redirect, which is why I added the material. I apologize for going against this good advice in this case.

  I don't think a lack or existence of awareness about the ATD provides any weight in the PAG-based consensus of the discussion, as I noted above [6].

  Let me explain the order of operations for why I opened this deletion review. I saw a recently closed DRV [7] that restored the edit history of a page because the content was copied into another article, which is how I discovered that WP:CWW requires that the original page not be deleted in order to maintain attribution. I then petitioned the closer on this basis, because I understood that the method of edit attribution in question (hyperlinking) mandates that the original page history be retained; A disadvantage with this method is that the page history of the original article must subsequently be retained in order to maintain attribution (from WP:PATT). I do not agree that the sentence in question is not original enough to retain protection. I think if that sentence were to show up at WP:CCI or WP:CPI it would unambiguously be understood as copyright-protected. If that edit had not existed, I would not have contested the outcome of the AfD, even though I personally believe (as explained above) that the close did not properly account for WP:ATD. Katzrockso (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  The two WP:JUSTVOTEs were enough to conclude there was no consensus to redirect, I don't think that arguments not based in policy should be fully discarded. That DRV was initiated by a sock and overturned by a checkuser, that is why I am prejudiced against these arguments. I concede that I know little about copyright, but it is hard to imagine how a 20-word sentence that corresponds to Pueblo (1898-1906) in the source can be copyright protected. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to redirect, per Frank Anchor, Hobit, and the nominator’s rationale (or to merge, per Jclemens) or relist per Frank Anchor. Preserving history is important if not crucial, and ATD-R is a policy. --~2026-66550-6 (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  WP:ATD says that an article can be merged or redirected rather than deleting, not that it must. The decision on which, if any, alternative to take in a given case is to be determined by consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn to redirect or merge per nom and Jclemens. In WP:CWW, attribution is important. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Overturn to redirect per Katzrockso. It is a place. It existed. The title takes you to where you want to go. The slight value in preserving this information is enough of a benefit. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• This is incomprehensible. By the proponent's own source, the information that was in this article is verifiably false. The sentence that was briefly and improperly merged is verifiably false. The title of the proposed redirect is verifiably false. Even the target is at best imprecise. You want to create a redirect from Pueblo post office to Africa, Indiana? Go ahead; it normally wouldn't survive RFD, but there'd be enough eyes on it from here that it might, and at least it'd be accurate. But this? There was some excuse when it was thought that this was unverifiable. But if you're all still so hell-bent on defacing the encyclopedia with knowingly false material just so you can win points at afd, say so and we can get on with the indefinite blocks. I can't for the life of me think of any other possible motivation. —Cryptic 05:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Endorse firstly, the discussion was clear and the outcome was policy based. Secondly, the clear evidence that this was not a place is clear and arguments to redirect because it existed are demonstrably false and therefore should be discounted. Thirdly, the merged information was rejected at the target page so there is not attribution to be done and in any event that can be done by a null edit placing the editors name in the edit log. Finally, so many of these redirect arguments are not based on policy and should be discounted. Fundamentally, consensus is the best policy based argument and noses should only be counted if there is a facsimile of policy based argument Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Recent discussions

23 January 2026

2025 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Chargers game – Procedural close: block evasion with all other !votes being to endorse. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2025 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Chargers game (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The RFD closed as no consensus, but given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Chargers game closed with consensus against a redirect, no consensus should’ve been no consensus to have a redirect and thus been deleted. Another RFD was started but got speedily closed, so here we are. ~2026-50184-3 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC) If you'd asked me on my talk page, as the DRV instructions require, instead of filing this without trying to talk to me about my close, I'd have told you that a recreated redirect after AfD goes to RfD, and that RfD can then determine if a redirect should or should not exist. This was a clear no consensus situation. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse There was no consensus against a redirect at RfD, and the alleged consensus against a redirect at AfD is questionable. In this case, the RfD has authority, making your reasoning wrong. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse. You need consensus to delete a page. If consensus to delete is not achieved, the page is kept. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse. no consensus should’ve been no consensus to have a redirect and thus been deleted displays a fundamental misunderstanding of our deletion policy. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse I personally don't understand why we need to keep that redirect myself much less why there were more keeps than deletes, but the discussion itself was a no consensus to delete the redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse as per previous editors. The unregistered editor is wasting the community's time with reasoning that is explained to be backwards. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Admin comment - the temporary account user filing this DRV is a sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrew5, just like all the others causing disruption around this title. I have blocked their latest IP. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict)The RFD linked in the header is not the controlling decision here. Even last week's deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 January 18#2025 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Chargers game isn't: it was only open one day, since Graeme Bartlett restored the history in response to the parallel discussion at WP:REFUND#2025 Kansas City Chiefs-Los Angeles Chargers game, almost certainly without ever being aware it was at DRV. The most recent decision here was Ivanvector's G5 redeletion of the history, and given that he's a checkuser and can see things we can't, I'm inclined to view that as legitimate. —Cryptic 01:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC) Just to be transparent: I didn't use checkuser here, and checkusers don't have any particular authority over deletions anyway. Andrew5 is just blasting through temporary accounts and new IPs over the last week or so, and is really obvious about their peculiar obsession about this title. WP:RBI is the correct approach here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse (involved, RFD nominator). There was clearly not consensus that the redirect should be removed. Frank Anchor 01:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Roshan Shanavas – Split. While there is a rough consensus to endorse the close, there's support to relist in light of new information. I will do so. Star Mississippi 00:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Roshan Shanavas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) OwenX closed this discussion regarding an Indian actor as "Delete" (no further closing statement) a few hours (maybe a day? I cannot check) after the page was improved (with new sources and very substantial cleanup). However, the argument that the subject clearly meets WP:NACTOR, based on evidence, had not been satisfyingly refuted nor, independently, did it seem evident that the coverage was not substantial enough in the multiple sources, especially if one bears im mind that "when the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". In other words, because new sources/content were not addressed in a sastisfying way and the question of the pass/fail of WP:NACTOR was still not convincingly resolved and the closing statement failed to acknowledge that at all, I am merely requesting a relist. Given that the number of voters was rather limited, a relist seems indeed the best path to let a clear consensus emerge, based on a thorough review of arguments/sources and not just on "X fails Y", especially as existing material was not precisely commented upon by any of the !voters and new material was inserted on the page after the last !vote was cast. With respect, the result might very well change with a relist and there is no objective reason for asserting the opposite, despite what the closer indicated on their talk page. Thank you. ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 10:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)(Same user who edited the page with another temporary account) Temp undeleted for DRV. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Comment: The nominator is correct to say the article was extended substantially around 9 hours before the closure, but neither they nor anyone else mentioned the expansion at the AFD page itself, and closers aren't expected to go poking around for that. Additionally, the sources added in that edit seem to already have been mentioned during the AFD. I'm on the fence here so will decide a little later. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Thank you. Unless I am very much mistaken, the sources had not all been mentioned during the AfD, and that is without mentioning the prose and cleanup (which do count, not directly towards notability, but in terms of what an article can be). I wanted to add a Template:AfD changed but had no time to do so. I did not expect the closer to do it (although it seems a good idea to check the state of the page before closing, hence the "edits since nomination" button) but at least, then, when informed that this was the case, relisting the page seems a fair course of action so that the page and its encyclopaedic potential can be assessed with time. My initial message on the closer's talk page was just that. ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse - Editors looked at the sources that were added to the article previously in the AfD on 8 January. The expansion therefore adds nothing to the article that was not discussed. The main argument made by the keep side was that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, but this was disputed by the delete side. In any case, NACTOR does not create a presumption of automatic notability for an article. What the additional criteria section actually says, in the first paragraph, is People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Editors reviewed the sources, which did not provide any significant coverage. BLP articles are written from secondary sources, and despite the relist, we don't have the sources from which an article can be written. This was the conclusion of a consensus of editors, and the closer correctly evaluated that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Thank you but I am bit confused. Allow me to ask 2 questions and add 2 comments: The expansion therefore adds nothing to the article that was not discussed. How so, if it includes other sources? Editors reviewed the sources, which did not provide any significant coverage. Same question (where and when? how can they review sources that they haven't seen?); and see Wikipedia:BASIC, please. And "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" certainly does not mean "meeting one or more does guarantee that a subject should not be included". (PS-There is no "automatic"/"inherent" notability on Wikipedia, at all; all notability guidelines include a presumption of some sort. GNG as much as NACTOR. GNG and SNGs are all valid paths to notability, though.) ~2026-33418-5 (talk) 11:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC) See my answer below. The sources were not new (except a Youtube video). They were discussed in the AfD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Relist (preferred) or draftify. Owen did a very reasonable close, but the article as deleted (and its sourcing) were different enough from what they were during the discussion that it's worth having a 2nd look. More detail: The article and its sourcing, as nominated, were weak, almost speediably (in my opinion). While not unanimous, discussion as of time of the close did clearly favour delete, taking into account policy-based strength of the arguments. @scope_creep's reasonable delete !vote was the only AfD comment since a relist. However, it so happened that soon after scope_creep's comment, and contra @Sirfurboy, the article was significantly changed, focusing more on critical commentary about the actor, and adding several independent secondary sources (sources went from 4 to 9, and include generally RS). By a quirk of timing, no one evaluated those new sources or the change in tone prior to the AfD being closed as delete a few hours later. Now, based on a quick review, I am not wholly convinced the rewrite and new sources are enough to pass WP:GNG or NACTOR (they are independent, but are they substantive enough?). But they might be, and that's a discussion more suited for AfD or AfC review rather than DRV. As to relist vs draftify, either works, but relists are cheap, there is no abuse of process here to protect against, and the AfC process is overburdened, so a relist is most pragmatic. Martinp (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC) and contra @Sirfurboy... What I said is that editors looked at the sources. They did. See the AfD comment by ~2026-12339-6 at 23:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC), and the following discussion. Four of the five belatedly added sources were in that message and discussed in that thread. The only remaining addition is a Youtube video [8] which appears self published (but not verified) and is certainly not independent nor secondary. Editors looked at the sourcing that was added, and their determination was that these did not constitute IRS SIGCOV. A relist to discuss the Youtube video would be a waste of time. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Thank you for the correction. I see further pertinent discussion below parsing the details. Net-net, not a great discussion was had at the AfD (not a criticism, we have lots of not-great discussions), and the article as it was deleted was significantly different in tone, focus, and sourcing than the one nominated and discussed. I continue to feel a relist is the best option. I'm not sure what is the right answer about an actor who hasn't had truly a lead role, but has had multiple instances where they are in the billing, and their performance in their roles is explicitly addressed if briefly in RS. It is a grey area, and worth a proper 2nd look. Martinp (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Comment: Let me save everyone a bit of time - The only new source that was not brought to the AfD, but was directly added to the article is a New Indian Express review, which again mentions the subject only once in a full-length review. Feel free to relist if needed, but these sources do not add anything of value toward establishing notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Even the New Indian Express review was discussed in the AfD in the comment by ~2026-15473-1 at 11:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC) and following. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Not entirely sure, but we might be confusing two different sources here as The Indian Express and The New Indian Express split into separate firms some time ago. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Ah yes, but what I had not spotted in my initial review of this is that the New Indian Express was discussed, but this [9] rather than [10]. As you say, thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Relist I find this one really difficult because the discussion is really poor - a keep and delete claiming he passes/fails NACTOR, a keep showing coverage in reviews, two deletes claiming there's no significant independent coverage. The close was fine given the circumstances, but on reviewing the subject, he's had major roles in three well-reviewed non-English language movies, which probably does pass NACTOR, and I can't quickly find any good clear coverage on him in English that isn't a movie review, meaning notability here is very much in the grey zone. If he is not already notable it is probably just TOOSOON, but I think this would benefit from further discussion and more time to find other sources. SportingFlyer T·C 13:35, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Those with major roles in these films are discussed throughout the reviews, rather than being limited to a single passing mention. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Relist though I believe the close was correct based on the information presented in the AFD. However, a new source has been added and there is no harm in having another week to evaluate it. Frank Anchor 01:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC) Relist - The question here is whether the closer should have relisted the AFD when an editor added material including a source a few hours before it was closed. That in turn raises the question of whether the closer should have assessed whether there was new information, or whether the closer should have let the community decide whether there was new information. My opinion is that the community should decide, by relisting the AFD The question is not whether the unregistered editor insulted the closer (they did, by questioning their neutrality), or whether the unregistered editor should have insulted the closer (insulting another editor is never useful because civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia), or whether it was useful for the unregistered editor to beg for mercy by saying what are you saying is a bit disrepectful of my work. The unregistered editor has done a very poor job of requesting a relist, but the AFD should be relisted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC) While I do think ~2026's questions on @Owen's talk page could have been worded better and had an unnecessary chip on the shoulder, I think describing them as "insulting the closer" is excessive. Querying to what extent a closer was judging consensus vs making their own assessment is an important safety valve in our processes, and inviting examination of potential biases is neither inherently assuming bad faith nor being insulting. And while through my own interactions with Owen I know he is very good at assessing vs imposing their own point of view, when he answered Adding those sources to the article changed nothing in terms of notability as rationale, he was absolutely opening himself up being queried whether he had made a supervote. Owen chose to bring here, which is fully reasonable, as would have been explaining his thinking further, why he felt it was not a supervote but just representing the thinking already in the AFD. I think it's important we AGF about closes but remain open to challenging potential biases, and AGF about those who do so rather than label it an insult. Martinp (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse but relist. No fault of the closer's – but the debate was deficient due to its lack of consideration of all the sources, and it would be wrong to allow it to stand. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse The argument he was notable was basically refuted by the other editors. DRV is not "I don't like the result and want to overturn it", there has to be some evidence the close was faulty here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC) endorse but relist yes, this could be a way of getting around an obvious close but A) it involves improving things, so if this is "gaming the system" I'm okay with it and B) I'd rather keep one questionable thing for an extra week or two than delete something notable. No fault to the closer in any case. Hobit (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

IndiaOne Air Flight 102 – Endorse Star Mississippi 00:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
IndiaOne Air Flight 102 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The main rationale for the nominator and some of the early votes was that it was a non-fatal accident. Of course, a fatality doesn't mean it is automatically notable, but it did make the early keep votes seem weaker in arguments. I added sources right before the AFD close and only got one response from one of the editors who had already voted redirect. I want a relist where editors evaluate these sources because I believe they are significant coverage. One of the former redirect voters switch their vote to keep after hearing about the fatality and the fatality was only reported two days before the AFD closed. Zaptain United (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse Looking at the sources, they all were mainly coverage of the 1 fataility. 5 of the non-keep votes had already acknowledged the 1 death and determined that was not sufficient for notability. I do not see any reason why a relist would change that. Jumpytoo Talk 04:17, 23 January 2026 (UTC) (involved) As I mentioned in the discussion, fatalities do not necessarily equal notability. This was a very recent crash, and it's possible additional coverage will come out regarding the crash that will justify having an article, so I'd prefer to allow this to be draftifyed as opposed to relisted, as the consensus was absolutely clear. SportingFlyer T·C 07:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC) (involved) Comment: draftification is useful to preserve the history if the article would otherwise be deleted. When the consensus is to redirect, draftification serves little purpose as the history remains with the redirect page. As to the sources added just before the close, they constitute WP:ROUTINE news coverage of the fatality, not the sort of WP:INDEPTH coverage that would be needed for notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2026 (UTC) I'm not suggesting this should have been draftify instead of redirect. I'm suggesting the solution here is to spin out a draft so that the petitioner can work on it if additional coverage is found. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse. Deletion review is a venue that handles failures to follow deletion process. It is not for cases where you merely disagree with the closure reached. As the article has been redirected, it is open to editors to spin it back out in the future if more emerges. Also fine with draftifying. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse the close of Redirect. The question is whether a Relist is necessary because one of the passengers died while the AFD was running. The answer to that question is No, because the votes were continuing to trend to Redirect after the death occurred. Editors who knew that there had been a fatality found that the crash was not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse - Per Stifle. The close was a correct assessment of the consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) Endorse. While superficially similar to the situation immediately above where I did favour a relist, i.e. additional sourcing added shortly before the close, in this instance the additional sourcing was evaluated at least cursorily prior to the close, and the question of significance and relevance whether there was a fatality or not was already anticipated in the discussion previously. Nothing would change here now with further discussion. (It is of course possible that this crash will turn out to be of lasting significance, in which case an article can be written later reflecting that, and doubtless borrowing from the current version that is in the history prior to the redirect.) Martinp (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse (as original nominator): As @Aviationwikiflight disclosed here, the AfD was unfortunately subject to canvassing from Reddit on the final day. This didn't seem to have any effect on consensus however. I think @OwenX's close, as usual, was absolutely fine. I do not think this needs to be reopened. 11WB (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC) I didn't mean for the "as usual" to sound like an insult, by the way. Simply meant to emphasise I have never disagreed with a close @OwenX has made, I would say if I thought otherwise. 11WB (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse I think the editors did a good jub discussing the state of the sources. No objection to this coming back through AFC if sources are found, but I think there would need to be multiple significant sources to justify having an article in mainspace. --Enos733 (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 January 2026

Mo Shaikh – Decision endorsed * Pppery * it has begun... 04:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mo Shaikh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Hi, I'm opening this to request review of the consensus to delete Mo Shaikh. The reason given to delete was that there was a consensus that the sources were not sufficient and that there was no rebuttal. However, there was a rebuttal here, in which the editor challenged the notion of disqualifying all sources with quotes as "interviews." (They were referring to the disqualification of sources like the New York Times and Fortune.) Furthermore, there were 3 !votes to keep and 3 !votes to delete, which is not generally a consensus for deletion. There had been a 4th vote to delete, but that was explicitly based on a sock puppet's source analysis. Perhaps that factor was overlooked? I appreciate the consideration here, as this does not seem to be a straightforward case of consensus to delete. Thank you. NBruns (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse own deletion as an accurate reading of consensus. Two of the keep !votes were bare assertions "topic is notable" and "passes GNG", which deserve lesser weight. User:Scope creep's analysis as adopted by others prevailed. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Comment: The nominator is a paid editor working for the article subject. They have properly disclosed this on their userpage, but I am mentioning it as relevant to this discussion. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Comment I don't think that my vote should be discarded, as the analysis by the sock was more positive than that of Scope_creep, indicating that there were two sources good enough for GNG. I disagreed with that part of the assessment. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Comment. I gave several WP:RS to demonstrate notability. SC's dispute with the sources I provided included a claim that the NYT profile was not WP:SECONDARY because Shaikh lives in New York City. SC's dispute also included his assertion that Tech Crunch is junk. When I asked him to clarify, and included that according to WP:TECHCRUNCH, as long as it was written by staff it was reliable, and that the only time it might not be is under WP:NCORP (which I clarified did not apply as this is a WP:BLP), SC responded that NCORP doesn't apply to BLPs... which would be in agreement with what I was arguing. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC) I don't think it is necessary for everyone to clarify that they agree the sources I provided (or are on the article already) demonstrate WP:GNG. They are free to simply agree. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Would you agree this is a personal attack? SportingFlyer T·C 08:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Obviously not, otherwise I wouldn't have written the comment. Revolving Doormat (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC) SC also discounted Fortune because Shaikh met with the journalist on a video call. These are not legitimate reasons to deem a source is not WP:SECONDARY, and frankly, there is recent precedent that does not align with SC's position that profiles written by WP:RS that involve interviewing the subject of the article from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hong (entrepreneur) (2nd nomination). Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC) That position at the other AfD would be obviously incorrect, interviews as a rule don't count towards GNG of the person being interviewed. SportingFlyer T·C 08:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC) An interview is a dialogue between interviewer(s) and interviewee(s), or a transcript of that dialogue. That makes it a WP:PRIMARY source; if you look at the essay WP:INTERVIEW, even it says Any of the content merely quoting the interviewee should be treated as primary. and To be secondary, the source has to contain transformative thoughts, which an uncritical parroting of what someone else said lacks. The only discussion I was sent about whether or not interviews can be used to establish GNG (and I mean interviews as in a dialogue, not the analysis and fact-checking of what was said in such a dialogue), did not even come to a consensus that all such interviews do not establish notability. The consensus among editors was that some interviews (as in the dialogue, again) can—such as an interview by The Rolling Stone. Revolving Doormat (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Primary sources, as a general rule, do not contribute to notability under the WP:GNG and most WP:SNGs as most of these notability guidelines specify that secondary sources are required. Katzrockso (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse the discussion - the consensus was clearly to delete, and while this isn't AfD part two I don't see anything obviously wrong with the source analysis by the delete !voters. SportingFlyer T·C 08:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse. There were 7 votes, and I voted keep. 1 Redirect to Aptos Labs 3 Keep (1 with list of RS, 2 agreeing the sources were sufficient with no commentary) 3 Delete (2 agreeing with SC's analysis with no commentary, 1 with commentary) If we lower the weight of the 4 votes that did no analysis of their own, they cancel each other out. My only concern is that SC's own discussion says that one of the RS is more about Aptos Labs than Shaikh, indicating that the WP:ATD perhaps should not have been ignored. That said, the other best of the sources are not about Aptos, but his other ventures, which is why I didn't agree with the ATD. Kelob's vote included the opinion that the Fortune source lacked enough depth to be used. I can't really argue about the content of the Economic Times being an interview versus being an analysis, because I don't subscribe to their platform. Because of this, really only the NYT source and TechCrunch source remain (and I disagree with the reasons provided to discount them), which leans toward a consensus of deletion. Revolving Doormat (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse What is nice about the discussion is that editors supporting keeping the article provided sources for other editors to consider early in the discussion. The discussion was relisted to solicit additional thoughts. In that additional period, two editors concluded that the sources did not meet GNG, and no editor concluded that the article should be kept. To me, the closer did not err in closing as delete. --Enos733 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse. The analysis of the sources was reasonable. The rebuttal referred to by the appellant here was just not found persuasive. Neither any new sources nor any missed information about the sources that were looked at has been presented. Martinp (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 January 2026

Suzy Cortez – "Redirect" closure endorsed. A few people favor a relist, but rough consensus is that redirection was an appropriate closure. Sandstein 07:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Suzy Cortez (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I have two main points as to why the close was not in line with consensus(or in this case, the lack of it). The two reasons are as follows: 1. Numerical: Strictly numerically, there were 2 delete !votes, 2 redirect !votes, and 4 keep !votes. That suggests a rough consensus of keep !votes, making redirection unjustified in this regard, as while it can be an alternative to deletion, it cannot be an alternative to retention absent consensus not to keep the article. 2. Reasoning: The keep reasoning is that Suzy Cortez clearly meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and the biography notability guideline (WP:BIO). She has received sustained, significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in reliable, independent secondary sources over many years, establishing long-term international notability. I can give you sources if you ask. The delete reasoning is that she did certain things that do not establish notability, ignoring the thing she did that do establish notability. The redirect !votes do not even have a reason other than as an WP:ATD, although as said before, while it can be an alternative to deletion, it cannot be an alternative to retention absent consensus not to keep the article. This makes their input WP:JUSTAVOTE, making redirection completely unjustifiable. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Oppose undeletion - if I had participated in this AfD, I'd probably have !voted delete, with an alternative to redirect. It's pretty clear to any longtime editor that this person isn't notable. Being a candidate is not automatically notable. In fact, we routinely delete such articles. Redirect is just a kind way of deleting a subject, in the remote possibility that someday in the future the subject will become notable and it can be re-created by any editor, without getting an administrator involved, and as a cheap way to allow for our readers to find out a bit about the subject that's not really notable. The English Wikipedia community has become much more likely to delete poorly sourced BLPs. Part of that is because powerful people are trying to find any excuse to destroy us financially, and partly because defending against defamation lawsuits have become prohibitively expensive. In both cases, sadly, this is a financial decision. Sorry, but we have to cover our assets. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse. Like Voorts, I am not impressed by the four Keeps, two of whom are SPAs, and another was specifically created to vote at this AfD. Empty copy-pasted claims of "clearly meets GNG" or allegations of bias are meaningless without sources to back them up. The appellant was the only Keep in that AfD whose argument carried any P&G weight at all. His promise of, I can give you sources if you ask is an empty one. The time to provide sources was during the AfD, where he failed to do so. If the appellant had sources that establish notability, he would have submitted a draft to AfC with those sources, freeing us from the need for this DRV, instead of resorting to a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES appeal. Owen× ☎ 17:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC) I actually do have a source, but I could not present it as I found it from the Wikipedia Library. The claims are not empty; two sources were linked on the article and I have found a third, although I need technical help using it. Additionally, the claim that of the four Keeps, two of whom are SPAs, and another was specifically created to vote at this AfD is unfounded accusations, borderline aspersions and personal attacks. Nononsense101 (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC) I actually do have a source, but I could not present it as I found it from the Wikipedia Library. That doesn't make any sense. Of course you could have provided a link or any other citation information. Owen's analysis of the keep !votes is correct. It's not a personal attack to point out that two accounts have only edited about this particular topic and one was created just to post in this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC) I'm serious. I couldn't link it as it wouldn't work, and I didn't know any other way that would make it clear which source I was talking about. Regardless of whether the decision of the AfD is keep, delete, or no consensus, it can't be redirect because both redirect votes were just votes, with the reason being as an WP:ATD, with no reason as to why it is an alternative to deletion(no justification as to why redirect would be preferable to delete, or even why keep is not an option). Nononsense101 (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Implementing ATD's over delete is standard practice, they are preferred over deletion so any viable reasonable one is usually chosen if there is no opposition to the ATD itself. Jumpytoo Talk 05:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC) That is true, but there is no indication why redirection, or even deletion, is viable in the first place. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Sources have references. the url might not work, so tell us the other details of the source so we can also look at it. Title, date, author etc. it’s not difficult. JMWt (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC) It is called "Brazilian Sex Muse Dresses in Paint to Celebrate Rio Olympics". It can be found by searching Suzy Cortez on the Wikipedia Library. When I searched, it was result 12. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Is this what you're referring to? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Correct. Now I can use the source directly instead of the Library copy if the article ever gets recreated. Nononsense101 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC) That source does not contain SIGCOV. It's the same sort of routine/trivial coverage as the other sources provided in the discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse It's clear from the discussion consensus was to not have this article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Relist or overturn to keep. As much as having an article on this woman adds nothing (or at least, nothing good) to human knowledge, the Keeps have it: Multiple RS'es covering this woman in multiple contexts: twice winning the contest to which this was redirected, her Messi anal tattoo, Messi's wife taking issue with that, and her bodybuilding. Yes, she's Kardashianesque at best, but BLP1E does not apply and GNG appears to be met even if the sources do come across as sleazy and tabloidish. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC) The delete !votes argued that trivial coverage in tabloid-esque reporting is not significant coverage, and the one keep !vote that wasn't an SPA didn't contest that point. I found that argument had stronger grounds in the notability guidelines than the keep !votes, which just asserted notability based on dumping a bunch of said sources. If closers are no longer expected to use their judgment and analyze the strength of arguments in light of PAGs, but to treat any opposing viewpoint as equally strong, we should just change AfD over to secure poll and handle things that way. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC) We did not dump a bunch of sources; we showed 2 reliable, independent sources that provided significant coverage about her tattoo, her winning the Miss Bumbum contest, etc. thus showing notability. And you still have not explained your close. Both redirect votes just said as an ATD without explaining why to redirect or even why it is an alternative to deletion. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Please read WP:ATD-R. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC) I have read it, and while I still think the AfD should have been closed as either keep or no consensus, I understand your reasoning now. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC) To be clear, I read the sources already in the source and target articles as well as those mentioned in the AfD to reach my conclusion. I consider them all fair game in assessing the discussion. I did not go searching for new sources, because this is not AfD round 2. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Relist - After one week, with non-trivial numbers of Keeps and Deletes, it is better to relist than to try to tease out a rough consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Relist The last 3 keep votes all seem to be written by LLM, so the closer is correct in discounting them. However, the discussion regarding the sourcing is lacking by the non-keep side as well, so relist to allow discussion of the sources. Jumpytoo Talk 05:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Relist I am persuaded that the keep comments are on the weaker side, and do not fully justify an article. That said, I think at this point a relist would lead to a stronger consensus (especially if the subject would be entitled to WP:REFUND and reviewd again through AFC). --Enos733 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC) I have blocked 3 of the accounts which participated in the AFD as accounts very likely to be socks of each other as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor2026kj. Two of the accounts !voted keep. Izno (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse The keep !votes were all socks with one WP:SPA and their !votes were not compliant with policy. I see no reason to reopen. If kept open, it would have been a delete. It is a waste of time. scope_creepTalk 17:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse - There is a consensus to delete after the sock votes are struck. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Not necessarily. First of all, I am not a sock or a SPA, so my !vote still stands. Second of all, my !vote was the only one to use the sources, which the delete !votes did not address. Third of all, I don’t believe the accounts were socks. Nononsense101 (talk) 02:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse Every single editor (apart from Nononsense101) who voted or indicated Keep here has been blocked as a sock, I think we would be wasting our time even further to re-open this. Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC) In actuality, the delete side did not address my !vote, thus requiring either a no consensus close or a relist. Nononsense101 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC) You don't need to respond to every editor. You've already made this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse I am persuaded by the consensus to delete after the sock votes are struck analysis. And even before we strike any !votes, the only "keep" !vote with any grounding in policies and guidelines gestured at a source without actually providing it. The closer came to a reasonable judgment in saying that the case for keeping was not substantial. Moreover, everything that has happened since the close has validated that call. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC) The cases for deletion and redirection were not substantial either. Nononsense101 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC) The !votes for deletion were substantial, one with explicit pointers to guidelines and the other grounded in them. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

CRU Group – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 08:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
CRU Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Hi, I'm opening this to request review of the consensus to delete CRU Group. I'm not sure how this works - is there a way for people who are reviewing consensus to actually view the deleted article? Anyway... First off, let's start to the word consensus. There is the documentation page WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus ... if an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but then an editor has added the missing references, that argument for deletion is no longer persuasive". I !voted Keep, along with one other editor. 6 editors !voted Delete, including four who !voted before I added a bunch of sources - and they never circled back to respond. Of these editors, on the surface I am one of the ones with the longest tenure and most experience immersed in Wikipedia - having edited since 2007 w/ about 13k edits. Not saying that to brag but in comparison the nominator had 1.3k edits and 2 articles created, one of which was deleted. The only editor to substantively analyze the article was @HighKing: who noted "I cannot see the full content of the subscription-only newsletter but the opening doesn't have anything". The subscription-only newsletter is a business periodical which was discussing M&A possibilities and CRU Group's force as a price reporting agency. The fact that it's subscription-only doesn't take away from its weight - in fact in some ways it increases it - as serious business publications are not free, and journalists do make a living supported by more than mass-market advertising. I'm not sure how to reconcile this lack of accessibility with its significance. So when it comes down to it, we had one !vote engaging with the sources. I didn't have time to circle back around to respond to HighKing but I don't know exactly what he wanted - Wikipedia:One hundred words?. To be honest the newsletter checks the boxes but it's not even really the point for me. The point is consensus and also notability as a real thing in the world rather than just boxes checked. Stepping back to the philosophy, this is an article I created back around 2009ish when I was working on mining - an article where I remain responsible for the much of content by added bytes (by far most by a single editor). This company is very prominent in the mining and fertilizer industry, which is why its consultants are often quoted in the WSJ [11] and NYTimes [12]. I wrote the article as I tried to understand this source and its credibility. And I want it to remain because I feel that our reader should be able to read the WSJ (or the many tens of thousands of other ways this company pops up in research across the web), wonder who the company cited is, and find a bit about them - good or bad. Our editors and readers also benefit from being able to quickly research the background of the publisher of `Fertilizer International Magazine`, which is one of very few sources covering this area in detail. So this company, founded in 1969 by John Horam and a partner, publishing leading trade journals and running trade conferences on mining, metals and fertilizers for the last 50+ years, involved in a bunch of M&A, oft-cited by WSJ and deeply hooked into our international metals trading system as a leading PRA, cannot have an article. Meanwhile - and I don't mean to cast aspersions as I think it deserves an article - Hegarty's Cheese gets an article, despite being far less notable in the sense of being known by people in real life and impacting business across the globe. This just reminds me of how nearly every bar and restaurant where I live in Oakland, California has a dedicated article or two from local journalists discussing their founding and whatnot because local journalists get paid a few hundred bucks to help drum business (random example). These check the WP:SIRS boxes. But in reality, detailed in-depth coverage does not mean notability. And the lack of such detailed articles do not mean lack of notability, because notable organizations do exist which are only covered by business trade periodicals or hardly even that, and their significance is evident by their tentacles throughout the world even if journalists aren't spinning up articles on them for ad-supported mass media. Anyway, ultimately I understand that consensus is not unanimity, but in that discussion, I feel that my !vote (and the other editor) counts enough to say no consensus. II | (t - c) 05:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC) --> Endorse to me, that's a clear delete close. We have clear standards for articles on companies to prevent promotional editing, and the best delete !votes came after sources had been found. After reviewing the consensus I checked the available sourcing just to see if an error had been made by the participants and I don't see any obvious error from the delete !voters. SportingFlyer T·C 07:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Can you substantively respond to my comment? We have two clear detailed significant articles covering this company in detail in a trade publication, in addition to the many other sources noting that it is a leading price reporting agency and it's 50-year history of publishing of the leading trade journals and industry conference for fertilizers. Also, can you help me understand how 6/8 is consensus, especially given that only 1 of those 6 engaged with the sources and that person admitted they didn't read the most focused and detailed one? II | (t - c) Since this is DRV, I'm only looking at whether the closer closed the discussion correctly, and for any error. This one is very straightforward. Essentially every delete !voter claimed that there was no identified coverage of the company which passed WP:NCORP, and this was not adequately rebutted by those wishing to keep the article. The !deletes also had a clear majority in the discussion after weighting votes. Furthermore, as I've mentioned, the identified sourcing isn't good enough. The way to fix this would be to find actual NCORP qualifying coverage and start a new draft of the company's article. I'd note I just did a quick search and can't easily find good coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 12:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC) @SportingFlyer: This article Will Fastmarkets get its dream PRA deal? is specifically focused on CRU - that's the dream acquisition. It's about 1800 words. It's not the only article. It notes there are 8 PRAs of note globally - CRU is not the smallest - and every single one of them but this one has a Wikipedia article currently. Are you able to see the content of the article before it was deleted? II | (t - c) 01:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC) It's customary (and part of the instructions on this page) to discuss your concerns with the closing administrator rather than jumping directly to deletion review. Can you help me understand why you chose to omit that step, or if I have missed it, point me to where that discussion happened? Stifle (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC) @Stifle: I missed that step, sorry. I don't spend much time around here. II | (t - c) 01:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse The headline object appears to be that sources, which you claim meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, were dismissed without being read. Be aware that multiple sources are required (lets say the bare minimum of two) and the sources behind a firewill were from the same published, that is, a single "source" for the purposes of establishing notability. You also make a number of other statements, some inaccurate. For example, you claim to have the "longest tenure" with the most edits. That isn't the case. In my !vote, I asked you to point to the specific sections/paragraphs of the sources which contains in-depth "independent content" *about* the company which could establish notability. You didn't respond. You say you don't even understand what I was looking for - but I pointed you to the relevent sections of the guidelines, not sure what more you expect. So, if we're being totally honest, you are absolutely correct in that there was only one !vote (mine) which engaged with the sources. You, also, did not engage with the sources. You point to Hegarty's Cheese as if you don't understand/accept why this topic meets notability criteria. I suggest it meets notability criteria because it has sources listed in the article which meet our criteria. Nothing more, nothing less. Bottom line - if you believe a topic company/organisation is notable, once it reaches AfD then the onus is on Keep !voters to point to sections/paragraphs within sources that contain in-depth independent content. Things are are irrelevant are quantity of coverage, mentions by respected publishers, regurgitated/repackaged PR or company announcements or finances, high profile employees or people associated with the topic company/organisation or their products, and mentions in passing. HighKing++ 12:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC) I can't provide the article by Fast & Flames, but I do have it and I'm happy to provide fair use level snippets and descriptions. As I noted above to SportingFlyer above, it spends a fair bit of time framing the 8 major PRAs across the globe, which are dominated by S&P Global Energy as pricing oil is where more of the money is - but Fastmarkets (i.e. Delinian) and CRU Group specifically focus on and dominate in metals, which is why the private equity owner is interested in buying CRU Group. Mentions some stumbles in the 1980s and significant growth in the past few years. Valuation estimated around half a billion. Not entirely clear if this is just the PRA side of the business or that + research/consulting. In terms of a second source, there are lots of blurbs on it when searching Google Books, altho many are from a decade+ ago and previews are limited. Still, does WP:NCORP say specifically 2? And many of the sources on Google Books and Google Scholar discussing the product - i.e. the research - are what I would consider significant. Something like Metal Supermarkets which calls it "world-renowned" is unseemly but that type of language is not uncommon in the discussions from the industry participants. II | (t - c) 01:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse The closer clearly judged the consensus correctly. This is not a venue to determine whether or not that was the correct decision. SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse. I often get petitioned by AfD participants to reopen or relist discussions, arguing that the evidence they presented was not adequately rebutted by the other participants. This can be a valid argument when they presented their evidence shortly before the discussion was closed. This was not the case here. The AfD was closed almost 16 days after the appellant presented their arguments there. Two of our most thorough AfD participants - HighKing and 4meter4 - had ample time to review the sources presented by the appellant, and their arguments suggest they did so, and found the appellant's sources insufficient. The appellant is essentially asking us to assign his minority opinion the power of veto. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC) @OwenX: to be clear, I pointed out a very in-depth source on the 12. HighKing responded and mentioned having no access to the article on the 14. Randykitty deleted on the 16th. It's a very busy time of year for me so I didn't circle back in time to explain more about what the source says. II | (t - c) 01:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse The close was correct. Unlike the nominator, I see several editors engage with the sources that were provided in the article. Editors do not need to provide lengthy source analyses (although it certainly can be helpful). --Enos733 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse as a valid close and the right close. DRV is not AFD round 2, and the appellant appears to be disagreeing with the AFD participants rather than with the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse Indeed. It was a clear consensus to delete. 4meter4 and HK have got long experience of examining sources of this type. scope_creepTalk 17:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 January 2026

2025 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Chargers game (closed)

2025 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Chargers game – History behind redirect restored by Graeme Bartlett. Owen× ☎ 12:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2025 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Chargers game (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Requesting the closure of delete be overturned to redirect. This is because content from that article was copied in this edit and without the redirect the edit fails WP:CWW. Also see this.~2026-38870-0 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC) Note: I might’ve messed up on the dashes. Any assistance with that would be appreciated. ~2026-38870-0 (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)  Done Owen× ☎ 22:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse but restore history behind redirect to preserve attribution. I see nothing wrong with how the AfD was closed, and neither does the appellant, as far as I can tell. I'd see no reason to refuse this reasonable request for history restoration even if we didn't have seven of the AfD participants opting for an ATD such as this. Owen× ☎ 22:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC) Question - Is the purpose of this request only to restore the history that was deleted from public view because the closing was Delete? If so, restore the history somehow as long as the article remains deleted. Leaving the article in the history is not a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Speedy restore the history, I don't see reason why to refuse such request. Jumpytoo Talk 03:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Speedy restore the history I'd go so far as to say that this should be a default (a la REFUND) for anything that was deleted based on notability or NOT, but not G10-11-12 (attack, promo, copyvio) grounds. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

K. Annamalai (I.P.S) (closed)

K. Annamalai (I.P.S) – conditional closeThere is some consensus that the NPOL arguments might be overcome by new sources so the logical conclusion would be to restore and list at AFD. However, we don't have an acceptable draft to put to AFD and this one keeps being declined. Therefore, once a draft is accepted at AFC, I will restore and relist. Spartaz Humbug! 11:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
K. Annamalai (I.P.S) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This is in the context of the previous AfD and DRVs for this subject, timesinks which caused considerable frustration to the parties involved. I propose accepting Draft:Annamalai (BJP politician), and a DRV is apparently required for this. I want to establish, if not a GNG pass, at least a bare minimum, prima facie case for a fresh AfD since the one in 2020, as the most important sources post-date it, and in some cases post-date the DRVs, which in any case did not really discuss the sourcing. Here's some sources establishing the subject's notability, independent of the draft: Nath, Akshaya (28 February 2023). "Why Tamil Nadu BJP chief Annamalai traded in the quiet life he dreamt of for 'toxic' politics". ThePrint. Retrieved 16 January 2026. Shoba, V (12 April 2024). "K Annamalai: Tamil Disrupter". Open. Retrieved 18 January 2026. Chengappa, Raj (16 April 2024). "K. Annamalai: A singham in saffron". India Today. Retrieved 18 January 2026. Henry, Nikhila (14 April 2025). "What next for Annamalai? Speculation rife in BJP over future of party's outgoing Tamil Nadu chief". The Indian Express. Retrieved 18 January 2026. Additionally, there's further coverage from the same outlets, such as this one from Open, dozens of articles from The Hindu covering his statements and activities, more of that from other outlets, political analysis featuring him in outlets like Newslaundry. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 02:32, 18 January 2026 (UTC) Keep deleted - He is the news because of his association with BJP, he does not meet independent notability. The mentioned sources are pro-government. They dont meet the definition of WP:IS. Zalaraz (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2026 (UTC) These media organisations are obviously independent of the subject. Zalaraz seems to be operating under an awful misunderstanding of policy where the sources are required to have a political viewpoint opposite that of the subject to count as "independent". They also demonstrate a lack of understanding of WP:BIASED, here and elsewhere. And their assertion is straight up false, as anyone familiar with Indian media and political landscape understands. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 07:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC) "Independent notability" isn't found anywhere in Wikiiedia pcies or guidelines. Katzrockso (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse and leave SALTed/titleblacklisted and listed at DEEPER. This is the third time the 2020 AfD is brought to DRV. The subject has been listed at DEEPER since March 2024. The previous DRV close included the following directive: To anyone who might start a future DRV about this: Do not do so unless: (1) you are an AfC reviewer who wants to accept the submission because, according to your independent reasoning, the draft is ready for mainspace, but you can not for technical reasons (if you do not think that the draft is ready for mainspace, there is no need to come here); (2) you are an editor who believes that the draft should be accepted and you feel capable of starting this process with a concise statement how the draft is prima facie worthy of a review and how it is ready for mainspace. I suggest we amend this requirement to eliminate Option #2. That is, future DRVs about this subject may only be filed by an AfC reviewer who has determined a draft to be ready for mainspace. DRV is not the right forum to assess sources, and enough time has already been wasted on appeals and re-appeals. Owen× ☎ 14:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC) If DRV is made the prerequisite for accepting a draft, it will have to be place where sources are assessed. I'm not sure how further bureaucratisation by requiring an "AfC reviewer" (I've been one in the past) is supposed to do the project any good. Anyone who feels a draft is ready can move it to name space, being a formal AfC reviewer has never been a requirement as far as I understand. The place to challenge an article is AfD, and the sane option would be to just hold another one (in five years!), rather than what feels like holding grudges for past disruption and inviting more DRV. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 20:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC) No grudges are being held here. By adding it to our titleblacklisted and DEEPER lists, the community has spoken loud and clearly about its reluctance to spend any more time on this subject. We left the door open for a draft that offers a meaningful improvement in sourcing. The requirement for passing AfC in this case isn't bureaucratisation; it's an anti-nuisance filter. I have no reason to cast aspersions on your skills as a former AfC reviewer, but I trust the assessment done by RangersRus, who declined the last rev submitted for review. The draft, in its current form, is not accepted by a reviewer. Your attempt to circumvent that by taking it to DRV for a third round isn't cutting red tape, but wasting community time. Had RangersRus accepted the draft, we would not be having this conversation. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC) Allow recreation subject to a new AfD, as before. The reason people bring this to DRV again and again is that he is obviously notable, as the nominator here does a fairly good job of explaining. The 2021 AfD predates his most prominent role and has been followed by almost five years of near-continuous coverage in India's most reliable national newspapers. I worry we've ended up in a sort of cognitive-bias doom loop here (à la User:JzG/And the band played on...), where the history has made it difficult to see even a very cogent appeal from an experienced editor as anything other than more evidence of disruption. DEEPER can be a valuable tool, but it's never a reason not to look at the evidence critically and objectively, and I think when you do that it becomes clear that a new AfD is the only sensible outcome here. (If it helps, I'm happy to put my AfC reviewer hat on and say I would accept the draft as submitted.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC) User:JzG/And the band played on... is a good explanation of what is happening here. Based on the sources I found below, the subject was already notable when the March 2024 deletion review led to his getting listed at WP:DEEPER. If a search for sources happened during that deletion review, the article should have been restored. Cunard (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC) I've always viewed User:JzG/And the band played on... as a good thing; a subject later not having an article when he might otherwise have deserved one is fitting karma for repeated attempts to give him an article when he didn't. But that reasoning is not based in any policy. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Maybe, possibly, if notability's no better than borderline and it was the subject himself who had pushed so hard for an article. But there's no reason to think the latter is the case here. —Cryptic 04:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Comment - This draft had been resubmitted, but was submitted using only the surname and disambiguator, which was a blatant attempt to game the title. I have renamed the draft to the full name of the subject, and have reviewed and rejected the submission. The draft is written from the viewpoint of the subject, and does not speak for itself because it does not refer to significant coverage by independent sources. I have not reviewed the sources, because the draft has been reference-bombed and the draft does not refer to significant coverage by independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse the previous blacklistings. Submission with only the surname and a disambiguator was further evidence of gaming the title and indicates that the blacklistings were appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Restore since I would accept the current version of the AfC draft to mainspace. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamalai k was closed as "delete" in May 2021. Since 2021, K. Annamalai has received a massive amount of news coverage from reliable sources such as The Hindu (generally reliable according to WP:THEHINDU) and The Indian Express (generally reliable according to WP:INDIANEXP). Like Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs), I would accept Draft:Kuppusamy Annamalai at AfC. As a experienced editor who has had no prior involvement with K. Annamalai (I.P.S), I consider the article to be fairly balanced since it has statements like: Annamalai became known for his combative public rhetoric, particularly in his criticisms of the DMK government. While supporters within the BJP have viewed this as an effort to sharpen the party’s political positioning in Tamil Nadu, critics have argued that his rhetoric has contributed to heightened political polarisation in the state. It has been over 4.5 years since the last AfD. If editors still think he is not notable, that should be discussed at a new AfD. Through having received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Sources The Hindu articles. According to WP:THEHINDU, the newspaper is generally reliable. "Former IPS officer K. Annamalai joins BJP". The Hindu. 2020-08-25. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19. The article notes: "Former Karnataka cadre IPS officer K Annamalai joined the BJP at the party’s national headquarters in New Delhi in the presence of national general secretary P Muralidhar Rao and Tamil Nadu unit chief L Murugan. ... A mechanical engineering and an MBA graduate, Mr. Annamalai cleared civil service and joined the police force in Karnataka in 2011. His first stint was as additional SP, Karkala, for a few months before he was promoted SP, Udupi. During his stint as SP, he earned the reputation of being a tough officer for taking up measures to resolve students' issues, communal problems and criminal activities. In 2018, Mr. Annamalai was transferred as SP, Ramanagara district. He was transferred to Bengaluru soon after the B.S. Yediyurappa-led BJP government took over, to head Bengaluru South division where he served till May 2019 before he resigned." "IPS officer Annamalai resigns from service citing personal reasons". The Hindu. 2019-05-28. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19. The article notes: "After serving for nine years in various posts in the State, IPS officer K. Annamalai tendered his resignation on Tuesday. He was last posted as Deputy Commissioner of Police (South), Bengaluru. A native of Karur in Tamil Nadu, Mr. Annamalai is a 2011-batch Karnataka-cadre officer. ... Mr. Annamalai was popular in the IPS circles as well as among the general public, and is remembered for his stint as Assistant Superintendent of Police at Karkala, Udupi district, as well as Superintendent of Police in Udupi and Chikkamagaluru." Kumar, S. Vijay (2023-01-14). "T.N. BJP president K. Annamalai accorded 'Z' scale security". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19. The article notes: "The Ministry of Home Affairs has accorded the ‘Z’ scale of security to Tamil Nadu BJP president, K. Annamalai. According to police sources, the security scale of the IPS officer-turned-politician was increased from the ‘Y’ scale to the ‘Z’ scale after a threat assessment was done by the Intelligence Bureau. ... The MHA had, in April last year, enhanced the security of Mr. Annamalai from ‘X’ scale to ‘Y’ scale with Personal Security Officers deployed from the Central Reserve Police Force. While no information is available on the details of the specific threat perceived by the intelligence agencies, police sources said Mr. Annamalai has been actively voicing opinions against “religious fundamentalism” in Tamil Nadu, particularly after the car bomb blast in Coimbatore on October 23, 2022. ... Mr. Annamalai, who has been making allegations of corruption against the Ministers of the ruling DMK, had announced that he would undertake a padayatra to cover all the 234 Assembly constituencies in the State in April." The Indian Express articles. According to WP:INDIANEXP, the newspaper is generally reliable. Janardhanan, Arun (2023-04-17). "Tamil Nadu BJP chief Annamalai: A loose cannon, or secret weapon?". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19. The article notes: "In the two years that he has been the Tamil Nadu BJP chief, K Annamalai has never been far from news — often stepping on own party’s shoes. While the former IPS officer’s aggression has ensured the party’s visibility, many BJP leaders feel it may not be the best strategy in a state where it must balance several sensibilities given its second-fiddle status to more dominant allies. In the latest instance, Annamalai has not just invited a “Rs 500 crore” lawsuit from the DMK over a corruption long list, his potshots at ally AIADMK — urging the BJP to break ties with it — have drawn a sharp response from the latter. The 39-year-old has also taken on the media and rubbed BJP leaders the wrong way with his brusque manner, leading several in the past few months to leave the party." Janardhanan, Arun (2021-07-08). "Murugan in cabinet, BJP's new TN chief is 36-yr-old ex-IPS officer who joined last August". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19. The article notes: "The BJP has appointed former IPS officer K Annamalai, 36, as its state chief, a day after the incumbent L Murugan was sworn in as a Union minister. Annamalai, who quit the IPS in 2019, joined the BJP last August. A confident and articulate leader, he was already holding the post of vice president. ... The former IPS officer is from the powerful Gounder community in Western Tamil Nadu. Though he contested unsuccessfully from the Aravakuruchi constituency in the Assembly polls, he helped the party win two seats in the western region. This helped in Annamalai’s rapid elevation. He is also known for his spirited speeches, often bordering on communal agendas, to take on Dravidian parties. ... In April, the police booked Annamalai for his alleged remarks intimidating DMK’s Karur candidate during a poll rally." Janardhanan, Arun (2022-06-09). "Newsmaker | Divisive & abrasive, the former cop keeping BJP in play in Tamil Nadu". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19. The article notes: "He has sceptics both within his party and outside. But, unlike his predecessors, Tamil Nadu BJP chief K Annamalai has managed to increase the party’s visibility in media in the past few months, so much so that the principal Opposition and BJP ally, the AIADMK, recently accused it of being “anti-Tamil” and “stealing” state revenue. The 38-year-old former IPS officer was appointed at the helm of the state BJP last year and has managed to remain in the media glare by attacking the DMK, hitting out at journalists, for his brusque manner of speaking, and for alleged links to people caught up in financial frauds. On June 5, he levelled corruption allegations against the DMK-led state government and the family of Chief Minister M K Stalin." Janardhanan, Arun (2024-12-27). "Self-flagellation puts Tamil Nadu BJP chief Annamalai back where he wants: in the limelight". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19. The article notes: "After a brief interlude, including a surprise sojourn in distant UK, the irrepressible Tamil Nadu BJP president K Annamalai has barged his way back into the news. Seizing on an alleged sexual assault incident at Anna University in Chennai to take on the DMK government, Annamalai on Friday flogged himself six times as a mark of protest – like he said he would. His other vow, announced Thursday, was that he would not wear footwear until the DMK was ousted from power – and, accordingly, he was barefoot during his self-lashing. While Annamalai has made dramatic statements earlier – with the brashness of the young leader giving the BJP just the right kind of visibility in a state where it was non-existent – few expected him to go ahead with the flagellation, which holds powerful symbolism as an act of penance." Chandrababu, Divya (2023-09-26). "K Annamalai: Police-officer-turned politician blamed for AIADMK's exit from NDA". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 2026-01-19. Retrieved 2026-01-19. Most editors at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 491#Is there a consensus on the reliability of the Hindustan Times? consider the Hindustan Times to be reliable. The article notes: "AIADMK viewed Annamalai as an uncontrolled political greenhorn even as the BJP sought to project him as a sincere leader who quit IPS for clean and corruption-free politics in Tamil Nadu. Born in 1984 in Thottampatti village in Tamil Nadu’s Karur district, Annamalai studied engineering in Coimbatore before receiving a Master of Business Administration degree from the prestigious Indian Institute of Management Lucknow. He was the Bengaluru South deputy police commissioner when he quit IPS in June 2019 around the time Rajinikanth launched his party. A BJP leader, who did not want to be named, said Annamalai has finally brought the BJP to the mainstream in Tamil Nadu. With his almost daily press conferences, Annamalai has ensured that the party is regularly in the news. His statements including against AIADMK grabbed eye-balls. He has critics within the state BJP unit too." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow K. Annamalai to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Allow recreation if a draft passes AfC. I am not that knowledgeable about Indian politics, but based on a quick review, I agree with @Extraordinary Writ that the subject is pretty clearly notable, and the sources provided by the nominator here appear to be sufficient to establish it if there was any doubt. It is sad that some years ago there was misbehaviour about creation of this article, and quite possible the subject was not quite notable then. This justifies caution and (per @OwenX) some degree of nuisance projection. However, I think the nominator here has done exactly what was required by item (2) in the directive quoted by Owen. We must remain capable of entertainting the possibility that notability may have emerged and that an encyclopedic article can be written. While I agree with @Robert McClenon that that the current draft suffered from refbombing, that is not unheard of with drafts, especially where there has been feedback about inadequate sourcing previously, and remaining issues could have been dealt with by judicious editing (including adding the sources identified by the nominator here). I think Robert's strongly worded rejection of the draft is overzealous; this draft should have been accepted (with recommendations for further improvement) or maximally declined with constructive feedback instead, since it is not unpromising. Our processes must be robust enough to protect the encyclopedia and community from gaming and tendentious resubmission, but also robust enough to evaluate drafts on their merits rather than based on the sins of previous editors. Martinp (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict with Cunard) Send to AfD Looking at the article and sources at a glance they seem OK. The AfD's and DRV's in the past have all been lacking (AfD was mainly "per nom"'s, one DRV just threw Google links, the second DRV only requested review without providing any argument to overcome the previous issues, the third got poisoned from political POV pushing), which caused the testing the patience's of editors. This has been the most cohesive argument, and I think it's good enough to give it a chance. Now if the AfD does not keep the article, I would support Owen's proposal for the next time around to be required to be from an AfC reviewer (I'd go a bit stricter, and require two reviewers to concur) Jumpytoo Talk 05:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Comment - I am interpreting the statement by User:Extraordinary Writ as saying that this is a Battle for Dream Island case, and I mostly agree. I agree with User:Martinp that recreation should be allowed if a draft passes AFC. I acknowledge that I probably should have clarified in my rejection of the draft that I did not mean that the subject was not notable, but that the draft should be blown up and started over. Another draft, written from scratch, may be able to be accepted. The current draft that I rejected is, in my opinion, not suitable for rework. It needs to be replaced with a new draft that speaks for itself by focusing on significant coverage by independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Thanks for that clarification, @Robert McClenon. Would you be amenable to vacating your Rejection of the draft and replacing it with a Decline? While the draft does suffer from tone issues and has been refbombed, the appellant (an experienced editor and frequent successful article creator) here has provided a handful of better sources, and Cunard has provided more. There are enough experienced users !voting some form of "good enough, or close to good enough" for mainspace/AfD here that I think we are quite close to a big win here: A article about a notable subject, based on quality sourcing, and ready for continued improvement in mainspace; successfully digging its way out of a hole created by inappropriate shenanigans by other editors in the past. To allow this to proceed to its natural conclusion, it would be helpful to remove the additional roadblock placed by a Rejection. You've clarified here that you didn't mean that the subject was not notable, however that is the primary argument you used in your rejection. It seems your primary concern was actually WP:SPEAKSELF, but that essay itself says that an AFC drafts that fails to speak for itself ... should be declined without the need for further review; it does not recommend rejection. Martinp (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Thank you for interceding to bring this to a constructive conclusion, Martinp! I, for one, would be perfectly happy un-SALTing and having a draft moved to mainspace once Robert McClenon accepts it. @TryKid: my apologies if my comments above came across as unnecessarily harsh. We've just un-DEEPERed Battle for Dream Island three months ago... Owen× ☎ 16:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Comment - I think that there is a lesson to be learned, which is that salting in draft space seems like a reasonable response to tendentious resubmission, but is actually very seldom a good idea, because it encourages more blatant gaming of titles that is less obvious as the titles deviate more. I am not discouraging salting in article space or title blacklisting in article space, but salting in draft space can be self-defeating. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC) It seems better to constrain the editing on these tendentious topics to a particular draft and then move protect the draft pending editorial consensus that the article is ready for mainspace Katzrockso (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Comment - I disagree with sending the current draft to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Allow recreation subject to a new AfD per Extraordinary Writ. Whether this article should exist in the mainspace should be decided via consensus and not by an individual AfC reviewer. In 2020, the article was created and deleted on the basis that he was the vice-president of a state branch of the ruling Indian party. Since then, he was the president of that branch from 2021 to 2025 and has likely become notable. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC) Comment - I have changed my rejection to a decline. I do not plan to accept the draft. I will leave that for another AFC reviewer, and I still disapprove strongly of the gaming of the title, but will leave that to another reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse - WP:NPOL is very clear. Undoubtedly, the subject still fails it. Wisher08 (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Comment - The draft Draft:Kuppusamy Annamalai has been substantially rewritten with independent, secondary sources providing analytical coverage of the subject's role as state president of a major national party (2021–2025), alliance dynamics, and public political impact. While there are differences whether WP:NPOL is met, notability is at least arguable based on current sourcing. TamizhanEditor (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Failing WP:NPOL does not mean the subject is not notable, it only means they have to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO through the normal means of having significant coverage in reliable sources. Do you also belive the subject does not meet either of those criteria? Jumpytoo Talk 17:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC) For a politician, it is important to meet WP:NPOL. I dont see if the subject is meeting WP:GNG either because simply being a face of a country's most popular party is not enough. The coverage should be more than just about that. Zalaraz (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I agree that merely being a party face is not sufficient for notability. My point is not based solely on the subject’s position, but on the presence of multiple independent, reliable sources that provide analytical coverage of his role in Tamil Nadu politics — including alliance dynamics, the AIADMK–NDA split, statewide political campaigns, and assessments of his strategic impact as state party president. As noted at WP:NPOL, failure to meet its specific criteria does not preclude notability where WP:GNG is satisfied. Given the breadth and depth of secondary coverage discussing the subject beyond routine announcements, I believe notability could be better assessed via community consensus rather than AfC alone. TamizhanEditor (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC) WP:NPOL states The following are presumed to be notable: ... Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage and Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. The point is that passing the WP:GNG override this standard. Katzrockso (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC) There had already been many, many attempts at articles and drafts at the time of the last DRV. There's some reason to think the draft in front of us isn't the only one now. Also, since the natural title is blacklisted - anything with "annamalai" and either "k" as an independent word or "kuppu" - A) we shouldn't hold the initial weird naming of this draft against it too much, and B) other drafts won't be at easily-found titles; most likely they'll be in user sandboxes. Extreme low-effort searching found User:Bharathesha Alasandemajalu/Annamalai Kuppusamy (out of date) and User:Vinodpatild/Sample page (no help), but hey, maybe there's better around. —Cryptic 04:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Endorse Per Owenx, very nicely stated. Please follow his advice User:Easternsahara 20:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC) Allow recreation. As noted by Cunard, there is enough coverage for this person to pass WP:BASIC and the WP:GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC) allow recreation per Cunard. I'm not thrilled with the writing in the draft and the history of this is a mess. But we seem to be above our inclusion guidelines. I'd recommend stub-ifing the draft though. I can do that once moved to main space... Hobit (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC) I read the draft and didn't see anything that would justify stubifying it. I am not an expert in this area though so I could be missing something. If the article is stubified, I recommend explaining in detail on the talk page (including as many examples as possible), why that needed to be done. That way, the draft's authors get feedback about how to rewrite the article. Cunard (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC) Comment: Since the article's creation protection is extended-confirmed level, I think I might technically be able to move it to the namespace myself—and the consensus here seems clear enough—but since deletion discussions are always closed before any action is taken, I thought it better to list this discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests before taking any action, to avoid any further controversy. P.S.: I really appreciate the participants here taking a dispassionate and evenhanded view despite the past disruption. Thank you. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 January 2026

File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01 e.jpg

File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01 e.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I created and uploaded File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01 e.jpg. Administrator IronGargoyle copied it and uploaded it as File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01.jpg. Then they deleted the file I'd uploaded as a copy. On their talk page they explained that they did this for "to maintain continuity with the original file name". This is for context. — Ирука¹³ 10:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

• What is the action you want DRV to take here, and why? Stifle (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

  Endorse and speedy close due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  Do what OwenX said below. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• Endorse and speedy close. No substantive reason given for this vexatious nomination. Deletion was both in the letter and spirit of CSD F1. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
• Comment and suggestion, if I may answer Stifle on behalf of the appellant. I agree with IronGargoyle that blurring a portion of the image doesn't entitle the uploader to any kind of attribution. Anyone may copy it, re-upload it as their own, and delete the original. I don't know why IronGargoyle chose to do that instead of simply moving the file to the correct name, but in doing so, he effectively erased any record of the appellant's contribution, which is all the appellant is asking for. Whether copyright laws require attribution or not, we all expect some form of recognition for our work here, even if it's just a line in a page history dump.
  Personally, the appellant lost any sympathy I may have had for them with their rude, Karenistic Restore my file immediately demand. But for the sake of expediency, I think this DRV can be speedy closed to everyone's satisfaction by adding a dummy edit to the file's history, with an edit summary denoting the appellant as the file originator. Not because they deserve it, but because it's the correct, minimally disruptive way to resolve this nonsense amicably. Owen× ☎ 11:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for the explanation. That all sounds good to me. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  I have no problem with that solution. I thought the file name was important in case Philippine freedom of panorama law changed. A more permissive change would affect the history and reimportation of this file to Commons (which might be important to import a blurred version, depending on the context of the revised law). It simply didn't occur to me to move it. I have moved a tiny handful of files in the last several years and uploaded thousands. I have no problem with Iruka13 getting credit and I have said as much on my talk page. It was a helpful edit. I question whether that is what this is about though. Iruka13 has a long history of wikilawyering confrontation and is indefinitely blocked from three projects. This request seems more about winning an argument as opposed to actually improving anything on Wikipedia or gaining credit. Indeed, if Iruka13 cared so much about credit for a creative solution, why was there no notation citing Iruka13 for the blurring edit in the revised file description at File:9928Olongapo City Barangays Landmarks 01 e.jpg?— Preceding unsigned comment added by IronGargoyle (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  If I understand you correctly - Anyone may copy it, re-upload it as their own, and delete the original. - I can re-upload "my" file again and place the F1-template on the IronGargoyle's file, right? — Ирука¹³ 08:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

There was a clear purpose to maintaining the original file name, which I have explained. The only purpose to doing what you propose would be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn. Creating a copy yourself to then apply F1 is clearly aberrant, not in the spirit of speedy deletion, and should not be condoned. The complaint is completely appropriate. Separately, I dispute the idea that there is something wrong with the name of this file. Adding the "e" means edit, the name of the deleted file is fine, and there is no reason to "maintain continuity with the original file name" on Commons. Overturn this wrong speedy deletion and delete IronGargoyle's duplicate.—Alalch E. 16:44, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see my comment above about the importance of maintaining the file name in case this ever needs to be reimported to Commons. Calling this aberrant is hyperbolic and only feeds into the confrontational mindset of this nomination. Quite honestly the file in question should have been uploaded over the original file as a file revision and then the original file revision deleted, but I lost track of the FFD over the holidays and forgot to suggest that in the FFD. When I went back to check on the discussion, the original FFD had already been closed. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• Overturn per Alalch E. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I think a lot of people need a nice cup of tea and a sit down. There's a lot of overreaction going on. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
• Overturn. Speedy deletion shouldn't be used when there's a feasible alternative to deletion, and in this case moving the file would have been just that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. I'll say again: Keeping the file name makes sense. I uploaded/deleted instead of moving the file out of habit. Was this a mistake? I guess, given that multiple editors have voted to overturn my deletion, some using very strong language. It still seems pretty picayune to me (and does not seem like a violation of the letter of CSD F1), but whatever. My deletion was never intended to slight Iruka13 or deprive them of credit. If you think it was, assume good faith please. I still support OwenX's solution to give Iruka13 credit. I'll assume good faith that Iruka13 just wanted credit (despite not claiming credit in the deleted file description) and I wish this could have just been a polite request on my talk page instead of the type of confrontation which exemplifies why Iruka13 is indefinitely blocked and on the way to being globally banned. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• I'm not 100% sure I'm following this, but if I am, OwenX's suggestion of a dummy edit seems like the reasonable way forward. And I think what IG did may technically be a CC:BY violation, so worth fixing. I'm okay with an overturn too I guess. Whatever gets the attribution history correct is fine by me. Hobit (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I don't see any language in CC-BY-SA that removes the attribution requirement if the change isn't copyrightable (which Iruka13's blurring likely isn't), no. But the file's licensed as public domain anyway.
    I guess the ideal(est) outcome would be to history merge the -e version to the original title, leave the (currently-visible) revisions of the file and description page by IronGargoyle deleted, and revdelete the old versions of the file. And if that seems like too much hassle, the usual way to document changes like this is to stick {{RetouchedPicture|blurred copyrightable advertisement|editor=Iruka13}} on the description page.
    Nb, I came this close -><- to writing something about unclean hands on both sides due to the misleading {{own}} and {{self}} templates left untouched in Iruka13's version, removing credit from IronGargoyle's photo, except... it's not IronGargoyle's photo either. I've corrected them in the last revision of the currently-bluelinked version. —Cryptic 01:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
    • My reading of the BY part of CC-BY-SA is that it would apply to things in the public domain. But IANAL. I don't know enough about images on Wikipedia to have a strong opinion about the best way to achieve compliant attribution. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
      • (Not, of course, a lawyer either.) Iruka13 didn't change the license tag for the image from cc-zero. I suppose attribution would be license-required for the changes they made to the file description page - they removed most of the description= field from the {{Information}} template, leaving only "Columban College – Asinan Campus Columban College near SM City Olongapo", and in particular they removed the text of the photographer's release and the link to his enwiki article at Florentino Floro. Which I hadn't noticed earlier, and makes me inclined to recommend leaving the recreation's changes visible in the history merge I outlined above. —Cryptic 03:33, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

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