Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion (including information of socks participating in the discussion);
- 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;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted;
- 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:
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- 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);
- 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);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- 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
Steps to list a new deletion review
Before listing a review request, please:
- 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.
- 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.
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
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".
The original draft was deleted for being inadequately sourced. Substantial independent reliable sourcing has since been identified: seven TechCrunch articles (2011–2016) covering the subject's co-founding of Backplane and LittleMonsters.com with Lady Gaga and Eric Schmidt; a Fast Company feature on his Cortex browser extension; Rolling Stone coverage of the LittleMonsters launch; Business Wire and Hypebot coverage of his 2022 Folio NFT platform. His Forbes 30 Under 30 listing (2016, Consumer Technology) is corroborated by multiple independent secondary sources. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG. COI disclosed per WP:COI; intend to submit through WP:AFC if restored. Jpblackofficial (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- While most of the background's at the MFD, there's a little more at the blacklist request, namely the full list of previous titles and deletions. —Cryptic 02:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose The draft article was blacklisted due to abuse of the drafts process, neither the fact that the appellant is the subject of the article or the sources provided give me confidence this is not an attempt at more of the same. Jumpytoo Talk 04:00, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Leaning allow. The large number of creations and deletions are not characteristic of a slam NO, but of a borderline case.
- Noting that it has been deleted at AfD, twice, with criticism of a lack of reliable sources supporting superficially strong claims to Wikipedia-Notability, I urge insistence on following WP:THREE. The problem is potential for continued waste of volunteer time, and THREE is the answer to that.
- I hesitate due to
- 1. WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY
- 2. The appeal here has listed no new reliable sources. They should have supplied exactly three.
- - SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Leon V. Emirali (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
- Leon Emirali (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
I'll try to keep this brief. An article was deleted under G4 that was not eligible for speedy deletion under this category. The previously deleted article was closed as deleted in October 2023. The most substantial sources in the most recent article (BBC News, The Telegraph, The Guardian, Politics.co.uk) were all published in 2025. Content built on sources that did not exist when the previous article was written cannot, by definition, be "substantially identical" to it. I believe the previously deleted article was deleted due to lack of notability. The new sources either address that or warrant discussion via AfD. Speedy deletion in this case was improper.
Please note I was unaware the title of the previous page was salted. I used the 'V.' middle initial styling in the title because a substantial profile feature in Politics.co.uk used such styling and I thought it proper to do so for biographical integrity. I was unaware of the salt and would have discussed this with admins had I been aware prior. I apologize.
Regardless, looking at the EverybodyWiki archive of the previous article, the sourcing of the latest article is nearly entirely different - as is much of the content, bar minor overlaps in structure and factual reporting, which are inevitable with any biography.
Speedy deletion under G4 is improper given the majority of sources in this article were published two years after the previously deleted article was removed from Wikipedia. Ndunruh (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like you've tried to discuss the issue with the deleting admin, SouthernNights, or even informed him of this appeal, as required by WP:DELREVD. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- Just adding in the deleted page for ease of navigation. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- Requesting temp undeletion to review references in the page, as the appellant claims that content is linked to references that post-date the AFD. Frank Anchor 20:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Done Owen× ☎ 20:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you! Frank Anchor 21:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: As the deleting admin, I examined both the new article and the previous versions and found them to be sufficiently identical even with the new citations. In addition, the previous article was salted by User:Ponyo after being recreated multiple times, with the addition of the middle initial to the new article's title appearing to be an attempt to circumvent this. That said, I'm always open to having deletion review examine a speedy delete and I will of course abide by whatever consensus comes out of this discussion. Best, --SouthernNights (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn and send to AFD if desired. The presence of several sentences of content which post-date the AFD shows that the G4ed version is not sufficiently identical to the version deleted at AFD. Further, it is explained at WP:G4 that
A page being creation protected is not a factor in whether G4 applies; the content still has to be substantially identical.
Frank Anchor 21:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Star Mississippi that this can be reclassified as G5 pending the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation, though I maintain the G4 is incorrect. Frank Anchor 02:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Hold pending resolution of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoinFluffy250. It does no good to undo a G4 if we're going to end up back at a G5. Star Mississippi 01:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- Speedy list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4. It does no good to hold at DRV a G4 failure. The nom is convincing. Interest and energy should be put into discussion the substance at AfD. G5 questions are irrelevant and should be pursued with complete independence, however, these G5 questions are moot if any editor in good standard supports keeping the article.
- The deleting admin, User:SouthernNights, was wrong to delete, and wrote wrong statements into the deletion log. There is no consensus finding that DRV is to be used prior to recreation. User:Arbitrarily0 gave tacit approval in his AfD close 2 1/2 years ago. After years (maybe 6 months), any editor may boldly recreate if they think the reasons for deletion are overcome. If in doubt, use WP:AfC, not DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
I am disputing the AfD result based upon criteria 1., plus incorrect statements about what is policy and not policy for WP:NPROF#C6. (Addendum, also criteria 4, added 27 March 2026, see below.)
The AfD was originally closed as Keep by User:Spartaz at 04:59, March 26, 2026 with the statement The result was keep. Keep arguments based on common sense do not get the same weight as policy based arguments. After the keep was queried by User:Extraordinary_Writ (see User_talk:Spartaz) at 12:12, 26 March 2026 (UTC), Spartaz changed the decision to The result was delete. Keep arguments based on common sense do not get the same weight as policy based arguments. I asked Spartaz about this on his talk page, quoting the relevant text from C6, and whether I should take this to DRV, to which they responded obviously I disagree but I don't make it a practise to review my decisions under the threat of a DRV so feel free to take whatever further steps you wish.
There were two Weak Keep votes with explanations based upon WP:NPROF#C6. C6 specifically allows for exceptions to be made for a Provost, and the BLP under discussion is the equivalent of a US Provost. Two people voted that this plus a little else was enough; these were policy votes, not "common sense" arguments. When I look at the overall arguments I do not see any consensus for delete, independent of the incorrect policy interpretation. From what I can see this is currently a No Concensus which should either have been closed as such or extended. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- the original keep closure was a script error.
- Part 6c states in full : Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Generally, appointment as an acting president/chancellor/vice-chancellor also is not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone.
- A pro-vice-chancellor is not close to the level of a provost and there was not the overwhelming consensus supporting it that invoking this criteria would require. When one side of the argument is solidly grounded in policy and the other is a stretch beyond the actual example and not widely supported, it's well within my discretion to select the policy based arguments as the consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 00:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Our own article makes clear this is a subordinate role and not the head honcho Spartaz Humbug! 00:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I must correct your statement about Pro-Vice Chancellor. I did due diligence on this before I voted, and checked the university page here as well as the specific page for the current occupant, an independent source and even the unreliable page Pro-vice-chancellor. As second in command who deputizes for the VC that is the equivalent of a US Provost. As such I claim the clause "may sometimes qualify" applies. Surely the first university in Ghana must be considered as a major university, we have a page for it at University for Development Studies and according to a world ranking page it has an enrollment of about 25K. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- N.B., just to be clear, the Provost is nominally the 2nd in command at a US university. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- The titular heads of universities in the UK is the chancellor but the vice chancellor is the actual person who runs it, meaning that the pro-vice chancellor is below that level. Spartaz Humbug! 12:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- N.B., just to be clear, the Provost is nominally the 2nd in command at a US university. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- That is the same as a provost; a provost is not the "head honcho" in many cases, which is why our articles on Provost (education) states
At many institutions of higher education, the provost is the chief academic officer, a role that may be combined with being deputy to the chief executive officer
, while WP:NACADEMIC#C6 statesLesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Generally, appointment as an acting president/chancellor/vice-chancellor also is not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone.
. - As Ldm1954 notes above, the guideline allows for "exceptions" on a
case-by-case basis
. Whether the consensus in the AfD was in favor or against an exception in this case is less clear. Katzrockso (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I must correct your statement about Pro-Vice Chancellor. I did due diligence on this before I voted, and checked the university page here as well as the specific page for the current occupant, an independent source and even the unreliable page Pro-vice-chancellor. As second in command who deputizes for the VC that is the equivalent of a US Provost. As such I claim the clause "may sometimes qualify" applies. Surely the first university in Ghana must be considered as a major university, we have a page for it at University for Development Studies and according to a world ranking page it has an enrollment of about 25K. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Our own article makes clear this is a subordinate role and not the head honcho Spartaz Humbug! 00:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. The close is correct, although in this case, I would have gone for a second relist, if only to avoid exactly this kind of DRV. Owen× ☎ 00:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse – I completely agree with User:OwenX. Broadly, this close was reasonable given the participation level, although a Relist may have moved the needle further. Suriname0 (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Could we please not encourage relisting AfDs where the outcome isn't in doubt? Volunteer attention should be focused on more difficult cases than this one.—S Marshall T/C 11:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment In the 2+ years I have been doing fairly extensive AfC/AfD/NPP reviewing of academics and science, this is the only time I have appealed an AfD. You can check my logs: the large majority of my noms for AfD have been deleted, similarly my AfD votes are mostly the same as the decision. I have a fair amount of academic experience. To see a case where by raw counting there were three Keep and four Delete described as an AfD
where the outcome isn't in doubt
is discouraging. I will also add that a check of the citation level in his field indicates that his are not as bad as claimed, it is a very low citation area (plus we have to consider bias against non-western academics). It appears nobody did the the required WP:BEFORE check on comparable scientists. However, that was not raised at the AfD.Ldm1954 (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)- Our actual consensus model is not to count votes unless both positions are policy equivalent. Otherwise ROUGH CONSENSUS is clear that the winning argument is the one most aligned to policy. The pro-vice chancellor argument is only very tenuously aligned with policy and actually seems at odds with the policy as written. Spartaz Humbug! 12:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- With apologies for being harsh, but as someone who has extensively participated at WT:NPROF as well as academic AfD, I dispute your claim
very tenuously aligned with policy and actually seems at odds with the policy as written
. The Pro-VC/Provost case is specifically mentioned, plus extensive WP:42 evidence has already been provided here on their equivalence. Please acknowledge that. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2026 (UTC)- Addendum I have decided that I will add to the appeal criterion 4 of the appeal process. The claim by the nom that it was a
high citation field
fails verification. You can check the GS topic], his citations and those of some coauthors [1], [2], [3]. This is also policy,Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account
. This has been (endlessly) debated in various forms at WT:NPROF, see for instance WT:NPROF#[[Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#C1]] - students and hierarchy of authorship (yup, wikilink in the title), or the archives. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Addendum I have decided that I will add to the appeal criterion 4 of the appeal process. The claim by the nom that it was a
pro-vice chancellor argument is only very tenuously aligned with policy and actually seems at odds with the policy as written
.- This is not correct and seems to be substituting your own views with an evaluation of the guideline (not policy), the arguments in the AfD and the consensus thereof. Katzrockso (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- With apologies for being harsh, but as someone who has extensively participated at WT:NPROF as well as academic AfD, I dispute your claim
- Our actual consensus model is not to count votes unless both positions are policy equivalent. Otherwise ROUGH CONSENSUS is clear that the winning argument is the one most aligned to policy. The pro-vice chancellor argument is only very tenuously aligned with policy and actually seems at odds with the policy as written. Spartaz Humbug! 12:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relist. The closing statement,
Keep arguments based on common sense do not get the same weight as policy based arguments
, is misguided. Common sense arguments are derived from WP:IAR even if not explicitly cited. IAR is policy. I do not see a consensus to do anything at this point, and it is possible that another week of discussion could sway consensus in either direction. Frank Anchor 14:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relist. The closer is substituting their personal interpretation of whether there should be an exception for this "pro-vice chancellor" (as explicitly permitted in the guideline) with the actual balance of arguments at the AfD. I concur with Frank Anchor that there is no consensus so far and that a relist aimed at deciding whether or not University for Development Studies qualifies as a "major university" as in WP:NPROF#C6. Katzrockso (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relist - When there were policy-based arguments both ways after one relist, a second relist is usually even better than for the closer to assess a rough consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Leaning Endorse although I agree that there might need to be some further digging. In many British universities the Pro-Vice Chancellor is a very senior academic, they usually have a long career in research and independent research standing before getting the position. The Vice-Chancellor is the working "chief executive" of the university, traditionally a senior academic but not necessarily in the modern era. This may or may not map onto the university sector in Ghana. It is possible it is just an admin role, in which case I do not think it would normally fulfil the scope of WP:NPROF anywhere in the world. The complication of course is that there is bias in the academic system and there is much less scope for published research in some parts of the world than others. JMWt (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- WP:NPROF#6C explicitly permits administrative posts at e.g. "major universities" to satisfy the requirement in some circumstances. Katzrockso (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relist Both sides expressed policy-based views, and neither had sufficient numerical advantage. Debates like this are important and should be allowed to run fully, as they can set a precedent for future AfDs of non-first World academics, who usually need to rely on criteria different from WP:NPROF#1. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn: Discounting the !keeps, which were based on WP:NPROF#C6 and saying that the !deletes were based on policy, when not a single !delete cited a policy other than essays (NOTLINKEDIN does not apply), is extremely misguided. This was a very poor close and should be overturned either to keep or no consensus. 11WB (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Relist. An AFD with light participation, reasonable arguments on both sides, that people seem to want to continue to debate. As it was, consensus was tenuous at best, and it seems likely more discussion can result in a clearer one. While I can't see the article, it seems there was reasonable actual debate on whether this person meets the notability bar, so I don't agree with S Marshall's statement above. The misclose (keep -> delete) was an accident, and the (in retrospect) poor wording "Keep arguments based on common sense do not get the same weight as policy based arguments" (much better would have been something like: "Arguments need to refer to policy, not just common sense, to get equal weight as those that do") didn't exactly help, but wouldn't warrant an overturn in itself. However, if a relist seems likely to lead to a clearer outcome anyway, it adds another argument in favour of doing so. Martinp (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Following this statement, specifically "I personally think that the seeming crusade to rid Wikipedia of destination lists is mistaken and even harmful"
it is very clear that the closer was WP:INVOLVED in the airline destination-list area and should not be closing discussions within it. As pointed out by another editor, Stifle has also previously set out strong views in !votes case in other AFDs in the same topic area. The discussion should be relisted for closure by an uninvolved closer. FOARP (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- endorse G4 was overturned and this was listed at AFD following a DRV. That makes the delete votes that argued G4 applied superfluous and the only error was that the closer probably should have gone keep based on the discussion rather than NC. That also somewhat negates the argument that they were involved as they therefore closed against what you claim is their stated position. Spartaz Humbug! 23:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: This makes me feel a bit uneasy as I was involved in the discussion on @Stifle's talk page and technically revived it, leading to this DRV. As such, I feel partly responsible for any outcome that follows here. For that reason, I am not going to endorse or oppose the close. I've been called out for this, including by @Stifle himself, but I can't reasonably question an administrator action. Especially not one who has a tenure as long as @Stifle's. I presented evidence in this reply, so I don't feel the need to repeat it all here. It's up to @Stifle going forward to make the determination on whether he feels INVOLVED enough or not to be able to close these AfDs objectively. 11WB (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- well if you want someone entirely involved I'll happily reopen it and close it as keep. Last time one of these came up to DRV I voted the strongest possible meh. Spartaz Humbug! 23:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't say that. An administrator, and any editor for that matter, has the capacity to decide whether they are able to perform an action objectively. In this case it was probably better for @Stifle to have left it for another admin. I have stated I don't agree with the close. If I formally oppose the close here, it would look as though I've influenced the outcome, having revived the inactive discussion on accident. 11WB (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have worked with Stifle for almost 20 years and I have the deepest respect for his integrity and impartiality. If he closed it he would have been able to put aside any personal biases that he might have. Spartaz Humbug! 00:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- This boils down to “this guy is my friend”. I would hope people would put that to one side, also. FOARP (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- dont be so disrespectful. Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're looking for here. From my POV, this means there are two sorts of admins: ones who you have known for 20 years and as such can close discussions they have expressed strong views about, and ones who you have not known for 20 years and therefore cannot close discussions that they have already expressed strong views about. Possibly you think that is a viewpoint that should be respected. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- dont dismiss my considered opinion based on years of observing a colleague with some trite throwaway comment and a condescending aside. You would really do well not to keep reinterpreting what other people say to fit your own agenda and you certainly need to stop commenting on what other people think. Spartaz Humbug! 09:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're looking for here. From my POV, this means there are two sorts of admins: ones who you have known for 20 years and as such can close discussions they have expressed strong views about, and ones who you have not known for 20 years and therefore cannot close discussions that they have already expressed strong views about. Possibly you think that is a viewpoint that should be respected. FOARP (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- dont be so disrespectful. Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- This boils down to “this guy is my friend”. I would hope people would put that to one side, also. FOARP (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have worked with Stifle for almost 20 years and I have the deepest respect for his integrity and impartiality. If he closed it he would have been able to put aside any personal biases that he might have. Spartaz Humbug! 00:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't say that. An administrator, and any editor for that matter, has the capacity to decide whether they are able to perform an action objectively. In this case it was probably better for @Stifle to have left it for another admin. I have stated I don't agree with the close. If I formally oppose the close here, it would look as though I've influenced the outcome, having revived the inactive discussion on accident. 11WB (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- well if you want someone entirely involved I'll happily reopen it and close it as keep. Last time one of these came up to DRV I voted the strongest possible meh. Spartaz Humbug! 23:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Involved or not, there was no way this would end in deletion, and consensus was clear enough to make a second relisting pointless. As Spartaz pointed out, closing as N/C instead of as Keep demonstrates Stifle's ability to remain impartial and put his personal views aside when wearing his admin hat. Having this re-closed by another admin as Keep or N/C would serve no useful purpose. Owen× ☎ 01:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- P.S.: I closed the previous DRV for this, if that matters. Owen× ☎ 02:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Comment This is fundamentally a disagreement about these sorts of articles that has raged across multiple venues, with this being one of them. Absent a clear is-or-is-not policy consensus, administrators have no good choice other than to close each discussion based on the opinions represented. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. There is not much to say other than what Owen already did;
Having this re-closed by another admin as Keep or N/C would serve no useful purpose
. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Katzrockso (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)- Do you think Stifle should be making closes in this area that they have expressed strong views about? FOARP (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- do you think it helps your case to badger everyone who expresses a different opinion? Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've asked exactly one question here. FOARP (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- You have literally responded to every comment that goes against your position. Don't be disingenuous. Spartaz Humbug! 09:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- No, I clearly have not. Don't make statements that are obviously not true, as can be seen by anyone reading this thread. FOARP (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Now you know how it feels to have positions or thoughts stated by other people to advance their arguments. Maybe that will encourage you to stop it. Spartaz Humbug! 12:42, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- No, I clearly have not. Don't make statements that are obviously not true, as can be seen by anyone reading this thread. FOARP (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- You have literally responded to every comment that goes against your position. Don't be disingenuous. Spartaz Humbug! 09:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've asked exactly one question here. FOARP (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- @FOARP: My pronouns are he/him only, so I'd ask you to use those please. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. Katzrockso (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Spartaz, I am not going to enter this disagreement, however I feel the need to point out that @FOARP actually hasn't responded to every comment that opposed their view. Some of your comments have been escalatory and are not helpful to the DRV. 11WB (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- do you think it helps your case to badger everyone who expresses a different opinion? Spartaz Humbug! 07:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Do you think Stifle should be making closes in this area that they have expressed strong views about? FOARP (talk) 06:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse own closure. I think I reasonably assessed consensus putting aside my own views on the subject, and I am extremely grateful for the terms in which others have expressed their support here. If the consensus feedback is I should avoid closures like this in the future, I will of course do so. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak endorse. On the fence between endorsing the NC close or voting "overturn to keep," but both have the same end result. The speedy delete votes, and the nominating statement, can be discarded because their only argument was that a previous version of the article was deleted two years ago. After it was speedy deleted via G4, a previous deletion review deemed that to be incorrect. The only remaining delete vote claims there are only primary sources, which is false. The two redirect votes don't really offer any reasons why it should not be kept (beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT) but merely suggest it as an WP:ATD. Meanwhile, the keep votes offer acceptable references and cite prior RFCs. Frank Anchor 14:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn and get someone who has not expressed strong opinions on the topic to close. This whole thing and the ongoing fights it generates is entirely stupid and demeaning. JMWt (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I second the second part of this comment. 11WB (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved). I'm surprised that the speedy delete votes based on G4 were not discounted due to the DRV (explicitly, at least), but otherwise I don't think any other closer would change the outcome (NC or keep). Per Katzrockso, OwenX and Spartaz, WP:NOTBURO applies. S5A-0043🚎(Talk) 01:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse:
- Sometimes No Consensus on an AFD reflects No Consensus on a class of articles over a long period of time. Sometimes these articles are allowed. Sometimes these articles are disallowed. It looks like No Consensus on this AFD and no consensus on airport destination lists.
- What does the appellant expect to gain by asking to vacate the close and leave the AFD for a new closer?
- Sometimes No Consensus is the right close, and it was the right close in this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- Weak overturn to keep (Endorse as second preference). There was very clearly no consensus to delete and no arguments supporting that outcome correctly referenced any current policies or guidelines. Whether keep or no consensus is the outcome is usually academic, but in this topic area the history of repeated re-litigation of the same issues means that a firmer statement of the community consensus is more valuable than is usual. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn since if nothing else the closer was clearly not neutral. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. A group of editors seem determined to argue there is a consensus to delete airline destination lists. However, discussions continue to prove that the community does not share that view. Opinions vary. In particular, that was the case here, where in spite of a relist and ample time for a consensus to emerge, none did. Since I don't see any way this could have been closed other than NC, I won't spend time parsing whether the ultimate closer, who generally shows good judgment, might or might not have had any bias -- since I see no path forward where the ultimate outcome would be different than the present one. Martinp (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. Statements after closing don't count for determining involved status. When you close you can gain an opinion of your own on the merits of the issue and spread it as much as you like—then you are involved from that point onward, not retroactively.—Alalch E. 21:10, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Non-admin closure. Only one source is not sufficient to establish notability. Only one comment with an actual arguemnt from a user that is now globally locked. –DMartin (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse All three voters justified their Keeps based on the sources, and the nomination did not receive any support during the two weeks of the debate. DMartin has already been told not to use Zephyr's global lock as a trump card,
Noting that a global lock following a courtesy vanish is standard procedure and is not a reason to discount Zephyr's participation.
[4] Kelob2678 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC) - Endorse With the exception of the nominator, all of the !votes were to keep the article. While I think the case to keep the article could have been more strongly articulated, multiple editors concluded that the subject met GNG without any additional editors suggesting something differently. There is no error in the close. --Enos733 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- endorse this nomination is somewhat disruptive as there is no way this could have been closed otherwise and bringing this here won't change the result. Learn to read the room. Spartaz Humbug! 23:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think this is overstated, and I don't find the nomination disruptive. An admin could very well have chosen to Relist in this case given that both of the Keep votes were relatively terse. In particular, I think it's reasonable to expect that Keep voters engage with a source assessment if one is provided; the votes would have been strengthened substantially by specifying which sources specifically contributed to WP:GNG, or by making more clear if they believe that the subject's military appointment meets WP:ANYBIO. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- actually no. This is classic disruption wasting the time of other editors with a hopeless case Spartaz Humbug! 09:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Agree to disagree, I suppose! Suriname0 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- actually no. This is classic disruption wasting the time of other editors with a hopeless case Spartaz Humbug! 09:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think this is overstated, and I don't find the nomination disruptive. An admin could very well have chosen to Relist in this case given that both of the Keep votes were relatively terse. In particular, I think it's reasonable to expect that Keep voters engage with a source assessment if one is provided; the votes would have been strengthened substantially by specifying which sources specifically contributed to WP:GNG, or by making more clear if they believe that the subject's military appointment meets WP:ANYBIO. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse. While the "Speedy Keep" was without merit, and should be discarded regardless of the user's block, the two Keeps are well reasoned, and come from two of our most experienced editors. "Keep" was the only possible outcome here. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse an AfD without support for the nomination, closed after a relist, is unlikely to ever be overturned here, because unless it were hidden away somewhere, truly non-policy-based keep !votes would end up beckoning others to contribute. That didn't happen here. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse unanimous consensus to keep (outside of the nom) after two weeks of discussion. Frank Anchor 14:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse - It isn't clear whether the appellant is saying that the closer made an error or that the community made an error. Neither happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse - over a span of 2 weeks, the nomination to delete failed to gain any traction, and 3 editors made reasonable arguments to keep. If those keep arguments were weak, the time to engage was then, compellingly enough for other editors to agree. That failed to happen. The bar to throw out those keep arguments at closing (or at DRV) as deficient, leaving a "consensus of 1" to delete, is very high and not met. The bar to argue there was no consensus and instead of closure, a 2nd relist should have been done, is perhaps a bit lower - but again not met, since the 3 keep votes were not unreasonable and no-one was engaging to the contrary, i.e. there was no discussion to continue in the hopes of getting to a clearer consensus. Martinp (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Priyanka Chahar Choudhary (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi I don't know how things work over here and I am not trying to annoy anyone. But I think Priyanka Chahar Choudhary has become a notable person with her multiple lead roles and I have added enough sources in the draft to prove that. Please check the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Priyanka_The_Naagin/sandbox# Priyanka The Naagin (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I nominated the file for discussion solely due to its compliance with WP:NFCC#2 ("respect for commercial opportunities") and WP:GETTY. It's never been about its compliance with WP:FREER and WP:NFCC#1 ("irreplaceability"). Nevertheless, one editor/admin who voted "delete" cited the "irreplaceability" criterion. At that time, I didn't challenge that rationale because I was hoping another third-party input, and I didn't want to bludgeon the process. Unfortunately, very few came in, so the file got deleted.
I've been having second thoughts about that "delete" vote and whether I should have the deletion reviewed right away. Indeed, I assumed this cast photo to be like any other cast photos used in other articles, like ones about fictional material. Well, this is a cast photo of a nonfictional reality TV series. Speaking of which, the whole broader matter about cast photos in such articles was discussed in the follwing RfC discussion—Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: cast photos of reality TV shows—though the participation was "limited". Nonetheless, as the consensus was, use in a television season article is deemed acceptable in certain circumstances only... if not used in any BLP-specific article. I even asked the closer about this (User talk:Beland#Your closing rationale at WT:NFC#RfC: cast photos of reality TV shows).
Since the deletion, I've been really torn between "delete"—my original stance in that FFD listing—and "weak keep"—primarily because the Paramount Press Express no longer has that photo, and I couldn't find any photo agency, like Getty Images, carrying this image. Indeed, if no clearer evidence of NFCC#2/GETTY violation is found—even the link I provided from Wayback Archive doesn't show photos anymore, making proof of such violation harder than I thought—then my original rationale might no longer stand. Rather I may lean toward "weak keep", i.e. assuming that (re)using this cast photo in Survivor 47 is deemed okay. First, citing that RfC discussion, the image should be un-deleted and then re-nominated. I requested this to the FFD discussion's closing admin Pppery, but Pppery wouldn't budge but rather suggested I'd be clearer about my intentions. Well.... look at the above. George Ho (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
My TL;DR version: I originally nominated the file solely due to WP:NFCC#2/WP:GETTY, never WP:NFCC#1/WP:FREER. Somehow, one "delete" vote cited otherwise, yet I didn't wanna challenge that rationale at that time. Now with the results of this RfC discussion that I'm citing now (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#RfC: cast photos of reality TV shows), i.e. cast photos of reality TV series is normally okay in season articles... only if NFCC-compliant, this image should be un-deleted and then re-nominated. Indeed, I think my evidence of NFCC#2 violation was... weak, so I may wanna reconsider my original stance. George Ho (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC); expanded, 05:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- What is the problem with re-uploading it? It seems like you are using bureaucracy to argue with yourself JMWt (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Dunno what you were intending, actually.
Wouldn't this risk violating WP:G4?What is the problem with re-uploading it?
How am I violating WP:NOTBURO? George Ho (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)It seems like you are using bureaucracy to argue with yourself
- Hum. We don't normally review decisions when the nom has changed their mind months later. There was sufficient concern at the status of the file that it was deleted. You used one set of reasoning, someone else used another, you've withdrawn your reasoning (which is an unusual and ultimately unhelpful thing to do with a file suspected of being non-free) which still leaves another !vote with a concern.
- Is there no other image with similar content that can be used that does not have the concern? It seems to me that you've got to come up with a better argument for inclusion than "oops my bad", and I don't see how we can possibly have a sensible discussion about it at DRV. JMWt (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- You appear to be arguing with yourself. I have little or no experience with the criteria for non-free images, but why don't you ask for advice about the criteria for non-free images, rather than using a formal procedure? You are an experienced editor; you probably can find the right forum to ask for advice about images, rather than arguing with yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- was that addressed to me? JMWt (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- User:JMWt - I apologize for the ambiguity. I wasn't asking you, but was asking the appellant. You and I were saying almost the same thing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- was that addressed to me? JMWt (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- @JMWt:
If you mean a free alternative, the only free image used is of Jon Lovett. I remain unconvinced that a free image of the whole Survivor 47 cast is likely to occur.Is there no other image with similar content that can be used that does not have the concern?
- Otherwise, I thought about creating a non-free screenshot, but none of the scenes from the very first episode of Survivor 47 come close, quality- and context-wise, to the deleted cast photo. The scenes showing all castaways at once have cameras zooming out a lot, and the cast members wouldn't be as identifiable as the cast photo one.
- If you like me to upload a such cast screenshot, then all right. Nonetheless, it wouldn't come out pretty, and it wouldn't make the castaway clearly identifiable, IMHO.
- Oh, and a Screen Rant rant misidentifies a cast photo of Survivor 46 as that of 47, and it's seen on Getty Images. Can't use that cast photo. I even had that cast photo deleted.
Was that what you think my long-winded(?) OP argument was? It wasn't my intention. I just wanted the image undeleted and then re-discussed. I didn't wanna take this to DRV until the admin was too reluctant to fulfill my request. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)It seems to me that you've got to come up with a better argument for inclusion than "oops my bad"
- You are asking a very specific point in DRV which a) is better addressed with those who specifically know about the use of non-free files on en.wiki b) involves you making a case that a decision was faulty because you have subsequently changed your mind c) requests a decision to be overturned on the basis that you disagree with a different !delete vote (a disagreement you didn't mention until this process) and you changing your vote to a "weak keep".
- This isn't how DRV works. The decision to delete was sound, if you want to add the file or a similar file back onto en.wiki then you need to have a conversation with those with expertise in those types of files and agree a way forward. There's no sense that we can or should undelete a file based on your mind changes. JMWt (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon:
JMWt said the same thing about my supposed(?) argument against self. Anyways, is what you perceived me to be doing exemplifying disruptive editing, point-making, or another rule I'm unaware of? Is this exemplifying what WP:AADD has been trying to discourage or something? I didn't intend to break those rules. I just wanted the image undeleted without needing this DRV. I'll discuss NFCC after this DRV then (or perhaps a DRV on another cast photo), all right? George Ho (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)You appear to be arguing with yourself.
- You appear to be arguing with yourself. I have little or no experience with the criteria for non-free images, but why don't you ask for advice about the criteria for non-free images, rather than using a formal procedure? You are an experienced editor; you probably can find the right forum to ask for advice about images, rather than arguing with yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
- Dunno what you were intending, actually.
- Endorse - I still don't have a clue what the appellant wants, but it appears that the closer made a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps I should've explained my intentions more clearly earlier: I want to reuse the photo in the Survivor 47 article... Well, just trying to appease Survivor fans who'd rather use non-free image than free ones. (I just don't want some fanatic to re-upload just to have it G4-deleted.)I still don't have a clue what the appellant wants
- Unless otherwise, I also don't intend to take the image to FFD again since I no longer believe that the use of the cast photo violates WP:NFCC#2. I'll just let someone else list it to FFD if willing. If re-nominated, I'll try to defend the cast photo with what I can.
- I don't intend to use any other image of the cast. A screenshot of the whole cast would suck and be very hard for an average eye to identify who's who and to help readers grasp what the season is about.
- By omitting the photo, the article is left with just the season logo, and I'm unsure whether it's adequate. Indeed, there's yet a DVD cover displaying partial cast, e.g. Survivor: Borneo and Survivor: The Australian Outback. (FWIW, I replaced the standalone logos with DVD covers showing the cast... and a logo, especially for general readers and non-fans alike.)
- Have I said too much, too little, or...? George Ho (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Probably too much. Maybe too little. Not the right amount for me to change my vote. I don't think that anything will change my opinion, so probably not too little. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse The closure was obviously correct. However, I think WP:G4 doesn't apply because it excludes
pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies
, and the RfC determined that cast photos are acceptable. Therefore, George Ho can upload the page. Hopefully, I understand the situation correctly. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC) - Allow reuploading, though this isn't strictly necessary as Kelob2678 said. Consensus can, and seems to have, change(d).Katzrockso (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
- I think this DRV should endorse deletion as appropriate at the time, but note that consensus on this type of image appears to have changed and express the viewpoint that CSD:G4 would not therefore apply were the image to be reuploaded, for the reason Kelob2678 sets out above. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hi The page was recently redirected through afd due to lack of in-depth reliable sources. I have found some independent in-depth RS references on SBI Card which are discussing in-depth on SBI card, its product, financial statement. Attaching all the references here [Profits down 20%, but India’s #2 credit card player is doubling down: What’s SBI Cards’ big bet? by The Indian Express, | SBI Cards can’t find a way out of its funk by The Ken,| Virus Panic Weighs on India’s Blockbuster Credit Card IPO by Bloomberg News, | Does SBI Card’s new credit card go the extra mile for travellers? by Mint (newspaper), | SBI pulls out trump card, hopes to take credit for plastic smiles by Rediff.com, also some Analyst reports [5], [6], & [7] Based on these SBI Card clearly meets WP:NORG & WP:Listed. Please go through these references and restore the page.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-17765-06 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
the "keep" voters all agreed that the grounds for keeping were weak, so i believe there is a rough consensus to delete the article. ltbdl (bite) 08:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Found this: Special:Diff/1674683. Attribute issue. — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 15:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The discussion was closed early because 2 people opposed the grouping of articles. I grouped it as such because all of these should (or could) be redirected to List of secondary schools in Ontario since primary schools are seldom notable. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, all the pages except 1 can be deleted from that discussion, and mandating that separate discussions take place violates the spirit of that policy. The argument to keep that is also admittedly weak, its because the city itself is divided into two school boards and because it is a national capital. Regardless, WP:SNOW can't possibly apply with only 2 people (is that even a snowflake? Perhaps a sickly snowball). The closure is a WP:SUPERVOTE from a non-admin, and I think that they should be formally warned for this behavior, as I reverted them before they reinstated their inappropriate closure. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 02:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Template:death date and age text (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I'll try to keep this concise.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |