Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
 |
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
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.
Steps to list a new deletion review
 | 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
|article=Foo
|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.
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".
File was tagged because it had the wrong template on it. I corrected the template and left a note on the talk page, but apparently the admin who deleted didn't review that or ask me about it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- WP:NFCC#8 is inherently subjective, and isn't appropriate as a speedy deletion rationale; its inclusion as a parameter in Template:Di-fails NFCC is illegitimate. In particular, this image's use in A Sumo Wrestler's Tail was entirely in line with what we use this sort of non-free content for. The usage in its previous article, Nezumi no Sumō, was more dubious; but that'd still be a matter for either FFD or normal removal via editing (and talk page discussion, if necessary) followed by an F5. —Cryptic 19:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Also, am I crazy, or didn't there used to be a dnfu variant of Template:Di-replaceable non-free use disputed? It's very, very easy for admins dealing with non-free-image deletions to miss a talk page challenge; during the year when I was handling the majority of these, I'd estimate no more than one in a hundred was disputed, and no more than one in a hundred of those challenges had any merit whatsoever. It's reasonably likely Explicit missed your talk page objection, and if he didn't, it's very likely that he didn't see that the target article and nfu rationale changed entirely between tagging and deletion. —Cryptic 20:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- That's my main concern: it didn't appear Explicit even looked at the history to see if anything had changed. I completely replaced the template that was previously there with the correct one. My note on the talk page (where the deletion tagging tells people to go) specifically explained that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Also, am I crazy, or didn't there used to be a dnfu variant of Template:Di-replaceable non-free use disputed? It's very, very easy for admins dealing with non-free-image deletions to miss a talk page challenge; during the year when I was handling the majority of these, I'd estimate no more than one in a hundred was disputed, and no more than one in a hundred of those challenges had any merit whatsoever. It's reasonably likely Explicit missed your talk page objection, and if he didn't, it's very likely that he didn't see that the target article and nfu rationale changed entirely between tagging and deletion. —Cryptic 20:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Advanced Bionics (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
To create a redirect for the Advanced Bionics page to resolve to the page for Sonova, as mentioned in the deletion discussion. Kerri9494 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC) |
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Angela Busheska (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was deleted in May 2023 following an AfD that concluded the subject (then an undergraduate) did not meet notability guidelines. Since that deletion, the subject has achieved significant new recognition that satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Key new developments include:
Furthermore, there are substantial, independent secondary sources that did not exist during the 2023 discussion. Find some of them linked below: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] I am requesting that the deletion be overturned to allow for recreation or restoration based on this new evidence. ~2025-42766-79 (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
What we have is the deletion of a contentious file (for over 20 years we have been debating this) that happened over the holidays involving just 2 random editors in 6 days. This is despite previous talks that were properly advertised (1 and 2) invovling many more editors. Closer should have relized that a wider talk then just 2 new editors should have taken place. What we have here is a fast deletion that was not announced anywhere (even on the page(s) invloved) that overrides the consensus of dozens and dozens of other editors from the past 20 years. Should at the very least been relisted and advertised somewhere over what most will see as a sneaky deletion attempt by someone involved with arms debates in many places.Moxy🍁 15:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist to allow for a full discussion. This FfD did not reflect the volume of interest in this topic, as evident by prior FfDs and Talk:Canada. Whether it was intended that way or not, I agree with Moxy that this was sneaky. I've been keeping tabs on the coat of arms situation and I didn't know this was happening until it was deleted. MediaKyle (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist this is an issue that has been going on for 20 years. Process followed in this case makes it very difficult for me to AGF. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I would just point out that you Moxy, as the nominator of this deletion review, were very much aware of the discussion and only added 'good luck', which could well be interpreted as support or indifference. Your participation would have indicated to the closer that this was controversial and you could have advertised the discussion more widely. If that had been my level of participation, I would be mortified to then raise it here. Dgp4004 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- I assumed it was advertised normally....as mentioned many times now it was the holidays with most of us having things to do. As for being controversial that is made clear to anyone who clicks the links provided in the nomination. We are not here to hold others hands - we assume a closer would make themselves aware of the underlying situation (by way of links provied). Moxy🍁 17:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- The nerve to have a crack at the closing administrator and the admittedly frustrating behaviour of the nominator but add that you're a very busy person with a sarcastic summary. The lack of self awareness is staggering. But you've remembered the most important thing on the internet — never back down, never admit any fault. I'll say no more. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Do you have something to add to the topic at hand? Moxy🍁 17:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- The nerve to have a crack at the closing administrator and the admittedly frustrating behaviour of the nominator but add that you're a very busy person with a sarcastic summary. The lack of self awareness is staggering. But you've remembered the most important thing on the internet — never back down, never admit any fault. I'll say no more. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- I assumed it was advertised normally....as mentioned many times now it was the holidays with most of us having things to do. As for being controversial that is made clear to anyone who clicks the links provided in the nomination. We are not here to hold others hands - we assume a closer would make themselves aware of the underlying situation (by way of links provied). Moxy🍁 17:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist I have no issue AGFing and think the close was not technically incorrect, but this discussion needs more time given the history and holiday season. Star Mississippi 17:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist as a clear result, especially if "good luck" is understood as opposition given the last discussions (however, this should have been a better crafted comment in retrospect.) SportingFlyer T·C 17:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist to allow full discussion and account for failure to advertise with sufficient breadth or provide sufficient time to reflect the context of this one. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist as we might for a contested soft-deletion. Trout to Moxy for not expressing opposition in the deletion discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist Echoing the sentiment that a proper discussion did not take place given the depth of prior discussions. Leventio (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Could someone explain to me how the rendering of the blazon currently at Commons (c:File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg, which the bluelink here redirects to) is incorrect? I can see the problems explained in the 2013 deletion discussion - the image mentioned there is currently in the 2013 versions of c:File:Coat of arms of Canada rendition.svg - but so far as I can tell they've been resolved with the September 2022 image. —Cryptic 02:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Relist as per above discussion. Remember that assume good faith is a long-standing guideline and that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
I closed this as keep and WP:XFDC was unable to remove the tag from the module page, so I looked at it myself and realized after closing it that it was not tagged it seems. The consensus appears to be keep, but I am unsure if I should reopen to discuss further with a proper tag at Module:Bar box/doc or if the close is fine. Casablanca 🪨(T) 03:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Technically, this can't get a definitive close until it's been open with an rfd tag on it a full seven days (barring an early WP:SNOW one, which doesn't seem quite merited). In practical terms, I can't see the result changing. Least disruptive way forward is to get User:Zackmann08 to agree to withdraw his nomination. —Cryptic 03:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm confused as the what the problem is here... I maintain the redirect should be deleted as unused and not a plausible typo... But was out-!voted 3-1. So I'm unclear why this is subject to a deletion review. What am I missing? Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 03:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- I realized after closing this that the redirect had never been tagged with an RfD tag, so I wanted to review my own close to ensure that it was not an improper close. Casablanca 🪨(T) 04:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Being listed at a deletion venue without ever having gotten the deletion-discussion tag on the page itself is one of the few cases where Deletion Review always, without fail, reopens a deletion discussion (WP:DRVPURPOSE, currently #3 in the first list). However, in this case I can all but guarantee you that being listed at RFD for another week isn't going to result in this redirect being deleted; if anything, proper notification that it's being considered for deletion is likely to result in more keep !votes. If you, as the only person in favor of deleting, withdraw your nomination, that would cut through the red tape and gain you some social capital. —Cryptic 02:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- If the outcome of the discussion were to do something then I would agree with Cryptic, but I think that a discussion where the outcome is to do nothing isn't voided by the lack of tag so I would endorse this. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment if the nominator desires a relist then it would be proper to allow that upon request. However, since no one else suggested an action other than retention, and the status quo was maintained, then as a functional matter we are at the same place we would have been had the nominator simply done nothing. Thus, if the nominator does not wish to pursue the matter nothing is either gained nor lost by simply moving on. Noting for the record, I was a participant in the discussion. ~2025-31245-28 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I would like to request the AfD relist or some form of discussion. My source assessment was called “false,” even though it was based only on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I believe it is unfair and dismissive to say so without justification. The discussion had very little participation, with only a small number of editors commenting, and this limited participation appears to have been treated as consensus, contrary to WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. I do not see any indication that the full set of over 20 sources in the article was reviewed. All my valid questions raised during the AfD were not addressed. The subject meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV through sustained, non trivial coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. Some objections focused on interview based coverage, but under WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, interviews published by independent outlets remain independent when there is editorial oversight, narrative framing, and analysis. Independence is determined by authorship and editorial control, not by the presence of quotations from the subject. The coverage goes beyond routine announcements and discusses the subject’s background, career, and leadership role over time. The close does not show that these factors were weighed, and a redirect outcome appears inconsistent with how similar notable founders are handled when GNG is met. This request asks for a review of the close itself, including how consensus was determined and how the sourcing was evaluated, rather than a reargument of the article’s merits. I am not sure if I am making the request correctly. Apologies if there is a broken template somewhere. WestwoodHights573 (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
I am not talking about some made-up rules in my head WP:FINANCIALTIMES
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 2 January 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. |
|
This is an old AfD I just stumbled upon (from 2012), and it seems very improperly closed. I count 6 keep votes, 4 merge, and the nomination which seems to default to delete. This was closed as merge with no rationale, which seems incorrect. This should be recreted, with no prejudice to another AfD, although frankly whas I see in the last version seems, IMHO, sufficient to estabilish notability anwyay (but anyway, here we are debating whether it was closed properly, not the article itself). PS. I found Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_July_16#Skeptoid, which seems to suggest that a merge occurred during the process, so the closure was likely fine (just affirming what happened); what likely was improper was the (as far as I can tell) undiscussed bold merger that happened during the AfD, done by a now-blocked editor (who in edit summaries claimed to have seen consensus at it in said AfD, which IMHO obviousy wasn't the case - but that's not the closer's fault). I intend to reverse the merger in the near future, restoring the article (no prejduice if someone wants to take it to AfD in the future again). I guess we can speedy close this DRV, apologies for wasting time. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:32, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Discussion was not in favor of deleting the article because of notability, deleted due to lack of further discussion, sufficient sources exist to demonstrate notability Update6 (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to N/C. A single participant !voting Delete is not a quorum, and once a Keep has been entered, it is no longer eligible for soft-deletion. Please note that the versions speedied six times in 2005 were all unsourced, single-paragraph, context-free blurbs, while the incarnation deleted at the 2024 AfD had 340 words of prose and cited seven sources, including the BBC and Forbes, albeit of questionable SIGCOV value. Owen× ☎ 23:39, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus: I agree with OwenX. There was not sufficient participation in this AFD to fully delete the article, and soft deletion was off the table since an editor !voted to keep it in good faith. Since this is a year old, I don't see the point in relisting the discussion, although that's what the closer should have done. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to No Consensus but the title was not salted, and after one year, the appellant could equally well have submitted a draft for review or created a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- Question - Have the wild bells ringing out the past and ringing in the new awakened deletions that went to sleep in past years? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn clear administrative error - this should not have been deleted as a result of that discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn to “no consensus”, nothing is substantive either way. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- Do not relist. It is too old. The AfD nomination statement is not very good. It was “no consensus”. For the way forward, read advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus per all above. Very clearly not a quorum. The closer should have either closed the AFD as NC or relisted it, relishing a year later would not be appropriate. Frank Anchor 19:04, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- Most of the above flatly contradicts what WP:NOQUORUM actually says, the Forbes source is unambiguously unreliable and there is nothing questionable about whether this fifteen-word passing mention has any chance of passing WP:SIGCOV, and the idea that there was any administrative error - let alone a clear one - in discounting a keep relying on unpresented sources is absurd and insulting. (A keep that turns out to be erroneous, so far as I can tell. None of the coverage I can find in those publications about this forum comes anywhere near being usable. This passing mention is typical. But that's not a DRV argument.)
If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include:
...closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal
. The article itself is blindingly obvious undeclared-COI product, if not quite reaching the G11 bar. Beeblebrox ought to be applauded for this close, not rebuked. At most we should reopen this discussion so the inevitable salting decision is less ambiguous. —Cryptic 20:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)- Also noting that this version by a declared COI editor is actually in better shape, though still not acceptable. —Cryptic 20:37, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- The sources you mention are not mentioned at all in the AfD. There is nothing substantive in the AfD. The quality of the AfD is so low that it must be overturned. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- No sources are mentioned at the afd! They're the actual arguments above that the afd should be overturned! —Cryptic 21:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- WP:NOQUORUM specifically says
and no one has opposed deletion
, not "no one has correctly opposed deletion." If I come across an AfD, there's two participants, one devoted seven words to their argument, the other devoted twelve words to their opposing argument, I strongly believe there's any other way to close that discussion than no consensus. I can't view the deleted article. Now if the article is so bad it should be deleted, there is nothing preventing the person who would have closed the AfD from voting,' especially because closers are generally very experienced. If you had !voted in the AfD with exactly what you had posted above, this would have been deleted. Perhaps it should stay deleted. If it's as bad as you say, we could probably keep it deleted. I just don't want to have the two-vote, drive-by-delete close AfD become acceptable. SportingFlyer T·C 04:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)- Your quoted text appears only in the fork of WP:NOQUORUM that instructs closers to soft delete. That is deliberate, not an oversight, not an accident, not in need of fixing. That paragraph postdates the central part of NOQUORUM, and was added specifically for the case where the article would've been proddable. RFC, diff. The no-opposition clause was a clarification to that paragraph. Diff.No, it wasn't a very verbose nomination. Yes, Beeblebrox would've been better off refuting 1keyhole's specific sourcing claim instead of relisting; it's hardly difficult, and relisting is almost never helpful in aggregate. I don't know whether it's acceptable these days to both relist an afd and later comment at it, as you say he should have done; I certainly wouldn't, even if I ever relisted discussions, which I don't. For that matter, he maybe shouldn't have both relisted and then later closed the same discussion. But none of that would have made the close any more correct, just less challengeable. —Cryptic 05:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- WP:NOQUORUM specifically says
- No sources are mentioned at the afd! They're the actual arguments above that the afd should be overturned! —Cryptic 21:00, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus Didn't see the fact that it was a year-old discussion. Yes, this should just be turned into a no consensus result, and renominating it allowed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Overturn to no consensus with discretion to relist. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Here are sources I found about The Student Room showing it meets Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria:
- Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa (2018). "Identity and metapragmatic acts in a student forum discussion thread". In Bös, Birte; Kleinke, Sonja; Mollin, Sandra; Hernández, Nuria (eds.). The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/dapsac.78.06tan. ISBN 978-90-272-6402-2.
The article notes: "The material for the present study comes from The Student Room (TSR), which advertises itself as the “largest student community in the world – over 1.8m members” (thestudentroom.co.uk). The online community website comprises several sections, from “Applying to uni” to “Careers and Jobs” to the discussion forums, where you can “discuss anything – universities, health, lifestyle, relationships & more”. The description of the community indicates its participatory, interactional focus: the participants are responsible for creating most of the content. ... The Student Room upholds a moderation policy according to which posts submitted to the discussion forum may be edited or deleted and entire threads closed (TSR “Terms and coditions”). In order to avoid intervention by moderators, participants must follow six community guidelines: be friendly, keep it clean, stay on topic, no cheating, no advertising, keep it legal (TSR “Community guidelines”). There were no comments or other activity by the moderators during the Freshers Week discussion, indicating that the moderators felt no need to intervene and that none of the participants requested such intervention."
- Organ, Alison (2022-01-17). "Attitudes to the use of Google Translate for L2 production: analysis of chatroom discussions among UK secondary school students". The Language Learning Journal. 51 (3). Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/09571736.2021.2023896.
The article notes: "This unique case study explores UK student attitudes to the use of Google Translate as voiced spontaneously to each other (rather than to a researcher) in comments submitted to The Student Room (https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/), a publicly available online forum, between 2010 and 2020. The Student Room is a UK-based community forum for students to ask each other questions about topics such as subjects they are studying, school and university courses, accommodation, finance and personal matters. ... This is particularly relevant to this study, as many of the students posting to the Student Room appear to be doing so as a result of a chronic lack of confidence in their ability. ... This is relevant to our study as it would appear from some of the posts to the Student Room that posters are ascribing their past failure to their own low ability, and are reaching for external solutions rather than attempting to employ better learning strategies. ... In the case of this study, consent from posters to the forum was not sought: the Student Room forum shows only their username and no other information which could lead to their identification. Although some comments reveal potentially controversial material such as ..."
- Osang, Francis Bukie; Nwaocha, Vivian (2018). "Bridging the Distance in Open and Distance Learning: Developing Student-Student and Student-Lecturer Collaborative Forum". LAUTECH Journal of Engineering and Technology. 12 (1). Ladoke Akintola University of Technology. Retrieved 2026-01-03.
The article notes: "2.4.1. The Student Room. The world's largest student community, The Student Room have attracted students to the site for help with their studies, advice from their peers and, quite often, just to have a good conversation. It is ranked as one of the first 500 visited websites in the United Kingdom (Alexa, 2014). It is mainly for universities in the UK like University of East London, London School of Economics, University of West London, etc. It has also been noticed that every year after high school graduation, students start looking for the right university, often referred to as the Clearing Phase, where the traffic to The Student Room increases significantly. They have also been able to withstand the surge in traffic anytime the site is fully active (Gossamer Threads, 2013). A large part of The Student Room consists of the forum, of which the major sections are: ..."
- Herzig, Richenda (January 2017). The Role of Symbolic Capital in Digital Inequality: Lessons from The Student Room's Reputation System (PDF) (PhD thesis). University of East Anglia. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2026-01-03. Retrieved 2026-01-03.
The PhD thesis notes: "The aim of this study is to ascertain the social meaning and function of digital reputation on the popular forum, The Student Room, which is widely used by young adults in the UK for practical support relating to University applications and academic work. My research aim was derived from two prior concerns. The first was that digital reputation might somehow be related to inequalities and power struggles among users of The Student Room. The second, subsequent concern was that existing empirical approaches to digital reputation were incomplete in their conceptualization of its function and meaning. ... This work focuses strongly on the digital reputation system used within The Student Room (TSR). www.thestudentroom.co.uk is a forum targeting UK students from ages 15‑25. Not only is it used by students to share information relating to learning and progressing through education, but it is also home to discussion areas for non‑academic interests, needs and concerns. The reputation system on TSR allows users to give positive ratings to the posts of other users. These ratings are visible on posts, and an aggregate of positive reputation received is displayed on users’ profiles wherever they post on the site. This feature has potential repercussions for the quality of experience that users enjoy."
- Darracott, Alexander James (January 2022). What can message analysis tell us about sustained, open debates within public forums? A case study of The Student Room (PDF) (PhD thesis). University of Warwick. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2026-01-03. Retrieved 2026-01-03.
The PhD thesis notes: "The cases being examined were debates within a public online community called The Student Room. This was set up to provide a space for information sharing for the purpose of supporting existing and future students on a variety of topics related to University entry, exams, student loans, and coursework support. However, the focus of this study is the forum in which participants were able to debate topics. A key feature of the online debates in The Student Room is they are public (they are open to students across the country and do not lead to accreditation) and they are open in the sense that there is no expectation to arrive at a consensus or shared agreement."
- Less significant coverage:
- Staufenberg, Jessica (2014-09-29). "Pair Valley-bound after living up to Challenge". The Argus. Archived from the original on 2026-01-03. Retrieved 2026-01-03.
The article notes: "Mr Delingpole is the founder of Brighton-based web business The Student Room, and used its £7 million annual revenue and other ventures to pour investment into an intelligent banking security system."
- Coulter, Martin (2019-07-02). "UK universities trial app to tackle mental health crisis on campus". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2022-03-27. Retrieved 2026-01-03.
The article notes: "The Student Room group, the company behind the eponymous online community site, has designed the app, called “Enlitened”, with plans to target 40,000 students across five universities from September. ... Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour. https://www.ft.com/content/636f69b4-9be7-11e9-b8ce-8b459ed04726 The site, founded in 2002, receives about 10m visits each month from students in secondary and higher education. It offers a range of services, including study tips, university and careers advice, and discussions on sexual health and relationships."
- Tyler, Richard (2021-12-03). "We're fighting evil money launderers at ComplyAdvantage". The Times. Archived from the original on 2026-01-03. Retrieved 2026-01-03.
The article notes: "Charles Delingpole has started three businesses. ... But his first company goes back to when he was aged just 16, boarding at Malvern College in Worcestershire. Having taught himself to code while studying for his international baccalaureate, he launched a website called studentcentral.co.uk. It was an early discussion forum for people aged 14 to 25, sharing advice on how to tackle the challenges of school and university. It is now called The Student Room and has 3.6 million members, writing 240,000 posts a month on such subjects as “Quadratic formula help needed”. Delingpole, 39, said it made revenues of about £8 million."
- Huggins, Donata (2011-12-05). "They hit the road for an idea that's on the money - Donata Huggins meets two men responsible for improving access to funding for small firms - by starting a company of their own". City A.M. Archived from the original on 2026-01-03. Retrieved 2026-01-03.
The article notes: "Indeed, Delingpole founded The Student Room website when he was 17."
- Canning, John (2017). "Conceptualising student voice in UK higher education: four theoretical lenses". Teaching in Higher Education. 22 (5). doi:10.1080/13562517.2016.1273207.
The article notes: "In order to go ‘off-code’ online spaces such as The Student RoomFootnote1 or Which? Magazine become the places where students views can be expressed about the quality of accommodation, sports facilities, etc. ... A glance at The Student Room website gives insight into a usually anonymous student voice, in which dissatisfaction is sometimes expressed. It is not always clear whether these students have attempted to get redress from the university and failed, or whether the public forum is the only place in which they have expressed their voice. At the time of writing a free to edit wiki profiling one university outlines poor teaching, poor careers advice and poor facilities. Grégoire, Tripp, and Legoux (Citation2009) explore the notion of revenge on a company, but revenge on a university seems problematic for the reasons outlined above. As an interesting aside, The Student Room is now working in partnership with the HEA."
- Corazza, Ornella; Simonato, Pierluigi; Corkery, John; Trincas, Giuseppina; Schifano, Fabrizio (March–April 2014). ""Legal highs": safe and legal "heavens"? A study on the diffusion, knowledge and risk awareness of novel psychoactive drugs among students in the UK". Rivista di Psichiatria. 49 (2). doi:10.1708/1461.16147.
The article notes: "This was advertised on The Student Room’s website, the major advertising platform for higher education in the UK. Responses were kept anonymous. The survey questions were designed by The Student Room’s staff, which has expertise in providing consultation and advice on subjects ranging from education to health related issues to young people aged 13-26 years. The Student Room is the world’s largest student web community, with 30 million page views and 4.5 million unique users each month. This was considered a credible vehicle to use for opportunistic research that provided inexpensive, rapid and targeted access to a relatively large student sample in a short period of time."
- Staufenberg, Jessica (2014-09-29). "Pair Valley-bound after living up to Challenge". The Argus. Archived from the original on 2026-01-03. Retrieved 2026-01-03.
- Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa (2018). "Identity and metapragmatic acts in a student forum discussion thread". In Bös, Birte; Kleinke, Sonja; Mollin, Sandra; Hernández, Nuria (eds.). The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/dapsac.78.06tan. ISBN 978-90-272-6402-2.
- Links would have been sufficient. Somewhat irritated that google didn't, and still doesn't, turn up 6.3 for me.I'd have no objection to an article based on those sources. It wouldn't look at all similar to anything that's ever been at this title.I still think the close of the afd as it stood was correct and previous overturns contradict policy, and OwenX's mischaracterization of the last revision's sourcing - five citations to the article subject's own websites, plus one to a Forbes Contributor piece and one to the passingest of passing mentions on the BBC - was particularly offensive. But I accept that practice is to keep astroturfing in mainspace so long as good sources exist, and it's not worth fighting that. —Cryptic 18:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Kinda whatever? A literal reading of
discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to
would seem to indicate the close is within discretion. Whether that actually reflects current practice is probably something best settled at WT:DELPRO but also, if someone actually wants an article on this topic it can just be recreated at this point, and if someone wants it gone it can be renominated again? Is there really any point in relitigating an AFD that had all of two participants and is just over a year old at this point? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
This is part of a series of templates, and not having it is detrimental to WP:CITEVAR and CS1-related maintenance. See a similar rationale at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_1#Template:OSTI. This should be speedily undeleted, but alas, bureaucracy is too important to overlook apparently. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Allow recreation (I think): I don't have much experience with templates, but this TFD is a year old and only involved three people, counting the nominator and closer. If this was an AFD, it would have been soft deleted. I think any arguments for or against this template's existence should be given in a new TFD, hopefully one with more participants. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- (Disclosure: I've never participated in a TFD. If I'm missing something, please tell me.) Chess enjoyer (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- Question - Have the wild bells ringing out the past and ringing in the new awakened deletions that went to sleep in past years? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- New year, new rules I suppose Katzrockso (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- Allow recreation/restore The TfD was lightly attended, and I assume Headbomb wants to use the template somewhere so that would resolve the original nominators concern. Jumpytoo Talk 22:07, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Draft:Idowu Adebiyi Odugbesan (closed)
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I don't believe the discussion should have been closed this early. The MfD itself was only open for 2 hours, nowhere near the typical 7 days that should be allotted, nor was it in WP:SNOW territory, even if consensus was almost unanimous at the time it was closed. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:31, 31 December 2025 (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. |
|
At this TFD, it was stated by the nominator that the two templates to be merged were indistinguishable except for one parameter. I !voted to merge the two templates but am now here to have this merge overturned. I actually went to try and merge the two templates from the WP:HOLDINGCELL and found there are MULTIPLE parameters that are different. In fact most of them are different. I blame myself for assuming the nominator had done their research. I won't speak for the other !voters (@Akshadev, Lenticel, and WikiCleanerMan: talking to you) but for my part, I took the nominator at their word. At the very least this should be re-opened and a new discussion held about the ACTUAL differences between these two templates. Also, no fault placed on Izno for closing what was a unanimous !vote... In summary I think the merge decision (which, once again I supported) was reached based on false conclusions and assumptions and should therefore be overturned. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:02, 29 December 2025 (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 disambiguation VLDB now links only to one element, which is a bit strange... Unfortunately, I missed the deletion discussion. Actually, the International Conference on Very Large Data Bases is the top venue (beside of SIGMOD) for database papers, it is not hard to find secondary sources: [36] with an acceptance rate of 24%, it is even lower than that of SIGMOD. So not sure how the nomination for deletion could be successful. So I am not sure how to proceed: Of course, I could add a paragraph to very large database, but this is also strange and it feels a bit wrong keeping an entry for less important conferences but not for VLDB... MaxEmanuel (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2025 (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. |
|
As discussed at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2021_June_29#File:Breonna_Taylor_(graduation_photo).jpg, this image is not owned by Getty Images. AFP/Getty Images is merely the distributor and the image is owned by the family, who I am sure has no commercial interest in the photo of their dear family member who was murdered by police. Their commercial interests were in the $12 million lawsuit they won. The image was shared as a courtesy to the press. The nominator 999real and perhaps the admin Explicit seem to misunderstand what "courtesy" means. If you search for this image on Getty Images, you will not find it for sale. THIS IMAGE IS NOT FOR SALE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:02, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
.jpg?lang=en){kind=link}
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The SVG version of the logo is now deleted per another FFD discussion (link). I thought about contacting the closing admin who deleted the PNG version, but now that admin is having a wikibreak at this time. The nominator who listed the PNG version thought that the result was "incorrect". Nonetheless, for one year the results hadn't been challenged, but I'm doing it now anyways. George Ho (talk) 07:04, 27 December 2025 (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. |
|
Archives 15 through 23. Deleted immediately without any discussion whatsoever by Hey man im josh, without CSD tags or anything. No engagement in prior discussion with me, either from the target user or from the admin who deleted the page, about the archive page deletions. I explained the reasons here and on my talk page. I got a thank you notification (Beland) and a message on my talk page telling not to archive anything against the user's wishes, although I wrote in the original thread why exactly I did it. The reason for deletion was "Unrelated user created archive pages for a user who has explicitly stated they have no intentions of archiving their talk page. Not appropriate, deleted pages that were created against a user's wishes." (basically WP:OWNTALK) I believe that in the described circumstances, it was appropriate. I wanted to actually comment on the talk page (the gun image on ANI) - and my browser would stop responding whenever I tried to type anything at all. It is a guideline that we don't touch user talk pages, but it's not a rigid rule, and this is the clear case for disapplying it. The point of the talk page is communication, not user control. CSD not appropriate because no one actually tagged it with CSD. U1 does not apply as user talk pages are exempted. There is no other CSD criterion that could possibly apply. Other modes for deletion require prior discussion (MfD) or waiting 7 days (PROD). Szmenderowiecki (talk · contribs) 19:49, 24 December 2025 (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. |
|
Article was significantly improved after early consensus, addressing key sourcing issues. Discussion should have been re-listed instead of closed. - BrechtBro (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I disagree that this page should be merged instead of redirected, as I do not believe there's much in this article worth salvaging. The only thing that comes close is the Plot summary section, but since I'm not that big into ICP I don't know how useful it'd be to those reading Dark Carnival (Insane Clown Posse), the merge target. I therefore propose overturning this to redirect rather than merge. JHD0919 (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I was not a participant in this TfD, but I came across it later in a follow-up discussion, and after reading it, I came to the conclusion that a persuasive case for deletion was never made and that the template would likely have been kept if subject to broader discussion. In particular, the deletion side made three arguments:
- That the template's functionality was covered by {{enum}}. Grufo refuted that point in this comment, showing that {{enum}} cannot actually properly handle serial commas, although some later !voters may have missed it. (He explained it in more detail here; in short, it's because using {{enum}}'s parameter
|and=, andto add a serial comma would cause it to erroneously outputA, and Bin an enumerated list with only two items.) - That the template is unused. This is a weak argument because, per WP:TFDREASONS #3, a template must also have
no likelihood of being used
, and that was never demonstrated/the use case here is perfectly plausible. - General opposition to serial comma use. This is a fine personal preference to have, but is not an argument for deleting the template. Given MOS:VAR, an article that uses an enumerated list template might well have an established style of using serial commas, in which case an option to do so in the template would be needed.
I take no issue with the judgement of the closer, Izno (who suggested coming here), in evaluating the consensus at the TfD at the time. But given the limited participation in that discussion and the issues I highlighted above, I believe the template should be restored and kept. Cheers, Sdkb talk 03:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Allow restoration per above as nominator. Sdkb talk 03:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
- Allow restoration per Sdkb. --Grufo (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
Relist to provide the additional discussion that the appellant is requesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Since there was incomplete pinging of users here, in that I mean, that the only person pinged was the only person that wanted to keep this template, I will ping all participants of the TfD as well. @User:Zackmann08 @GhostInTheMachine @Pppery @Alalch E.. Gonnym (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep deleted per TfD and RfD. Even if this was the most important template on our site (which is not even remotely the case), at this stage, I cannot assume good faith in its existence. It was deleted, then the template restored to create a redirect (instead of creating a redirect), then sent to RfD in the hopes of getting it restored, then trying to get it restored in an unrelated template talk page, then trying to backdoor restore it at Izno's talk page, then sent here without pinging the people that would be against its restoration but pinging the only one in favor of it being restored. At some point you have to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Gonnym (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
“I cannot assume good faith in its existence”
: How about we try a different narration, and maybe even introduce the idea that at this stage there cannot be good faith in opposing the template, at least not from you? The template was created because there are no ways to create a list with serial comma on English Wikipedia (unless you want to do it by hand). Then it was deleted arguing that {{Enum}} would allow serial commas. After several users have realized that it was actually not the case, someone invited to explore the possibility of supporting serial commas as an option of {{Enum}}. Although I believed that having things like{{Enum|A|B|C|serial=yes}}would never be ideal, I thought it was an acceptable compromise and so I implemented it, I also solved a current bug, and I opened a discussion about the new implementation. But then you opposed even the {{Enum}} option on the ground that you don't like Module:Params. You had already manifested the wish to orphan that module only for the sake of doing it; how about we introduce the idea that at this stage there cannot be good faith in your opposition (because your actual goal is that of orphaning Module:Params, as you have said it yourself)? --Grufo (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2025 (UTC)- Gonnym and Grufo, this is not the appropriate venue to discuss behavioral issues around the dispute you have with each other. Please stick to discussion of whether or not having {{List with serial comma}} restored would benefit the encyclopedia, as that is what the closer will be looking to evaluate the consensus around. Sdkb talk 20:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Sdkb. It is fine by me. --Grufo (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Gonnym and Grufo, this is not the appropriate venue to discuss behavioral issues around the dispute you have with each other. Please stick to discussion of whether or not having {{List with serial comma}} restored would benefit the encyclopedia, as that is what the closer will be looking to evaluate the consensus around. Sdkb talk 20:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep deleted we've been through this. This is not a venue to rehash the same arguments. WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. I appreciate the ping by Gonnym and am also troubled by the fact that only person pinged was the one who supported keeping the template to begin with. That is essentially WP:CANVASSING. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Question about the statement that the Oxford comma is not supported by {{enum}}. It appears from the documentation that and = ", and" will do that. Can someone explain how the and = option of {{enum}} is not sufficient? I may change my vote based on the answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: Imagine you have a template called
{{Foobar}}, and this template contains the following code:{{Enum|{{{one|}}}|{{{two|}}}|{{{three|}}}|and=, and }}. When you write{{Foobar|one=apples|two=oranges}}you get “apples, and oranges”, and it will be unnecessarily hard to remove that comma. It is actually not so rare for templates to call {{Enum}} in this way (but without the|and=parameter)—see for instance {{Underused external link template}}; these templates would have no easy way to use a serial comma if they wanted to. --Grufo (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)- Okay. I understand that you are saying that the problem with the {{enum}} template and the and=", and" parameter is that it introduces an Oxford comma between two elements.
- So it seems that the reason for this request either to restore the deleted template or reopen the deletion discussion is that the template was deleted based on an incorrect assumption that {{enum}} would provide the same result. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly. But that is not all. In that discussion only two editors argued that this template would allegedly be redundant to {{Enum}} (although one of the two switched between multiple arguments). One editor actually argued that serial commas are not needed in general (but that would go against MOS:VAR), and the last editor only wrote
“Unused template. Theoretically useful, so perhaps recreate when it might be deemed to be practically useful”
. --Grufo (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly. But that is not all. In that discussion only two editors argued that this template would allegedly be redundant to {{Enum}} (although one of the two switched between multiple arguments). One editor actually argued that serial commas are not needed in general (but that would go against MOS:VAR), and the last editor only wrote
- @Robert McClenon: Imagine you have a template called
- Question Ignoring TFDREASON#3 for a second, do we have a documented case where the enum template's lack of support for Oxford comma broke an edit, caused a display/style issue, or caused some other technical problem? Jumpytoo Talk 07:50, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Jumpytoo, there are plenty of other templates that use enumerated lists within them. There are also plenty of articles that have an established style of using an Oxford comma. Any article that uses such a template and also has an established style of using an Oxford comma will be unable to maintain that style (an issue per MOS:VAR) without functionality to add an option to use an Oxford comma. It is difficult to run a query to fetch the list of such articles given that we have no {{Use Oxford comma}} tags on articles the way we do e.g. {{Use British English}} tags (perhaps we should). Sdkb talk 18:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- I see, looking at the below discussion as well, I will support allowing recreation, but recommending finding a usage for the template first before doing so Jumpytoo Talk 08:07, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Jumpytoo, there are plenty of other templates that use enumerated lists within them. There are also plenty of articles that have an established style of using an Oxford comma. Any article that uses such a template and also has an established style of using an Oxford comma will be unable to maintain that style (an issue per MOS:VAR) without functionality to add an option to use an Oxford comma. It is difficult to run a query to fetch the list of such articles given that we have no {{Use Oxford comma}} tags on articles the way we do e.g. {{Use British English}} tags (perhaps we should). Sdkb talk 18:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. I was aware of everything discussed above when I !voted and I still !voted delete. The same is true for other participants, I'd say. A template being unused is not a weak reason to delete. Recreate and immediately use it; this will overcome the reason why the page was deleted.—Alalch E.
- @Alalch E.: Correct me if I am wrong, but the template can be recreated only if it is deleted on the ground that it is unused, but not if it is deleted on the ground that it is redundant. That fact that you say it is not redundant (I agree btw) and can be recreated if used might meet the opposition of others who voted delete for other reasons. --Grufo (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- If you were to recreate the template and reasonably immediately implement it, any admin who would G4-delete would be making a mistake. That mistake would be correctable in a DRV, for example. This DRV is not useful, as there's no mistake to correct. —Alalch E. 11:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Alright. Then it seems pretty easy. Although some might hate the serial comma, it can easily become mandatory in English to avoid ambiguity:
- I saw my two brothers, Robert and Karl.
- (i.e. I saw two persons, whose names are Robert and Karl, and they are my brothers)
- I saw my two brothers, Robert, and Karl.
- (i.e. I saw four persons)
- I saw my two brothers, Robert and Karl.
- --Grufo (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Which article is that from? —Alalch E. 09:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Oh that was just the first example that came to my mind. Asking about ambiguous examples from articles is a bit unfair, because if editors identified possible ambiguities while they were writing they also found the solutions already, either by not using {{Enum}} or by using different words. So the research you are implicitly asking will necessarily suffer from cherry-picking (and I know you know that already). However, by looking at how {{Enum}} is most often used in articles (#1, #2)—see for instance Tyrol Schistose Alps—it is not hard to come up with made-up (yet possible) ambiguous examples:
{{enum|Croatia|Slovenia|Bosnia and Herzegovina|North Tyrol|South Tyrol}}- ↳ Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Tyrol and South Tyrol
- Without serial comma I have no idea how many people will undestand that North Tyrol and South Tyrol are two different regions that belong to two different countries (Austria and Italy). Moreover, consider that the example above belongs to those cases in which the serial comma is either mandatory or almost mandatory; yet some people might want to use the serial comma just because they like it, and that is also fine. --Grufo (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps people click on the link? The Banner talk 17:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with you, Grufo, that this is a valid real example of where a serial comma is needed and is missing due to how the enum template works by default. In the TfD it was noted that the enum template can produce a serial comma. Participants did not believe that another template is needed, functionally similar to enum (irrespective of similarity or dissimilarity of implementation). I'd take this to the talk page of enum and try to enact a consensus to change the template code to one that retains no serial comma by default but has more robust support for the serial comma than enum, so that it's resistant to the "A, and B" (B being the second and only other member of the list) scenario. I'm going to keep my !vote as endorse here, and I continue to oppose two templates. —Alalch E. 21:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E.: Thank you for your reply. As you might have noticed, I emphasized in my previous message that we were talking about usage in articles, because there people will always find a way to write things, in a way or another. But as I mentioned earlier, the real problem (unsolvable via {{Enum}}) happens in templates. In my opinion {{Enum}} should not support the
|comma=and|and=parameters at all (we already have {{Separated entries}} if you want to specify those), and instead all these courtesy templates like {{Enum}}, {{Hlist}}, etc. should do only one thing and do it well. We even have {{Comma separated entries}}. That is also why I still prefer a separate template for serial commas. That said, supporting the serial comma via {{Enum}} will be better than not supporting it (even though not ideal if you ask me). --Grufo (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E.: Thank you for your reply. As you might have noticed, I emphasized in my previous message that we were talking about usage in articles, because there people will always find a way to write things, in a way or another. But as I mentioned earlier, the real problem (unsolvable via {{Enum}}) happens in templates. In my opinion {{Enum}} should not support the
- Oh that was just the first example that came to my mind. Asking about ambiguous examples from articles is a bit unfair, because if editors identified possible ambiguities while they were writing they also found the solutions already, either by not using {{Enum}} or by using different words. So the research you are implicitly asking will necessarily suffer from cherry-picking (and I know you know that already). However, by looking at how {{Enum}} is most often used in articles (#1, #2)—see for instance Tyrol Schistose Alps—it is not hard to come up with made-up (yet possible) ambiguous examples:
- Which article is that from? —Alalch E. 09:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- Alright. Then it seems pretty easy. Although some might hate the serial comma, it can easily become mandatory in English to avoid ambiguity:
- If you were to recreate the template and reasonably immediately implement it, any admin who would G4-delete would be making a mistake. That mistake would be correctable in a DRV, for example. This DRV is not useful, as there's no mistake to correct. —Alalch E. 11:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Alalch E.: Correct me if I am wrong, but the template can be recreated only if it is deleted on the ground that it is unused, but not if it is deleted on the ground that it is redundant. That fact that you say it is not redundant (I agree btw) and can be recreated if used might meet the opposition of others who voted delete for other reasons. --Grufo (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep deleted Superfluous and at present unused. What issue does it solve? The Banner talk 15:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep deleted no error by the closer was identified here. This entire discussion is mere TfD-round-2-ing. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I have struck my Relist. We have had the discussion that the appellant requested, and it has not been persuasive. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn This was a poorly attended discussion which did not address any of the points brought up here, and if they had been brought up this would have been kept in the absence of additional consensus. I'd change this to no consensus and allow an immediate renomination. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- 5 people at a TFD is not a poorly attended discussion. It's probably not even so for any other deletion forum at this time either. Izno (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Allow restoration, unless {{Enum}} can be fixed. I see nothing wrong with how the TfD was closed. But the bar for keeping a template is even lower than that for keeping a redirect. Grufo's explanation more than suffices to pass that low bar. I understand why those dealing with such issues are passionate about them, but this just isn't worth the time we've spent on it here. Zackmann08's advice to WP:DROPTHESTICK applies to everyone. Owen× ☎ 10:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
- There's two options here:
- Recreate the template; maybe simplify the code if that's the problem since I hear from many other of TfDs (that resulted in delete) against Grufo that a major concern was overcomplication.
- This could probably be a wrapper template around Enum.
- Fix Enum so it can say both "A and B" and "A, B, and C".
- I do not think simply modifying existing behavior with the "and" parameter is an option. The key here is "existing behavior"—I'm fairly sure there should be existing templates that rely on the "and" parameter being applied consistently as long as the number of list items is more than one. (Changing the output just for the case of "and=, " is IMO too bespoke and counterintuitive.)
- We could make a different parameter that would have this behavior, but besides being a little bespoke, I believe adding on new code for this specific use case far less common than Enum's 11,140 is overkill and unwieldy to maintain, with such a low-use feature affecting such a high-risk range.
- Recreate the template; maybe simplify the code if that's the problem since I hear from many other of TfDs (that resulted in delete) against Grufo that a major concern was overcomplication.
- Hence, I lean weak restore per Owenx. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Appellant inappropriately attempts to reargue their case on the merits. This board is for procedural errors, which the appeal does not allege. Sandstein 15:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: That might not be completely correct. It is true that the closer found the (little) consensus required by WP:TFDCI to close the discussion, so there was no mistake from them. But a procedural error lied in the fact that consensus was based on a false premise concerning {{Enum}}'s support for serial comma, which might even have held back others from commenting in the template's favor. The very reason a redirect was kept afterwards and Sdkb initially did not want to remove it was the belief that {{Enum}} supported the serial comma. --Grufo (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an error by the closer, which is what we are here to review. That deletion discussion participants make mistakes is routine and not grounds for deletion review. I suggest seeking consensus to amend the Enum template to support serial commas instead. If that succeeds, all should be happy, and if that fails, it confirms that this deletion reflects community consensus. Sandstein 21:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Errors by the closer might not be the only thing worth the attention of this venue. That would be point #1 of Wikipedia:Deletion review § Purpose, whereas point #3 mentions “substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion …” (emphasis is mine). Whether we like the template or not, that discussion was pretty terrible. That might also explain why the topic was felt still pending afterwards (#1, #2). --Grufo (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- The problem with your quote is that the only errors alleged here are substantive and not procedural. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- How should we draw that line though? Imagine an extreme scenario: imagine someone nominated for deletion a template similar to {{See also}} and the majority argued that it is redundant to {{Strong}} (of course it isn't, they are very different templates); as such it gets deleted; would these not be considered procedural errors in the deletion discussion? Where should that discussion be challenged? --Grufo (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- "Procedural" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and in most places with debate rules. A procedural problem is a mistake in how a decision or process is carried out (rules, steps, timing, notice, authority, documentation, etc.). What you mentioned is a substantive debate, a disagreement about what the decision or outcome should be (facts, judegments, or merits of the issue). Aaron Liu (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- How should we draw that line though? Imagine an extreme scenario: imagine someone nominated for deletion a template similar to {{See also}} and the majority argued that it is redundant to {{Strong}} (of course it isn't, they are very different templates); as such it gets deleted; would these not be considered procedural errors in the deletion discussion? Where should that discussion be challenged? --Grufo (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
- The problem with your quote is that the only errors alleged here are substantive and not procedural. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
- Errors by the closer might not be the only thing worth the attention of this venue. That would be point #1 of Wikipedia:Deletion review § Purpose, whereas point #3 mentions “substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion …” (emphasis is mine). Whether we like the template or not, that discussion was pretty terrible. That might also explain why the topic was felt still pending afterwards (#1, #2). --Grufo (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- That's not an error by the closer, which is what we are here to review. That deletion discussion participants make mistakes is routine and not grounds for deletion review. I suggest seeking consensus to amend the Enum template to support serial commas instead. If that succeeds, all should be happy, and if that fails, it confirms that this deletion reflects community consensus. Sandstein 21:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Where should this be argued? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- In an appropriate template or project talk page, as suggested above. Sandstein 21:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I've mentioned why I believe amending Enum to be a bad idea (maintenance). On which project talk page should the recreation of the template be argued? I unfortunately can't find one. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- As I've commented somewhere else, Module:Separated entries, which is the base module for this and other templates, should just have a
|serial=yesoption added to it. It's that simple. Gonnym (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)- Though modules don't have the PEIS concerns adding text to templates does, what I've said about risk applies twohundredfold more to SeparatedEntries's 2,647,141 transclusions. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Because this TFD concluded that Wikipedians don't want a separate template for this purpose, the only remaining options are to amend an existing template or not support lists with serial commas, which is an entirely unimportant issue to begin with. Sandstein 19:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look into what this TFD concluded, two editors said serial commas are already supported by {{Enum}}, one said that serial commas are bad, one said to recreate this template as soon as it is needed. Nobody in this TFD said we have to amend an existing template. --Grufo (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please stop addressing me. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Nobody is talking with you, nor addressing you, nor mentioning you. --Grufo (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Please stop addressing me. Gonnym (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a reason recreation, as many here support, should not be an option when they believe we want a template for this purpose? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, if you look into what this TFD concluded, two editors said serial commas are already supported by {{Enum}}, one said that serial commas are bad, one said to recreate this template as soon as it is needed. Nobody in this TFD said we have to amend an existing template. --Grufo (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
- As I've commented somewhere else, Module:Separated entries, which is the base module for this and other templates, should just have a
- I've mentioned why I believe amending Enum to be a bad idea (maintenance). On which project talk page should the recreation of the template be argued? I unfortunately can't find one. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- In an appropriate template or project talk page, as suggested above. Sandstein 21:50, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- I completely disagree with the premise of this endorse. DRV is a forum for challenging deletions, not for challenging actions of administrators. This was a lightly attended discussion, and if the rationale for deleting can be overcome, this is absolutely the correct forum. SportingFlyer T·C 03:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- Not so. We regularly dismiss DRV nominations that treat DRV as a second round of XfD. Our instructions provide: "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." Sandstein 08:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- I agree we regularly dismiss DRV nominations that treat DRV as a second round of XfD. I do not think this petition falls into that category at all. SportingFlyer T·C 01:06, 31 December 2025 (UTC)
- I fully concur with SportingFlyer here. This is basically the platonic ideal of why WP:NOTBURO is a policy. It boils down to this: If the template benefits Wikipedia, it should exist, and if not, it should not. It's one thing for those opposed to the template to make arguments that it should not exist. But it's another thing, when those arguments start being refuted, for them to turn to wikilawyering to try to create a situation in which there is no possible reasonable venue to contest and overturn the decision. A pedantically narrow interpretation of DR's remit does nothing but bolster that disingenuous tactic. Sdkb talk 04:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- It hasn't been refuted. The current template handles serial comma, and has before this template was created with the
|and=parameter. A better solution was proposed and you didn't want it. The community was against the template you wanted. And finally, this was never the venue to relitigate everything again. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)The current template handles serial comma
@Gonnym, then show us how. I previously asked you to do so, and you responded dismissively with an example that ignored theA, and Bissue that had been pointed out to you already (and that I stated again in opening this review). When called out on that, you disengaged. If there is a method that you have for some reason been keeping in your pocket, now is the time to lay it out. If not, and you are just repeating your claim while ignoring theA, and Bissue with it, then be advised that a deliberate failure to get the point is behavior could lead to sanctions against you. Sdkb talk 19:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)- A good exercise would be that of pasting below a version of {{Underused external link template}} that uses the serial comma (possibly trying to stick to {{Enum}}, without Byzantine solutions, and guaranteeing the correct output for every empty parameter). --Grufo (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- For the umpteenth time (and it would actually be helpful if you literally take a look at the code instead of ignoring anything you don't like). Here is how you can do
A, and B:{{enum|A|B|and=, and{{space}}}}-> A, and B
- This is without any changes to the current template. As I said previously, and previously and previously, changing the base module can make this cleaner, but you didn't want that.
- I'm pretty done with this discussion, but I just wanted to make sure to any closing admin that the "refuted" claim is factually incorrect, yet keeps being repeated, even when shown otherwise. Gonnym (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
“For the umpteenth time”
: Indeed you keep repeating yourself again and again, without listening to what is being replied to you n + 1 times, often with fresh new arguments on top of the previous ones. Please, try to pay attention this time:- Everywhere but in templates, when we want to have
A, B and Cwe don't write{{Comma separated entries|A|B|C|conjunction= and }}; instead we write{{Enum|A|B|C}}. Using an even stronger argument (the previous code does not change depending on the number of items, but the following does), when we want to have a list with the serial comma it makes sense that we write{{List with serial comma|A|B|C}}instead of having to distinguish manually{{Enum|A|B|C|and=, and#32;}}from{{Enum|A|B}} - In templates, as I mentioned earlier, there is simply no solution. I invite you to address this comment—
and it would actually be helpful if you literally take a look at the code instead of ignoring anything you don't like
.
- Everywhere but in templates, when we want to have
“As I said previously, and previously and previously, changing the base module can make this cleaner, but you didn't want that”
: I am not aware of Sdkb refusing anything of what you are claiming (can you please reference this?). What I saw happening instead is that you refused your own favorite idea of amending {{Enum}} to support serial commas, even though multiple users are telling you that amending {{Enum}} to support serial commas is not the best thing to do. --Grufo (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
- It hasn't been refuted. The current template handles serial comma, and has before this template was created with the
- Not so. We regularly dismiss DRV nominations that treat DRV as a second round of XfD. Our instructions provide: "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." Sandstein 08:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: That might not be completely correct. It is true that the closer found the (little) consensus required by WP:TFDCI to close the discussion, so there was no mistake from them. But a procedural error lied in the fact that consensus was based on a false premise concerning {{Enum}}'s support for serial comma, which might even have held back others from commenting in the template's favor. The very reason a redirect was kept afterwards and Sdkb initially did not want to remove it was the belief that {{Enum}} supported the serial comma. --Grufo (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. The TfD was properly run and closed correctly. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Draft:Sajid Akram (terrorist) (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page was deleted under G5 as a contentious-topic creation. I believe this deletion was in error because the article is about a specific criminal event in Australia (the 2025 Bondi Beach shooting) and is not related to the Arab–Israeli conflict. All content is supported by reliable sources such as Sky News, SMH, CNN, and The Guardian. The article maintains a neutral tone, follows Wikipedia BLP and crime article policies, and does not promote political viewpoints. I respectfully request that the page be reviewed for restoration. Cobaltx2015 (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |