User talk:OwenX

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics, and sign your entry by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Thank you.

Click here to start a new topic.

Undeletion of Sonia Rathee

Hi @OwenX,I hope you’re doing well. You recently deleted this article, citing that the only comment left was from a sock puppet.

I believe the subject is significant enough to pass both GNG and NACTOR guidelines.

I kindly request that you reconsider your decision, as the AfD is meant for discussion and evaluation rather than just for votes. Even if there are no "keep" comments, that does not undermine the subject's notability.

Thank you in advance. Zuck28 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you claiming that your personal assessment of notability should trump consensus reached at the AfD? Two experienced editors believe the subject does not meet our notability criteria. Are you saying I should ignore their views? That they were wrong, and I should take your word for it? The discussion already took place. It wasn't a vote. Please clarify. Owen× ☎ 14:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

If you see the votes. They have not clearly mentioned why they believe the subject is non notable, they just added short comments which are usually should be avoided in discussions. If you can’t restore the article, maybe you can relist for better discussion? Zuck28 (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The three Delete participants cited WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:NEWSORGINDIA and WP:GNG. This was certainly not a WP:JUSTAVOTE situation. For the past eight days, no additional participant chimed in. But if you think an extra week will turn consensus around, I'll relist it. Owen× ☎ 15:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I hope to see a better assessment.

Thanks.

Zuck28 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

About your closure

Hello @OwenX, I was thinking a no consensus was fair or rather to draftify the article Here This subject meets notability more that some articles I see tho, honestly speaking I wasn’t really comfortable with the outcome because this is first of my article to be deleted, Maybe it could be dratified, thanks. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Draftifying is useful when there's someone willing to improve sourcing to support notability. But you are already convinced sourcing is sufficient to prove notability, as you claim here and as you've made abundantly clear at the AfD. So I can't see this as anything but a backdoor back to mainspace.

If, as you say, there are articles that fail our notability guidelines even more clearly than this one, I urge you to nominate them for deletion as well.

Thank you. Owen× ☎ 14:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@OwenX There is no way I’ll move it to mainspace, most of my creations normally passes through AFC, same as this, as an AFC reviewer, I won’t just create some article and publish to mainspace unless it’s meets some requirements, I’ve seen some new source tho I haven’t evaluated them, but I pled it should be dratified for the main time because I’m unwilling to recreate, I give you my words, I’m also willing to improve sourcing to support its notability, once it’s improved, I’ll submit to AFC to be reevaluated. Thanks for your attention. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Owen× ☎ 15:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F A Sumon

Any chance you can re-open and relist? The first keep vote is a sock, two keep votes have 120 edits and 22 edits respectively. The only keep vote that made sense (imho) was the "weak keep" vote. Seems like socks and SPAs gaming the system. CNMall41 (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, and implied as much in my closing statement. But after a week with no one supporting your nomination, this wasn't exactly a borderline case. But if you believe an extra week will shift consensus, I'm relisting it. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I am going to do a source assessment template so hopefully it will help. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

P&G Weight?

Hello -- you closed recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case Lawrence (2nd nomination) -- not disputing your judge of consensus (even though I was a keep argument) which seems right to me, but you said that the Keep arguments lacked "P&G Weight" -- could you point me to what this means? I can't find any reference to the acronym except meaning Proctor and Gamble. Thanks. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:P&G - policies and guidelines. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LLM aided design

Hi Owen, I don't really have any intention of sending this to DRV because I do actually think no consensus is the correct closure, but I'm not sure your statement shows your assessment of the relevant policies. While TNT is only an essay, and one that two of the participants referenced, we do have policy-based reasons to delete based on content issues such as OR, which can be found at WP:DELREASON, and I'm not sure if you've grouped that under use of the Delete button as an editorial tool, I don't think the statement really makes that clear. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I guess editorial tool is too broad here. I amended my closing statement to clarify that I was referring specifically to improving prose, rather than improving sourcing, avoiding copyvio, or any of the other DELREASON content issues. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 07:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi there, thanks for picking up my slack for re-listing on the log, XFDcloser must've been glitching for some reason. Any idea as to why that might've happened? Left guide (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

No worries. I've seen some complaints about XFDcloser not detecting or handling edit conflicts properly. Not sure what the status of that is. Either way, these things happen. Keep up the good work! Owen× ☎ 21:59, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Kamboja Rajput

Hello, when you have a moment, can you please take a look at WP:Articles for deletion/Kamboja Rajput? It appears that a user has moved the article to draftspace without any discussion or consensus of such action at the AfD, with the article itself deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. Any help would be appreciated. Left guide (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Left guide! I reverted the move, and left a notice on that editor's Talk page.

I've also added Page Mover and Rollbacker to your user rights, to make it easier for you to carry out such actions yourself. You seem perfectly capable of handling such situations. I know you're on the fence about adminship, but in the meantime, I see no reason not to trust you with these functions. Keep up the good work! Owen× ☎ 12:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! On this specific one, I wasn't sure how to handle the situation even if I had every tool in the world, hence asking. FYI, I actually put in a request for page mover right at WP:PERM/PM to facilitate closes with consensus to draftify or userfy, but I take it the admin regulars there may not be too comfortable assessing my request since it seems like a relatively niche need and application for it. You may want to make a note there about this. Left guide (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks; I updated PERM/PM. Feel free to check with me whenever in doubt. So far, your judgement seems right on the money. Owen× ☎ 12:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

There is one thing to check with if you don't mind. Was this a good judgment call? (restoring an article that got unilaterally redirected mid-AfD). I got pushback for it at the AfD. Left guide (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

You made the correct call @Left guide

It's one thing for a !voter and the nom to agree to withdraw/redirect with little other input, but that's not what happened here. I think that user is new ish to AfDs and may not be up on all the unspoken, although they meant well. Star Mississippi 13:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

As Star says, this was the correct thing to do. Unlike Star, though, my assumption of good faith regarding Cameremote is starting to run a bit thin. They seem to deliberately misinterpret the phrase can be proposed during the discussion to mean, "can be carried out during the discussion". The combative tone they took with you make me worry. I appreciate you keeping an eye on their edits. Owen× ☎ 14:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Having had a broader look at their talk. bells are buzzing here too @OwenX Star Mississippi 16:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll leave the hatchet in your capable hands, Star. ;) Owen× ☎ 16:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: You were on to something… Left guide (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Left guide

I'll try to have a look when I have some on wiki time. Star Mississippi 01:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Speedy keep on merge proposal nominations at AfD

Hi again, so one of my big peeves when scrolling through the AfD logs is seeing people open their nominations as a merge proposal. IMO, it needlessly fills the AfD log and creates more work for editors and closers/admins. At WP:Articles for deletion/Pari Bibi there's an argument made that these types of nominations should be speedy kept per WP:SKCRIT #1 and deferred to WP:MERGEPROP. The relevant portion of SKCRIT guideline says (my emphasis):

Reasons for a speedy keep decision are: 1. Absence of a deletion rationale. Normally the nominator will provide grounds for deletion in the delete rationale, but if...(b) the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion (i.e….perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merge)

I'd like to know my actions are backed by the guideline before implementing them as authoritative, especially since it would be a new type of close I've never done. Let's assume the nomination is only considering a merge, and not saying something like "merge or delete". Thoughts appreciated. Left guide (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Extraordinary Writ: who closed that AfD as speedy keep, in case you wanted to chime in on this. Left guide (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

A couple of points to keep in mind. First, this type of speedy keep only applies if no other participant has !voted Delete or Draftify. Otherwise, their !vote should be seen as a "stand-in" for the nomination. Secondly, this type of close is often controversial, which means it is generally unsuitable for non-admin closure.

In the AfD you cited, other than the nom, one participant suggested SK, while the other !voted Keep, so no one called for deletion. Not to mention that the closer was an admin.

I tend to interpret most nominations that mention redirect or merge as a "delete, or redirect/merge as an ATD", unless the option to delete is explicitly excluded. Keep in mind that unlike AfDs, merge proposals are usually poorly attended, can drag on indefinitely, and require a request on WP:PM to get an admin to assist. Redirects can be just as bad, with editors reverting each other. I know AfD wasn't designed to solve these problems, but in many cases, it's the only practical solution. That's why I'm reluctant to pull out the SK#1 hammer unless the nomination is completely without merit, and no one else opposes retention.

Hope this helps! Owen× ☎ 08:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all of this, very thoughtful and helpful. Redirects can be just as bad, with editors reverting each other. I know AfD wasn't designed to solve these problems, but in many cases, it's the only practical solution. Yeah, I knew that AfD is basically the de facto venue to settle WP:BLAR wars. It's actually included in the guideline there as a footnote at the end of BLAR's first paragraph from an RfC. Left guide (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I feel pretty much the same as OwenX. I actually did use CSK#1 pretty liberally back when I was a slightly-too-bold and slightly-too-by-the-book non-admin closer (so I can certainly sympathize!), but nowadays I don't generally use it unless the discussion is also clearly not going anywhere useful, as was the case in the Pari Bibi AfD. I do think speedy-keep NACs have their place (especially since AfD admins typically don't look at discussions until they're ready for closure), but they have to be done cautiously and not necessarily to the full extent that the "letter of the law" allows.

Frankly I would support just allowing merger discussions at AfD: the current merger system isn't fit for purpose, and in practice we already do allow them as long as the nominator pretends to be asking for something else. I know it's a perennial proposal, but arguably its time has come, especially since (as you note) we've done the same recently for redirecting, which is really just a slightly different flavor of merge. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

as long as the nominator pretends to be asking for something else - that got a chuckle out of me, Extraordinary Writ, but I think it describes the situation accurately. Good point about NACs catching SK#1 cases early on, since the AfD circuit admins rarely look at fresh nominations. Owen× ☎ 08:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/La Luchadora

Thank you so much for validating what was obviously an abuse of AfD to win an editing dispute. Very cool. AceSevenFive (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Mohit Marwah

Hello, can you please look at WP:Articles for deletion/Mohit Marwah and consider re-opening as an uninvolved admin? I'm concerned the close may not reflect a clear consensus since there's a question about sourcing that hasn't been answered. FWIW, it also appears to be the user's first ever AfD close. Left guide (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Owen× ☎ 21:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Masoud Pezeshkian

Could you please reopen this AfD. There have been more developments both in the article as well as the situation and sources, e.g. U.S. intelligence sources confirming it.[1]. Thank you and regards,Crampcomes (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The article isn't deleted. Any additional sources can be added to the existing article, or better yet - to the target of the merge at Masoud Pezeshkian. This is editorial work that doesn't require AfD. Owen× ☎ 17:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe given the amount of information we have now, it merits its own article. We have many similar articles, such as Attempted assassination of Ali Khamenei, Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Pennsylvania, Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida...Crampcomes (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Then you can start a spinout discussion on the target's Talk page. If your opinion gets consensus among participants, the merge can be cancelled. Again, this is an editorial issue, not a matter for AfD. Owen× ☎ 18:01, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Transform Drug Policy Foundation

Hi OwenX. One of the responses in a discussion involving an article you deleted, here, said the sources I added "do not mention Transform Drug Policy Foundation at all". I've demonstrated here that that claim was factually wholly incorrect. Given only one response was in favour of deletion and was based off of a false claim could we instead move what was deleted into draft so that editors can work on it using sources such as those I've motioned please? Helper201 (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Helper201,

Whether a source mentions the foundation or not is immaterial. To meet our notability criteria, the source must provide significant, in-depth coverage of the topic. My duty as closer is not to analyze sources, but to read consensus among participants. Two participants claimed sources were insufficient, and your own comment there rightly admitted that coverage offered by the sources was not significant. If you find other sources that do provide the required depth of coverage, I encourage you to submit a new stub draft, and if appropriate - the deleted article can be history-merged with it. Without such additional sources, editing the deleted article would be a waste of time, both to the editor and to any draft reviewer.

I deleted the Talk page you recreated per WP:G8. Please do not create a Talk page for nonexistent articles. Owen× ☎ 13:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

2025 Southern Syria bombings

Hi, you closed an AfD for this page with a consensus to merge to Southern Syria clashes (April–May 2025). I have now merged the content into that page, so the original article needs to be deleted, but I don't know how that works. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Bobfrombrockley! The final step in a merge is not a deletion, but a redirect, which I just placed there. See WP:PROMERGE for details. We can't delete the source, since then the attribution for the original authors would be lost. The null edit you correctly did at the target suggests you already know this. :) Owen× ☎ 17:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!! I guess I should have been able to work that out. Sorry to bother you! BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

My pleasure! Owen× ☎ 18:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Second opinion

• WP:Articles for deletion/Ishay Hadas
• WP:Articles for deletion/Hootan Dolati (2nd nomination)

Hi, when you have a moment, can you please review the closes of the aforementioned AfDs? They don't look like particularly strong cases to keep based on the arguments (the nominator is generally presumed to be on the delete side which I'm sure you know), and I'm wondering if you believe they should be re-opened and re-listed. It looks like the user's very first AfD closes (or at least in a very long time). IMO, those closes could benefit from extra attention from someone experienced. If you fully endorse both of them, I probably deserve a {{Self-trout}}. Left guide (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, Left guide. With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hootan Dolati (2nd nomination), I don't see how it could have been closed any other way. After over two weeks, not a single support for the very weak nomination, with highly experienced AfD regulars all opting for Keep.

With WP:Articles for deletion/Ishay Hadas, the situation is a bit more nuanced. A relist would have been correct as well, but the two Keeps are solid, and refute the rather weak nomination. Coverage by the BBC, among other mainstream reliable sources, makes for a strong case. That said, no one would fault you if you renominate this in a few months. Personally, I don't see much value in reopening and relisting this one, although the NAC should probably limit themselves to less potentially contentious closes.

No trouting here; these are valid questions, and I'm glad to see you honing your AfD skills this way. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dewey Decimal classes (2nd nomination)

You relisted it but did you add it to the log? Logoshimpo (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Logoshimpo: It appears not. Sadly, XFDcloser sometimes glitches by not adding relists to the new log (I've experienced it too). Looks like WP:Articles for deletion/AI mysticism was missed in that same edit run. I've gone ahead and added both of them to the 14 July log manually, so they're now in front of AfD patrollers' eyes. Thanks for flagging. Left guide (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Logoshimpo, for flagging, and Left guide for fixing! Owen× ☎ 07:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, OwenX,

Nice to run into your closures at AFDLand. I've been spending much less time closing AFD discussions than I did a few months ago and it seemed like my taking a break coincided with several other regular closers taking a break as well. But somehow, the work gets done. Hope you are well and enjoying the summer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz! The second half of the year is generally pretty quiet for me, work-wise, so I can spend more time here. And DRV has been off my case for a while, which is nice. I have yet to master your zero-emotional-investment approach when it comes to being dragged to DRV... Owen× ☎ 23:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albuquerque: THE MOVIE

Hi OwenX. Hope this message finds you well. I just know that the article was gone through AfD discussion which concluded as delete. Since, There is a request placed at AFCH/R, where I have accepted for redirect. Is that ok? If you think redirect is not appropriate then you can revert my action? Hope you understand. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Owen× ☎ 09:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Effect of inaccessible sources on AfD consensus

Hello, so occasionally I run into an AfD where one or more sources are presented that someone believes might meet notability requirements, but they're inaccessible (sometimes due to being paywalled, or maybe only a title and bibliographical information is shown but the full text is only available offline) so nobody is able to definitively vouch for their coverage one way or the other. How does this typically influence consensus? The spirit of WP:NEXIST may be relevant, though it does not seem to directly address this situation. Left guide (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Good question! Firstly, make sure you subscribe to our extensive library, which gives access to many resources that are otherwise paywalled. Encourage other AfD regulars to use this valuable feature.

Secondly, consider who is making the claim. When an established, well respected editor claims they have the book on their shelf, we generally trust that to be true. When a drive-by IP makes the same claim, we have to take it with a grain of salt. As a closer, your duty is usually not to verify sources, but to rely on the assessment of participants. If you find yourself delving into source assessment yourself, you should probably add your own assessment as a participant in the AfD rather than as a closer. Owen× ☎ 17:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Yes, I generally trust that an established user who claims to have the book in hand is being honest, though if challenged by other editors, quotes can and should be furnished, since people can have wildly varying interpretations on things like WP:SIGCOV. However, what I am describing is where nobody involved has access to the relevant source text. And yes, I understand the duty as the closer, but it is difficult to rely on the participants' assessment when they are unable to make such an assessment in the first place. If it helps illuminate, I believe the relevant AfDs that made me think about this are WP:Articles for deletion/FPT Software and WP:Articles for deletion/David Gillow, though I am more seeking general principles to abide by rather than feedback on handling these specific discussions. Left guide (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I won't name names, but one participant in those two AfDs once voted "Keep" on an article that clearly failed GNG because, according to him, IAR trumps GNG, since IAR is policy while GNG is "just a guideline". When assessing arguments, weight has to be given not just to what participants are saying, but also to who is saying it.

WP's credibility must be beyond reproach. If no one here can access the information, the only safe approach is to assume it doesn't exist until proven otherwise. This is especially true for BLPs, but good guidance for all articles. Owen× ☎ 20:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Understood, when one arbitrarily whips out a policy or guideline to suit their own personal whim, it loses its effectiveness. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is another common fallacy that gets thrown around. Thanks for the thoughtful advice. Left guide (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of Trybooking

I am sorry we disagree on the notability of this article. Please can this article be returned to a draft so I can do further work on sourcing. Agent Squash (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Did you find additional SIGCOV sources that establish notability beyond those already rejected at the AfD? You don't need a copy of the deleted article to find sources. Owen× ☎ 21:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe the existing sourcing was misevaluated and do establish SIGCOV.

The SMH and The Music provided investigative journalism analysing Trybooking's business practices through the Maitreya controversy - including competitor criticism and regulatory involvement, far more than just reporting of a court case.

Similarly, news.com.au's editorial comparison to Eventbrite's funding model constitutes independent analysis, not regurgitation.

These sources were dismissed as "advertorial" or lacking depth based on selective analysis that ignored their investigative content. The close accepted this flawed consensus without examining whether journalistic analysis of business controversies meets ORGDEPTH.

I have identified additional trade coverage but believe even the existing sources, properly evaluated, meet NCORP. I request userfication to better demonstrate this. Agent Squash (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Agent Squash, if you believe you can continue your WP:BLUDGEONing over from AfD to my Talk page, you are mistaken. This is not AfD round #2. I get the sense that you are here to ensure your pet article gets published, not to build an encyclopedia. Owen× ☎ 22:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/2025 Zeusch Aviation Beechcraft King Air crash

Hello, if I may ask, what do you think about this close? Strikes me as questionable; wondering if you're willing to re-open. FWIW, it looks like that user's only ever AfD close. Left guide (talk) 06:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Owen× ☎ 12:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine learning in Brazilian industry

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machine learning in Brazilian industry. You might be interested to know that the primary author of the discussed article has now created Artificial intelligence in the Brazilian industry. I find this...disappointing, and feels like an attempt to do an end run around the AfD. Not surprisingly, some of it is written by AI. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll take a look when I'm back at my desk. Owen× ☎ 17:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

might as well use here since I missed @Svartner's ping (apologies). Is there still action needed? Star Mississippi 01:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I procedurally nominated the new article at AfD, pinging everyone from the previous round. Nothing more for us to do at this point. Owen× ☎ 01:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Kinsey, Indiana

Hello, wanted to let you know that this AfD was withdrawn after a delete !vote was entered, which seems procedurally inappropriate. Can you consider re-opening please? Also for future reference, am I allowed to unilaterally revert out-of-process closes like this as a non-admin? Left guide (talk) 02:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree; this was a procedurally incorrect speedy close. However, since only two participants were involved, the best way to handle this would be for you to bring it up on Mangoe's Talk page, pinging WeirdNAnnoyed to the discussion. Both Mangoe and WeirdNAnnoyed are highly experienced editors familiar with policy. Mangoe may revert their close, or WeirdNAnnoyed can decide he isn't interested in pursuing the AfD as the sole remaining participant, effectively "inheriting" the nomination. If the two cannot resolve the matter between them, an admin--an only an admin--may reopen the AfD per WP:REOPEN as an incorrect application of WP:SKCRIT#1.3.

More generally, mediating a collaborative resolution to a dispute is far superior to wielding administrative tools and powers to enforce policy. Owen× ☎ 11:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolphe Hauman

Only one "delete" !vote and a neutral comment and its a "delete"? All Olympians, if truly non-notable, should be redirected rather than deleted so that readers can be directed to relevant articles and the history stays intact for if coverage is found. Personally I think that could have benefited from a relist... BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Why, did the nom change to "Keep" when I wasn't looking? Also, could not fully establish notability does not sound very "neutral" to me. That's three opposed to retention, not "one". Owen× ☎ 19:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Gidonb would've !voted "delete" if he thought the article was non-notable; instead he only left a "comment", indicating that he did not oppose retention. FWIW, I had found a few sources of about 50-80 words that I planned on introducing to the discussion, but didn't know it was scheduled for closure today. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by, didn't know it was scheduled for closure today? The AfD was open for seven days and four hours. It was closed when it was originally scheduled to be closed. And you still haven't answered my question about the nom mysteriously being ignored in your count. Again: all three participants agreed that no sources establishing notability were found. Neither them nor I need to be aware that someone who didn't participate in this AfD "planned on introducing" other sources. Not that a 50-80 word source would have changed much anyway. Owen× ☎ 19:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Look, there's editors mass nominating insane quantities of Olympians for deletion and I'm trying to keep track of all of them, doing searches when I can, since often I'm able to find things no one else can. Due to the ridiculous load of AFDs, I wasn't aware that this particular discussion was seven days old. For a subject like this, I think I would've had a fair argument, and two users saying "delete" isn't super clear consensus to delete. Also, as I said before, all Olympians have valid redirect targets and should not be outright deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to recreate the page as a redirect. Owen× ☎ 20:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

It'd be nice if the history could be intact in case I ever find clear SIGCOV, which I strongly suspect exists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

By all means, let's discuss that when you find those sources with the clear SIGCOV. Owen× ☎ 20:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Why can't the history be restored and it made into a redirect? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Because neither of us gets to veto the result of an AfD. Owen× ☎ 20:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Where two people !voted... In the vast majority of cases a discussion like that would've been relisted or soft-deleted, allowing for restoration of the history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, so now it's two, not "one". I guess we're making progress. Owen× ☎ 20:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't address my point. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @BeanieFan11: I'm not sure this back-and-forth is going anywhere or will accomplish anything meaningful. If you still disagree with OwenX's assessment of consensus (and/or lack of relist), consider opening a deletion review at WP:DRV where the community will decide. Left guide (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review for Annu Gaidhu

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Annu Gaidhu. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ~~~~ Yogshakti1991 (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Request to Restore Corix Page

Hi @OwenX,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am politely requesting for the Corix page to be restored. I would appreciate a chance to work on it and improve, and learn for myself and understand how the community works. I am hoping to have a bit more time to understand and try again. As a Wikipedia newcomer, I was unaware of the process and guidelines to follow, but one I was given a heads up, I adjusted immediately and did my best to adhere to them.

I would be very appreciative for another chance to get it right. WikiMe220 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi WikiMe220,

Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate your genuine effort to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's processes and guidelines. I also salute you for your candor about being a paid contributor on behalf of Corix. Your efforts to improve the deleted article are well received. Alas, the reason it was deleted has nothing to do with how it was written. It was deleted because the subject - the company itself - was deemed not to meet our notability criteria. As long as the company fails to meet our notability guidelines, no article about it, no matter how expertly it was written, would be allowed on Wikipedia.

Things may change in the future, as the company grows, perhaps goes public, and significant, in-depth coverage about the company from independent, reliable sources reaches our threshold of notability. If you believe sources already meet that threshold, you are allowed to submit a new draft to WP:AFC for review. Please remember that as a paid contributor, you are not allowed to edit the Corix page directly. Also keep in mind that submitting a draft with the sources already reviewed at the AfD will likely end with the same result - deletion.

Please convey my regrets to Ms. Sparrow and the Board. Owen× ☎ 16:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Living Intelligence - thanks for close

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Intelligence. Just to let you know, I have now merged a summary of the well-sourced material as a paragraph in Amy Webb, and redirected it with a {{R with history}} template. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tom Morris:, and just to let you know, this is probably the most accurately written NPOV statement I have seen in Wikipedia since my time here. Was going to merge this earlier, but now I don't think it could have been done any better. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

That's incredibly kind. Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Good job, Tom Morris! I don't think I've ever seen such high praise from CNMall41... Owen× ☎ 19:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Lol. Stop. I give when due. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

True. Owen× ☎ 19:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry

Hey, I'm used to move suggestions generally being discounted towards AfD consensus and was thinking too rigidly by relisting WP:Articles for deletion/Transversality and not accounting for the specific circumstance at hand, mental hiccup. Good thing you caught it, thanks and sorry. Left guide (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

No worries, and no harm done. Relisting was fine, but I saw no reason to hold things up. Keep in mind that 1234qwer1234qwer4 is a Wikimedia steward, so it's probably a safe bet that they've done the due diligence. Had this happened on a wiki with no admins, they could have carried out the deletion/move themselves. Owen× ☎ 16:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1907–08 St. Louis Soccer League season

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1907–08 St. Louis Soccer League season, you wrote Yet neither of the two highlight any such season, leaving us with the original assumption that all seasons can, indeed, be bundled.. While neither of the two highlighted such a season, the nominator had already themselves highlighted 1935–36 St. Louis Soccer League as such a season. Which was further discussed by both myself and @SportingFlyer. Also you closed as redirect, but failed to merge any of the material. There was zero support for this in AFD. Please undo your redirects. Was the discussion closure even necessary at this point? The discussion was very much active and developing at the time you closed it. Nfitz (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The nom indeed mentioned the 1935-36 season, but added though it isn't sourced, which means even they believed it should be deleted, or else they would have excluded it from their nomination. If you or SportingFlyer believe the 1935-36 season to be sourced enough for a standalone article, you are welcome to revert that redirect, and add the sources you found to the article, as I specified in my closing statement.

I did not "fail" to merge. AfD closers rarely carry out the actual merge resulting from an AfD close. And the result wasn't merge anyway; it was redirect, which I did, in fact, carry out.

The AfD was open for the required seven days, and reached a clear consensus against retaining the 32 pages as standalone articles. If you see zero support for this outcome, we have nothing further to discuss, and you are welcome to take this to WP:DRV. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 16:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

No one advocated for a redirect, so that's a SUPERVOTE. Would you mind simply relisting? SportingFlyer T·C 18:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Five participants advocated to delete all 32 articles; no redirect, no merge. Redirect was a valid ATD, and a standard outcome for such situations. That said, SUPERVOTE is a serious accusation, which I will not entertain on this page. Take the matter to DRV. Owen× ☎ 19:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is a serious accusation, because I understand this isn't a discussion where you particularly care about the outcome. WP:SUPERVOTE simply lists forced compromise supervotes and left-field supervotes as examples of supervotes, the only question is what you mean by a "selective merge." SportingFlyer T·C 21:13, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Please, you've been here long enough to know what a selective merge, or "smerge", means. But here you go:

Smerge: A contraction of "slight merge" or "selective merge", sometimes used in Articles for deletion discussions. This is for when a topic deserves mention in another article, but not to the extent and detail that is already included (a partial merge and redirect).

If you believe the entire content of all 32 pages belongs in the target, by all means, go ahead and merge it all. That's an editorial choice outside the scope of the AfD. Or are you seriously contesting this close because I'm making you carry out the merge from the history instead of from the last rev? I bet that'll go down well at DRV. Face it: if this had been closed as "delete all", you would have been here demanding it be changed to "redirect", so that the history is available for merging. Owen× ☎ 22:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Mycat

Hello, you deleted the Mycat page. Now there is a broken link from the ZX Spectrum games list page. What can be done to put something back so the link is not broken?

Thanks! Wiper2001 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Wiper2001,

What you see is called a WP:Red link. It's not a broken link that needs to be fixed. It's a link to a page that doesn't exist. There are hundreds of red links on List of ZX Spectrum games, and that is okay. The red link to Mycat was removed when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mycat, so now it is plain text, not a red link. That, too, is okay. Read WP:REDYES to learn when it is a good idea to turn text into a red link, and when it isn't. As Zxcvbnm explained to you in the AfD, it is not always a good idea to create an article for a red link. I recommend focusing on improving existing articles until you gain enough experience to create new ones. Happy editing! Owen× ☎ 17:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

To add to that, the greater issue here is that addition of non-notable games caused a non-notable red link as a consequence. Those games should not be on that list; they fail the inclusion criteria and adding them is simply promotional in nature unless there are reliable sources covering them and indicating standalone notability. It is not meant to be a directory of every ZX Spectrum game regardless of provenance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)