Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
(This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
*'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
*'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
*'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
*'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
*'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
*'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
Basically, and I know this is probably a tough sell, but WP:IAR. I uploaded this after the subject's death, it was a deliberately distributed publicity image sent out to the press by Hezzbollah. I added what I thought was a decent WP:FUR for using this instead of the other image to the right, which is beyond useless. It was nominated for speedy deletion with the following rationale: Not a screenshot of software as claimed in NFCC#1 section, and with a PD (all be it lower quality) image available on commons (see C:Category:Fuad Shukr) I contested that nomination with the following comment: Claim is it is a screenshot of software or a website. The website it was screenshotted from is clearly identified. Previous image was of such a low quality that it was entirely useless in identifying the subject, we'd literally be better off with nothing. This is a publicity image that was deliberately, widely distributed after the subject's death, it is meant to be re-used to show what he looked like. There is no possiblity of creating a new free image as subject is deceased. At the very least this should be discussed as opposed to being speedy deleted. but apparently the deleting admin did not find that compelling, so here we are. (the article in question is currently displaying a third image, that seems to have just been grabbed from a news website and is therefore not a publicity image as this one is, so it's probably going to be deleted soon) If there is absolutley no room for making an exception to the rules for the good of the project, then I guess the deletion will stand, but I'm hoping that's not the case. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 22:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Non-free web screenshot}} is for images of websites, not anything that happens to be displayed on one. Just read it: it's intended "for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question" (bolding original; italicization mine). The proper template would be {{non-free biog-pic}}. In that regard, you and Cakelot1 were talking past each other, and it shouldn't have been speedied solely on that basis - not even when we still had speedy deletion criterion F7a, which is the only one that would have applied for that reason; any reasonable admin would've fixed the template instead.The part that made this speedyable under a strict interpretation of F7c is that the Replaceability and Commercial parameters of {{Non-free use rationale 2}} were pasted in from a rationale for an image of a website qua website - "The software or website from which the screenshot is taken is copyrighted and not released under a free license, so creation of a free image is not possible." and "The use of a low resolution screenshot from software or a website will not impact the commercial viability of the software or site." respectively. Those do need fixing; they make Cakelot1's position much more reasonable than if it had just been the wrong non-free-use template; and they're just past what an admin looking at the expired F7c CSD template is expected to deal with himself. So I don't think Explicit acted wrongly.That said, on the merits, I agree that the free image we do have can't reasonably be considered an adequate substitute. Let's undelete this and send it to FFD; the paperwork in the usage rationale can be fixed there, we can all act aghast at the people who claim the eighteen pixels off to the right are sufficient for a biography, and the likely eventual keep result there should immunize it against further attempts at speedy deletion in favor of any of those pixels. —Cryptic 00:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(There's a slightly better version of the roughly-18-pixel free image we have here. I'd describe that one as "about seventy-two pixels". I don't think it's a sufficient replacement, either; it could identify at least four people I saw today.) —Cryptic 00:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your detailed reply, I've been around a long time but image policy has never been my strong suit. In short:I was winging it. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 02:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and send to FFD per Cryptic. I see no fault in the deletion, but this would benefit from a discussion. No need to invoke IAR. Owen× ☎ 01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and send to FFD as a good-faith contested application of a speedy criteria. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Send to FFD for a full discussion. Whilst it is on the face of it a valid speedy, I think discussing it in more detail would be sensible for the specifics of the situation. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and discuss. Minutiae of CSD wording aside, speedy deletion is intended for situations where the outcome is clear and does not warrant discussion, and/or where there is urgency due to chance of harm. That is not the case here, where there is clearly nuance. Let a proper discussion sort it out. Martinp (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a lot of pages for intersex or gender diverse people. Son, Daughter and Child(Kid) page cannot replace the structural need of separate page for this meaning. Why there are gender neutral pages for parent, sibling, nibling, stepchild, childlessness but not for child(offspring)? Sharouser (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To your question, a question: what was in the article you wrote - its entire content is visible in the "log" link above - that isn't already in Child? —Cryptic 00:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if entire content is visible in other article, this merging hurt structural relation. We can expand this article if this article is not deleted. Sharouser (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "We"? Deb (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A10. There is no need for a WP:CONTENTFORK of a page that already fully describes the concept of human offspring. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the A10. The second paragraph in the existing article is about the kinship relationship. If there was additional information about the kinship relationship, it can be merged into the article by normal editing. If the author thinks that a separate article is in order, they can submit a draft via AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No need for a sub-specified topic when the appropriate content is already covered in the existing article. It doesn't even add anything as a redirect, which is a relatively low bar to clear. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I can see that "child" is a kinship between animals as well as a developmental stage for an animal (in wikiworld generally human). In contrast, "sibling" is only a kinship and not a developmental stage. So, in principle there is more than one topic and so could be more than one article. However, in this case I think one article can suffice at present. I can't wrap my brain around the gender issue. Thincat (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Reasonable speedy deletion. As Robert McClenon mentions, anything additional can be covered in child by way of editing. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aqua Security (closed)
27 September 2024
File:1966 Official Lebanese Map of Shebaa Farms and Syrian border.png
File:1966 Official Lebanese Map of Shebaa Farms and Syrian border.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article, article|XfD|restore)
Fastily deleted the map on the grounds that it was "redundant", but then deleted both the redundant map and the original identical map that had existed for some 10 years. The map is fine and useful and accurate and should be restored. We don't need two maps, but we do need one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is this an appeal of an action by Fastily or a closure by Explicit? The appellant says that Fastily deleted the map as redundant, but the history shows that Explicit deleted the map following FFD. What is being appealed? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The file Fastily speedied (after speedying this one, reconsidering, and undeleting it) was File:Shebaafarms.png. The files were byte-for-byte identical. Strictly speaking, he was right the first time and should have speedied this one (as the other had the longer history), but it was this one that was at FFD, so I have no problem with that. Endorse the F1.This file was properly deleted by the FFD, and I'm surprised it lasted this long. Fastily was exactly correct in his comment at the FFD - not only is this a classic WP:NFCC#1 violation, it's so classic that we have a line in our WP:Non-free content policy describing exactly this situation, at WP:UUI #4. It could have itself been speedied under either clause c or d of WP:F7; it didn't even need to go to FFD, so I'm endorsing the deletion there too. —Cryptic 23:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Fastily nor Explicit have been notified by the filer, about this DRV. The instructions are very clear. I am at the point now with applicants of this nature who fail to follow basic processes that my !vote here is speedy endorse for being procedurally deficient, with supplementary reasoning of having minimal chance of success. Daniel (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft. I'm used to doing it, and wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only who's ever used any of the parameters of {{drvnote}} besides the pagename. (I got distracted this time by tracking down the other file being talked about.) The instructions at DRV are obscenely long and overcomplex, and various regulars here have fought tooth and nail against every attempt to streamline or simplify them, so we've only got ourselves to blame when everyone else's eyes just glaze over. —Cryptic 23:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've come to DRV to find things I've deleted have been listed here, and I wasn't notified. I know I'm not the only one. There's four steps listed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review, and one of them is notify the closer of the discussion. It's basic courtesy on the part of the applicant, and to not do so is (in my opinion) a significant failing. I'm sure others will likely disagree but that's my $0.02. Daniel (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken. I'll try to do better. —Cryptic 00:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not you, Cryptic — it's on the applicants, entirely! You filling the void for these applicants' failings is obviously appreciated from a holistic standpoint, and you are doing great work in that space, but my umbrage is with the applicants who waste 7 days worth of DRV time with applications of various levels of frivolity yet can't even invest 5mins to read and execute the 4 steps required as part of completing an application here (one of which is to notify the closer of the discussion). Daniel (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not their fault. The instructions suck, we can't seem to fix them, and they (the other they) are already upset that the content they worked on's been deleted. That never happened to me here until after I'd been dragged to RFA so could get it back myself, but it has on other wikis, and that's bad enough even when I can later admit the deletion was reasonable. Least we can do is give people a fair hearing. —Cryptic 02:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse DRV isn't FfD redux, and the nom has failed to identify anything wrong with Explicit's close -Fastily 09:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the speedy deletion and the FFD. The speedy deletion was for an identical image so I see nothing wrong with that deletion. The FFD was closed as delete per the consensus in the discussion. There has been no error in process for either deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the redundant map is to be deleted, then what possible excuse is there to delete the original map? I tried to use the original map in the article and could not, which is why I created the redundant map and gave clear reasons why there could not be a violation of WP:NFCC (the map by a government that no longer exists in 1966 cannot be obtained by any other source, only parts of it are used, it is out print, etc.).
The original map has existed undisturbed on wikipedia for many years. There was no discussion before deleting it. I don't care about a second redundant map. My complaint is that the original map was deleted without any discussion.
By all means, delete the redundant map IF YOU ALLOW THE ORIGINAL MAP TO CONTINUE. And if you do, please let me know how I can access it.
Please do not delete a map that has existed for many many years without giving a reason.GreekParadise (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE DELETION OF BOTH MAPS, including one that existed undisturbed for many years without a reason being given.
I also tried hard to follow the confusing instructions in DRV. I recognize that I'm far from a wikipedia expert. If I could have used the original map, I would have.GreekParadise (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we can't have two versions of this map is because they're redundant to each other. But the reason we can't have even one of them is because site-wide policy is not to use a non-free image when a free one can be created. The borders shown on the map aren't copyrightable, but the specific depiction of them on that map - the colors chosen, which features to depict and label, that it's a contour map (which isn't relevant to our use of it), all of these are fixed, original, creative choices that contribute to the map's copyright. We don't need to show this particular image to "prove" that the borders claimed on it were controversial; we don't even need to use an image at all. But if we do use an image, it's entirely possible to create one with a free license. —Cryptic 22:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This map has been on wikipedia for more than five years. I believe from memory it was updated in 2017 but I can't find the original because it was deleted. I created the second one, because wikipedia was not allowing me to simply copy and paste the original one. It asked me to give a detailed account of why it did not violation Wikipedia's "fair use" policy which I did.
It's a reputable source precisely because it's 5% of the original source, whereas creating a new map would be the work of an individual editor and not trustworthy.
We allow more than 5% of songs to be played on wikipedia. Real songs that are copyrighted by living people. If that's fair use, this surely is.
Surely we can allow 5% of a large map from 1966 that is out of print and cannot be replicated to be shown on wikipedia.
Furthermore, the reason for "speedy deletion" was NOT because of copyright issues but because of the so-called redundancy.
If you want to delete a map that has been on wikipedia without complaint and survived several documented earlier requests for deletion, I submit you have to go through proper procedures and not seek a "speedy deletion" on false grounds of redundancy that you admit are not the real reason you don't like the map.
I gave all the reasons why the map was explicitly proper under Wikipedia's fair use standards in my submission on the map. (Including it's a small portion, the copyright holder doesn't exist, the map is out of print, no financial harm, etc.) I suggest you address all of the issues I laid out in an official proceeding if you want to delete them rather than doing it ad hoc here.
You -- or someone -- appears to have deleted the original map WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER. Is that correct? If not, where is it? I suggest you bring it back, because I don't think that's proper even if you think there's some proper reason for doing so.
Then if you want to delete the original map or my redundant one (which is identical to the original except it gives more reason why it's proper fair use), you do so using proper wikipedia procedures. Simply take the original map and add my fair use argument to it and put it up for discussion.GreekParadise (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I just don't think it's wikipedia policy that we can delete something we don't like without making a record of it on wikipedia.
If a record was made of it on wikipedia, could someone show me where the original 1966 Lebanese military map of Shebaa Farms was deleted and by whom?
I admit to not being sophisticated about such things. If it exists, perhaps that is the undeletion of the original years-old file that we should seek. GreekParadise (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found the deletion of the original file.
If it's proper, we could have an additional deletion review discussion as to why that was deleted without any formal or informal discussion as "redundant." It's the older map. I didn't create it. I copied it when I couldn't just paste it into an article. You can keep the original one. and add my reasons (on the second map) as why it's appropriate for fair use. I just don't know how to undelete it.GreekParadise (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, Cryptic claims it's proper to delete the original map under WP:UUI #4.
So I went there. It says:
A map, scanned or traced from an atlas, to illustrate the region depicted. Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article.
As the map IS of a disputed territory and the controversy is discussed, it is proper to be included. There are several wikipedia articles falsely claiming that Lebanon and Syria consider this to be Lebanese territory as if it were always true. What the map unequivocally shows is that both countries considered it to be Syrian territory, at least in 1966.
It is maps like this one used by the UN that explain how and why the UN legally determined that the land was Syrian and not Lebanese. The controversy is discussed in these articles on Shebaa Farms, as well as the use of maps such as this one to prove the UN claim to be accurate. As it remains disputed today, the evidence is critical so that readers know it to be true.
++++++
Wikipedia has other maps of disputed territories on this site. For example, there is this portion of a 1898 map from the US government allowed for "fair use" here because it's a government document: Delaware Wedge.
The Shebaa Farms map was a Lebanese government document. If we can cite portions of US and Pakistani maps of disputed territory, why is this one any different? GreekParadise (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This map could be either purely illustrative, or a subject for commentary itself.As the map IS of a disputed territory and the controversy is discussed, it is proper to be included.I think this is where the misunderstanding stems from. The example of UUI#4 doesn't talk about a map of a controversial territory (which is replaceable, as the territory is what the controversy is about), but a controversial map of a territory (i.e., the physical map itself is at the center of the controversy and isn't replaceable by an equivalent one).An example of both cases would be the "Red Map" presented by the Hungarian delegation at the Treaty of Trianon. The article Magyarization uses it as an ethnic map only, which would not be valid for UUI#4 if it was under copyright (as the data could have been illustrated by this specific map or any other one). On the other hand, the article about its author Pál Teleki presents commentary about the map itself and the deliberate artistic choices that went into it (in this case, to over-emphasize the proportion of Hungarian speakers), and would be a valid case of UUI#4. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, the map under discussion is a controversial map. It is not just a map of a controversial territory. There are tons of maps showing the same region, but this map in particular has controversial features which, combined with its provenance and date, make the map itself a controversial object. Zerotalk 01:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map clearly satisfies the exception spelt out in UUI#4, so I'll address the argument that a free version could be made. We should consider why that exception is there at all, since there is no map which can't be user-copied. The reason in this example is that the very existence of the map and not only the positions of the items on the map are a matter of dispute and misinformation. Setting the record straight on the facts is one of our roles, and a user-generated map will not suffice to do that convincingly. Also, this is a rare map that is not on the internet as far as I can tell, and the (great) editor who visited a library to copy this tiny portion is no longer with us. So even though I could make a copy, I can't cite the original map as if I have seen it myself. I don't even live in the same country as where this original is. For all practical purposes, I can't make a copy and personally confirm its authenticity. I can't even defer to the confirmation of the original uploader, since that is now gone. Zerotalk 03:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent discussions
20 September 2024
19 September 2024
11 September 2024
Koi Mil Gaya 3
Koi Mil Gaya 3 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Koi... Mil Gaya 3 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Endorse at this time, pending a clearer explanation from the appellant as to what they are asking. These two appeals were confusing before an admin consolidated them, but are still confusing, and I am not sure whether the appellant is even saying that there was an error. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro: You were notified on your talk page about the Koi Mil Gaya 3 nomination. You were also actively participating in the August 31 RfD page for the Krrish entries until two days after the Koi Mil Gaya 3 nomination. Why do you say you were unaware of the listings?
Why do you say that the nominations were incorrectly split? It is up to the nom to split the entries as per his rationale. Sometimes others do bundle them if they observe duplication, and see benefit in a bundled nomination. No one did so in this case, as I would believe the nominations were split evenly as 1, 2 and 3 ending titles.
From what I see, the closer chose to delete Koi Mil Gaya 3, but relisted Koi Mil Gaya 2, even though both had zero participation, because of page histories of other (Krrish) entries of the bulk nomination. All entries of that bulk nomination ended as kept based on strength of the Krrish entries. For Koi Mil Gaya 2, there was one vote in favour and one against (by the nom), but I would believe the closer went with keep as an ATD because of less participation.
The deletion was fine as a standard no-opposition close. The closer Explicit used to treat such closes as soft deletes that are open to reversal, so it should be straightforward to undelete and relist if that is the opinion. Jay 💬 08:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had made a collated comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 31#Krish 1 for all of those discussions. You are right I was notified of one of the listings (Koi Mil Gaya 3). By being unaware I meant that I did not know it was being treated separately and would not be relisted (similar to the 2nd and 1st films) despite my comment at the Krish 1 entry, saying that I am making a reply for all of these listings. I now realize that it is up to the closer to decide to relist and separate listings are treated separately and it was my mistake in not making a comment at the other two entries linking my comment and rationale from Krish 1. Gotitbro (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is fair to assume that when Explicit deleted the third and relisted the second, he may not even have been aware of the first set of entries, or the collated discussion, as it was already relisted 3 hours prior by another relister CycloneYoris. Nor did the nomination statements of 2 and 3 have a backlink to 1. Jay 💬 16:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore or allow recreation. This was basically a soft deletion, and the different results in the other RfDs now offer ample reason to undo it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
