Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VfU)
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if 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, and 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.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
- Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Even after the deletion discussion's consensus to delete, page has not yet been deleted. Forgive me if this isn't the correct place to post such requests TNM101 (chat) 10:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
15.ai (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think the AfD was closed erroneously. The reason given was Initially, with only a few reliable sources available, several editors voted in favor of delete. [1] After a week of discussion, the AfD for 15.ai was relisted for further discussion, and I did my due diligence to do some research to find additional sources that could be used for the article. On December 9, I made an edit displaying the research that I did over the weekend, finding several more reliable sources that would be viable to use to establish GNG, such as sources from United Daily News and a newsletter article from an IEEE-published author. [2]. Ever since that edit, all of the subsequent votes have either been Keep votes or previous Delete votes being stricken. I'm confused by how the AfD was ultimately closed as Delete when it looked like the consensus was heading towards a Keep after the new sources were found. Specifically, after the new sources were found, Schützenpanzer changed their vote from Weak Keep to Keep, JarJarInks voted Keep, Aaron Liu expressed his Keep vote (but didn't bold it), and Sirfurboy struck his delete vote after a discussion with him regarding the newly found sources. Importantly, not a single editor expressed a delete vote after the new sources were found and the AUTOMATON source was considered to be reliable, and the editor who submitted the AfD has closed their account. Thank you for your time. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Edit: I'm also willing to put in the work to use the new citations in a new version of the article, or at least please reconsider relisting the discussion so that a better consensus of the new sources can be found. After taking a look at the other Deletion reviews, for convenience I've compiled some sources that are candidates to demonstrate reliability and significant coverage as discussed in the AfD (the first three are the new ones): [3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ([12] [13] the SIGCOV of these two were debated, but I feel like they're still relevant to the discussion) GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 19:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
15.ai (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is the 2nd time an AfD has been tempered by off-site canvassing. (First AfD) I would have paused even to close this 2nd AfD. I would have thrown any input from canvassed parties into the trash. How exactly were E+C editors weighted here, even if they were self-interested parties? The refs provided skimmed the surface for anyone who provided a thorough source assessment table. Either a better look at the participants is needed or the no consensus result should be overturned. – The Grid (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) – The Grid (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
This deletion discussion had minimal participation and the nomination did not fully follow the procedures in WP:BEFORE; there are articles in the Wall Street Journal, Puget Sound Business Journal, and Chicago Tribune with significant coverage, not to mention a good number of Seattle Times articles in local archives. I believe this was a premature deletion and the article could be saved and improved. SounderBruce 00:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse, there were two relists where no one weighed in. This was by no definition premature. Did you ask the deleting admin for a copy to improve in draft space? That would make sense if you believe you can improve it to where a G4 no longer applies. Star Mississippi 01:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse - Correct interpretation of the consensus. No keep !votes were made in the discussion and the sources brought by the requestor here were not presented in the discussion. The nominator at AfD also does not show any indication of a failure in their BEFORE duties. The closer cannot be blamed for assuming that a third relist would have yielded similar results as the first two. Delete was the only option here. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 03:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Allow a Relist per Extraordinary Writ, preferable to a restore due to involving NCORP (which is indeed a higher bar to meet than GNG). ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 18:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn, with my apologies I saw this, thought that it was absurd, and failed to say so at the time. I can only opine in so many deletion discussions, and mistakenly assumed that other editors would chime in, as this area is not a core interest of mine. I was wrong. The decision is wrong on the merits, no matter who participated and how, and if DRV isn't the right place to say that--what is? Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore we now have sources. The Chicago Tribune one is solid. WSJ is light. The Puget Sound ones I can't see, but they look likely to be fine. Closer's close was okay, but now we have sources. Hobit (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Relist. The first relist never actually made it onto the log, so this was really only relisted once. Given the good-faith request above and the low participation, a second relist is reasonable; the sources are decent but not so good that I'd want to just overrule the AfD (especially since WP:NCORP is stricter). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with a relist too. But I note that until and unless N is changed, a corporation can meet GNG or the appropriate SNG, CORP, to be notable. Jclemens (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I was writing my comment, I very specifically thought: "if I say that, Jclemens is going to reply that NCORP doesn't override the GNG". I guess I've finally reached the exalted status of DRV regular. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Welcome to the club! :-) Wikipedia works best when we all collaborate despite its imperfections. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- As I was writing my comment, I very specifically thought: "if I say that, Jclemens is going to reply that NCORP doesn't override the GNG". I guess I've finally reached the exalted status of DRV regular. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with a relist too. But I note that until and unless N is changed, a corporation can meet GNG or the appropriate SNG, CORP, to be notable. Jclemens (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore based on new sources available and the minimal participation at the AFD. Any user is able to renominate for deletion. Relisting is a good option as well and would be my second choice. Frank Anchor 16:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore. I find no fault in how the AfD was closed. However, limited participation in it allows us to treat the outcome as a soft-delete, even if it wasn't spelled out as such, and restore the article in response to any good faith request. Owen× ☎ 16:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse own close. And forgive any confusion, as I just now changed my name back to my old name. It is not the closers' job to do their own research and reach their own conclusion, but to do their best to read consensus. I don't see how, with the discussion that was held, there was a compelling argument made to keep. That being said the technical issue with the relisting and the apparent availability of sources that were somehow not found by the particpants in the AFD is enough to justify another relist. I think this is the first time I've had a close challenged by someone who did not actually participate in the deletion discussion. That would've been where to make the case. I utterly reject the notion that it was premature. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, your close was fine--the discussion sucked and utterly failed to find the sources that existed. I had more obligation, as someone who monitors DELSORT Washington, to go find and list the sources our appellant did, and I failed to. The process was correct, the result was wrong. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- No one here, with the possible exception of the appellant, is claiming that you erred in your close, Beeblebrox. The only question before us is what to do with the page now, seeing as we found new sources. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and Allow Recreation There is no error in the close. That said, if new sourcing can be added to the article that meet our notability requirements, there should be no objection to recreation by tenured editors in good standing. --Enos733 (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse - There is no error in the close. There was no need for the closer to relist the discussion, and there is no need to overturn the close and relist the discussion to allow new sources. It is not necessary to come to DRV to ask for permission to submit a new draft, or to create a new article subject to AFD. Is there some way to advise editors who have found new sources are deletion that they don't need to come to DRV? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would hope that a user with seventeen years of experience on the project would at least try just asking the deleting admin to restore it as a draft so they could improve it and return it to mainspace, but apparently jumping straight to DRV without talking to he closing admin first is the preferred option these days El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 20:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinion, editors often make a mistake in asking the deleting administrator to restore a deleted article to draft, or in asking DRV to restore a deleted article to draft, when they would be better off to start from scratch. If the article was deleted for lack of notability, the article that does not establish notability may not be useful. If the article was deleted as promotional, the deleted article is almost certainly not useful. Many DRV requests are unnecessary because permission is not needed to start a new draft if the title was not salted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would hope that a user with seventeen years of experience on the project would at least try just asking the deleting admin to restore it as a draft so they could improve it and return it to mainspace, but apparently jumping straight to DRV without talking to he closing admin first is the preferred option these days El Beeblerino if you're not into the whole brevity thing 20:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify. If the reasons for deletion can be demonstrated to be overcome, allow mainspacing. This is a higher requirement than overcoming G4. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and restore only three participants, only two !votes - the closer had no choice, but I have no problem if this is soft restored. Since NCORP is involved I also support draftifying before restoring, but I haven't seen what was deleted. If it's not very good, I'd draftify. SportingFlyer T·C 20:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore. Given the list participation at the AfD, I believe that it is best to treat this as a soft deletion that can be restored on request of good faith editor citing sources. A new AfD can be started by any interested user, but I see no compelling reason to require one. As for the close itself, it was clearly within admin discretion and no blame should attach to Beeblebrox. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The process was obviously followed correctly. An additional relist was an option but far from necessary. The outcome should not be overturned for any reason and should not be reinterpreted as a soft deletion. The page can be restored to draft. The DRV starter should have requested that.—Alalch E. 17:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thamir Muhsin (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm not often astonished by closes. Half of the participants in this discussion asked for more time to look for sources (which clearly requires searching sources from the 1970s in Arabic) but it was completely ignored by the closer even though there was more of a consensus to relist than there was to delete (two poor quality delete !votes, one delete !voter who supported a relist, and one delete !voter who is often willing to change their vote if sources are presented (GiantSnowman). While the argument that it's been draftified and nothing more needs to be done could be considered, an open AfD allows for more eyes on a specific topic, and as such I'm asking for this to be relisted. SportingFlyer T·C 00:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Bruce Hall (musician) (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Unsure as to why Bruce's page got deleted, I am reaching out as a rep of Bruce. 2601:5CD:C100:DA10:B0AA:52CB:1381:B68F (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
many new reliable sources have been added to sections to provide clear WP:SIGCOV but need to be structured properly into the References section rather than the further reading section with inline citations added to the biography section to them. Shakir Pichler shouldn't have to be punished with an AFK deletion/redirection decision due to the person editing the pages argumentative comments who will no longer be editing his page ever again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.211.83.46 (talk • contribs)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The article was deleted due to a lack of sufficient reliable sources. However, new independent and reliable sources have been identified that address notability concerns, including coverage in the Nytimes, Wired, Bloomberg, Gizmodo, and Yahoo Finance. These sources provide substantial and independent analysis of the platform, demonstrating its notability under WP:GNG. I believe the article can now be reinstated in compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiffre01 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Confirming I'm aware of this as the most recent deleter, and see prior discussion on my talk page at User talk:Pppery#pump.fun. I'm going to let other deletion review regulars comment before making a more substantive comment. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- An assertion that "sources exist" without providing them is never enough to restore a page, but especially not for one deleted at AFD a week and a half ago. —Cryptic 20:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- There were, admittedly, additional sources in the G4-ed versions that aren't in the deleted version. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I was taking them at their word here that there were "new" ones. Almost all of the ones in the recreation long predate the afd. —Cryptic 21:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- There were, admittedly, additional sources in the G4-ed versions that aren't in the deleted version. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- (Original AfD nominator comment:) There are a couple of usable sources in the G4ed article, but there are also several sources that are being laundered through news aggregators. @Chiffre01: Just because something is syndicated by Yahoo! Finance or MSN does not make it more reliable; CoinDesk, CoinMarketCap, and Cryptopolitan are not usable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn G4 and unsalt If there are new sources in a re-creation, it's not substantially identical to the deleted version. Now, if the same user keeps adding inadequate sourcing, that's a user conduct issue, and should be dealt with as such. G4 and Salt are blunt instruments best suited to when many people are trying to re-create and article. Having said that, I have no particular reason to think this will survive a new AfD, and would recommend it be worked on in draft space until everyone's satisfied about the sourcing. While that might not make everyone happy, it's better than out-of-process G4s or repeated AfDs, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Overturn G4. The deleting admin admitted there were new sources, therefore making the deleted version not
sufficiently identical
. I share Jclemens’ recommendation that this be moved to draftspace to allow interested users to improve the page to a point in which it would not be deleted via AFD again. Frank Anchor 02:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The temp undelete confirms that relevant content, in addition to sourcing, was added to this version, confirming that the G4 was inappropriate. Frank Anchor 15:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- You (plural) are creating an absurd perverse incentive - deliberately don't include withold some of the sources you have found from the AfD so you can immediately recreate it and force it to go through the whole rigamarole again. We must not allow ourselves to be bound by that. (To be clear, I'm not accusing Chiffre01 of having done so, just pointing out that someone could). * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The solution to our admittedly informal 'rules' being subject to abuse by bad-faith actors is not to not follow the rules, but rather to note that bad faith application of any Wikipedia rule is a conduct issue, not one of content. We can argue that G4 should be changed, although I think it's fine the way it is, but to pretend that adding a new source isn't a substantial change to an article stretching definitions implausibly. Speedy deletions are to be uncontroversial; this one clearly was not. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- You (plural) are creating an absurd perverse incentive - deliberately don't include withold some of the sources you have found from the AfD so you can immediately recreate it and force it to go through the whole rigamarole again. We must not allow ourselves to be bound by that. (To be clear, I'm not accusing Chiffre01 of having done so, just pointing out that someone could). * Pppery * it has begun... 02:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- What are the new sources? Given this area of the project is very disruptive, jumping to any sort of conclusion that a G4 should be overturned or that this should be unsalted feels plainly incorrect to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've tempundeleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn G4 - The version of the article that was deleted as G4 has information in the article body that was not in the article that was the subject of the AFD. The two versions of the article are not substantially identical. The differences are not just sources. The G4 nominator may nominate the new article for a second AFD, but it is entitled to a second AFD because it is not a repost. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to re-create the article as a draft page/ Any thoughts? Chiffre01 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Having reviewed the pre- and post- AfD versions, it's still a crystal clear delete/salt to me even if G4 is questionable. SportingFlyer T·C 19:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn G4. Good for a new AfD.—Alalch E. 10:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Shay Albert Vidas (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I recently created a draft titled "Draft:Shay Albert Vidas," but it was deleted under G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). I understand Wikipedia’s concerns about promotional content and would like to request that the draft be restored to my user page so I can revise it. The draft was still in the draft stage and not yet published. I was working to present factual information about Shay Albert Vidas and his work in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Unfortunately, the deleting administrator, Bbb23, did not provide feedback on what was considered promotional, and I was not given the opportunity to revise the content. Additionally, I cannot contact Bbb23 directly because their talk page is restricted. I am also unable to post on the Administrators’ Noticeboard due to semi-protection and my account status. I have no way to resolve this issue without assistance. I am committed to addressing any issues raised and rewriting the draft to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability standards. I kindly request that the draft be restored to my user page for improvement. Thank you for your time and understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayvidas (talk • contribs) 00:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
If this isn’t feasible, I would greatly appreciate detailed guidance on how I can approach a new draft that aligns with Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you again for your time and understanding.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article that was in this category, Beast (Beast album), is not an eponymous article for the category, and the category does not meet the criterion for C2F speedy deletion. The category is for albums by the band, regardless of the title of their albums. If it happened to be titled Beastmode instead of Beast then you couldn’t speedy it? The eponymous article criteria would be applicable if the category was named after the album itself not a general category for any album the band released, like if the only article in Category:American Idiot was the album American Idiot. If the only album Garth Brooks released was Garth Brooks (album) that would not mean the criteria was met to speedy delete Category:Garth Brooks albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Controversy over Baidu (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I am a course instructor supervising students writing and translating articles here for 10+ years and this is the first time I've seen a properly translated article (with references, interlanguage links, etc.) subject to speedy deletion (under strange rationale - G10, attack page). The page in question was just a translation of criticism of Chinese company Baidu from Chinese Wikipedia (zh:对百度的争议 - wikidata:Q10956638), perfectly normal for large companies - see Category:Criticisms of companies and articles like Criticism of Google or Criticism of Starbucks. It is simply the main article for the subsection present in our article at Baidu#Controversies. Now, the name should probably be Criticism of Baidu rather Controversy over Baidu (although we also have MSNBC controversies or Controversies of Nestlé - some name standardization of entries in this category may be in order...), but there is no good reason to speedy this. If someone dislikes the page, WP:AFD could be used, but I am pretty certain the article would be kept, per numerous precedents (dozens of articles in criticism of companies category). With all due respect, whoever speedy tagged it and deleted it needs a WP:TROUT and a refresher of policies. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to know if the page can be reinstated as draft since new sources presented in the discussion were ignored. Svartner (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse own close Just so we're on the same page here: This process is for contesting the closers' reading of the consensus of the discussion. It is not the closers responsibility to evaluate sources, but to gauge consensus, which I believe I did.
- Your remark was there for a week without being replied to, so seemingly it was not found to be compelling by the other particpants.
- Of the other comments in favor of keeping it, one made arguments not based in policy, one baldly stated that better sources exist and did not follow up on that when asked to, and one was self-identified as "weak".
- Commenters supporting deleting or redirecting made more valid, policy-based arguments than those favoring keeping it, so deleting and redirecting seemed the most reasonable course of action. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- New sources were presented that were simply ignored. If the page was just redirected it could be improved in the future, but the deletion made no sense at all. And in this case, I'm just asking to make it a draft since I think it's possible to work on it in the coming months. It's quite reasonable. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, you aren't asking that, as I tried to explain. You are asking to overturn the close. If you wanted it restored as a draft so you could work on it, you could've just asked me to do that for without opening a DRV and I would've done it, and none of this would be necessary. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- New sources were presented that were simply ignored. If the page was just redirected it could be improved in the future, but the deletion made no sense at all. And in this case, I'm just asking to make it a draft since I think it's possible to work on it in the coming months. It's quite reasonable. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The AfD which runs a long time and where consensus is delete, but the very last vote is a keep !vote with sources, is always a bit difficult. At the same time there was also plenty of time to evaluate these sources, and no one bothered to. I think the close was generally fine, but the question is really whether the sources show that the consensus that GNG was not met was incorrect. These are foreign language searches about a topic I'm completely unfamiliar with, and one is paywalled, but I am not convinced this is a clear keep based on the three sources in the AfD. If it were up to me alone I'd endorse the close and draftify the page to allow more sources to be added, but I'm sure there will be others here more confident in their source analysis. SportingFlyer T·C 02:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- While this can be taken to a tendentious extreme, yes, a solid posting of additional sources invalidates all prior !votes on a notability basis, until and unless those editors come back to reiterate their !votes. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily agree with that - plenty of times at AfD you will see someone posting sources which don't actually meet GNG, and then you'd rely on the closer to make a source analysis, which could potentially lead to supervotes. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hence my saying solid posting, which I'm not saying this was. Some editors, Cunard and Daranios being two that come to my mind, will post what amounts to an annotated bibliography, including quotes and detailed rationales. In this case, these were untranslated bare links--a world of difference. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the distinction you describe does exist. There was no depth to the final comments made by the appellant here, "here's some stuff I found" is not that compelling if you don't explain more clearly what it is. That fancy tool that generates an analysis table is pretty nice for this as well. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hence my saying solid posting, which I'm not saying this was. Some editors, Cunard and Daranios being two that come to my mind, will post what amounts to an annotated bibliography, including quotes and detailed rationales. In this case, these were untranslated bare links--a world of difference. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily agree with that - plenty of times at AfD you will see someone posting sources which don't actually meet GNG, and then you'd rely on the closer to make a source analysis, which could potentially lead to supervotes. SportingFlyer T·C 07:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- While this can be taken to a tendentious extreme, yes, a solid posting of additional sources invalidates all prior !votes on a notability basis, until and unless those editors come back to reiterate their !votes. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse the close, if this is an appeal of the close. The new sources were presented after two relists, and the closer had no obligation to relist a third time. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore to Draft and allow review of draft. When the consensus at an AFD is Redirect, the article is usually Blanked and Redirected, so that the deleted article remains in the history. In this case, it was Deleted and Redirected. Is there a specific reason why it was deleted this time? I don't think that the appellant is making an unreasonable request to have the article restored in draft. They will be well advised to expand the article to summarize what the additional sources say. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore history to redirect, which would allow any user to create a draft from the prior version. The redirect close was correct, but I see no reason to have deleted the history as a blank and redirect would have had the same effect. None of the AFD participants made any objection to retaining page history (which is very common in a redirect and, in my opinion, the greatest benefit to having a redirect). Frank Anchor 05:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- We should really get rid of the delete-and-then-redirect as a common practice. It's great for copyvio, attack pages, or other abuse, but for run-of-the mill NN content, it's both overkill AND makes it more difficult for someone to come along and repair the deficiency later. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC. Or relist. There's no good reason that after a relist, when the only editor commenting after the relist posts sources and opines keep, an admin should find a consensus to delete. Admins don't all have to defer to each other's relists, but that doesn't pass a sniff test. I've commented on other issues above, but that's the heart of the policy-based reason I find the close problematic. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse close which is consistent with the discussion. If we're going to raise issues not raised in the deletion discussion, then I will point out that this article and its companions are magnets for cross-wiki LTA. Simple wikipedia article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Spanish article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, French article created by a globally-locked sockpuppet, Afrikaans article created by a globally-locked sock puppet, etc. etc. All this talk about needing the page history: it's here, where it's been since the last deletion discussion. The content is insignificantly different from all the other times this content has been blanked, restored, deleted, recreated, redirected, and argued over. DrKay (talk) 09:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to Redirect without history deletion. There was no valid reason to delete the history, and indeed, none of the Redirect !voters suggested it. The Redirect !votes were for an alternative to deletion, not for a grave marker. If any revisions contain copyvio or attacks, those specific revs can be deleted. Owen× ☎ 11:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I felt the decision was spilt between those calling for redirecting and those calling for deletion, which is why I made the decision I did. It may not be what every other admin would have done in this case but I believe it was within the realm of admin discretion when determining consensus. I also really don't think using hyperbole like "grave marker" is helpful, or even makes sense in the case of a redirect, which is a more like a signpost if you want to use metaphors. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks to User:DrKay for providing a link to the deleted content. It seems that the deletion of the history by the closer didn't delete the history because there are two or more versions of the article with different linguistic forms of a preposition, a form of gaming a title. The appellant can copy the deleted article to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to Redirect without history deletion While a close of redirect was within the discretion of the closer, there was no reason given during the discussion that suggested the history was problematic. --Enos733 (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse but restore to draft (or restore the history under the redirect, no preference). JSS' close was correct, but no reason not to allow requestor to try and improve this in draft space. That's why I lean that way vs. history restoration but either way fine. Star Mississippi 01:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn to NC, or at any rate restore history, since there was plainly no support for the unusual step of delete-and-redirect. I am troubled by the closer's statement above that a lack of replies to a !vote indicates that the other participants did not find it persuasive. By that standard none of the delete !votes were persuasive either -- indeed even less so, since more time had passed. In this way and others, it seems clear that the closer took it upon themselves to pick away at the rationales for keeping without applying any comparable scrutiny, or apparently any scrutiny at all, to the rationales for deletion. Indeed the closer does not appear even to have weighed the rather obvious problem that the AFD nom failed to make a valid argument for deletion in the first place (improperly basing the claim of non-notability only on sources present in the article).But setting all those quibbles aside, even by the most favorable application of WP:DETCON, there was simply no consensus -- that is, reading the AFD discussion as favorably as possible to the close, the best that can be said is that both sides raised plausible arguments that were neither conclusively refuted nor found persuasive by their opponents. Looking at Svartner's sources I don't see anything that would justify rejecting them out of hand. (I can imagine that people with deeper knowledge of the subject matter might find reasons to do so, e.g. maybe these particular outlets are unreliable in this area, but nobody suggested that in the AFD.) IMO the best argument for deletion is the one raised above, that these articles are part of a larger program of promotional abuse, but that is not an argument that was raised in the discussion or considered in the close. -- Visviva (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I did not reject those sources out of hand. I didn't even look at them. That's not the closers job, I was there to read consensus, not sources. And the very first comment after the nomination does in fact mention the broader issues with this subject area, although it didn't seem to gain much traction. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 04:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Restore to draft, or (no objection to) restore history under redirect. We struggle with situations where a discussion sputters, then someone brings up potential sources, and .... crickets (i.e., silence). Did others evaluate the new sources and find them lacking? Or no one looked at them (since foreign language, or people were just tired of this discussion?). Layer on a topic area with history on wp, and I don't fault any decisions made. But sending to draft, as requested by appellant here, seems a sensible way forward. BTW, I agree with the commentary above that closers should be careful about delete-then-redirect closes. A preponderance of !votes arguing for either delete or redirect should not imply delete-and-redirect is necessarily the consensus outcome; it's quite possible many of the delete !votes merely mean "should not be a standalone article" and would not object to a redirect instead, exactly as the redirect !voters are saying. BTW, I know nothing about independence of various sources in Portuguese, but the sources provided at the end of the AFD seem not unreasonable. Martinp (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn I think NC and redirect were both valid outcomes based on the discussion. This was not. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to re-iterate what I've stated above, I was not asked to restore it as a draft before this drv was opened. If I had I would've done so. I'm pretty much always willing to do that, as are most admins, but drv shouldn't be the method for asking for it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the page should be restored to draft. The three sources presented by the appellant are weak, and likely won't survive AfC or a second AfD anyway. Your Redirect close was correct. It's the history deletion I and others here find questionable. Self-revert that deletion, and we can probably close this DRV with a broad endorsement. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not that I necessarily disagree but I'd rather let an uninvolved admin close in the usual manner. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the page should be restored to draft. The three sources presented by the appellant are weak, and likely won't survive AfC or a second AfD anyway. Your Redirect close was correct. It's the history deletion I and others here find questionable. Self-revert that deletion, and we can probably close this DRV with a broad endorsement. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. It was not unreasonable to find a rough consensus to delete, and the specific "delete and redirect" outcome is just "delete" with the deleting admin noting that they are also creating a redirect (which anyone else could do). "Delete and redirect" may look unusual, but that does not matter when it's really just a "delete" close. The real "redirect" outcome as an ATD was certainly an option but it was not a requirement; I particularly lean toward not seeing it as a requirement when a BLP is concerned, and in the AfD it was said that the content is weak due to poor sourcing and that there is recycled information from articles about other people, which really makes for something I'm fine not using an ATD on. The "new sources" are bad and I don't like the idea of a draft, as no amount of drafting can make a non-notable topic notable. Still, restore to draft, per the usual practice in this situation.—Alalch E. 02:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Despite DrKay's disturbing revelations about this subject on other wikis, no serious issues have been raised about this article in this discussion yet, so deleting and redirecting was highly inappropriate. I don't particularly care what happens in this case but I am shocked to hear from JSS that they deleted and redirected simply because a few people !voted delete and a few people !voted redirect. Unless a CSD applies, delete and redirect is never a valid alternative to deletion. Never! Toadspike [Talk] 21:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- My first choice would be to relist (even though third relists are frowned upon) and ping the previous !voters; I can't see a consensus to delete when unrebutted sources are on the table, but I'm not sure no consensus would be a fair closure in this situation either. At a minimum, though, overturn to redirect—deleting the history when no one has offered a reason why is neither policy-based nor a good idea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. Deleting and redirecting is not unheard of, and especially for regular targets of aristocracy fans simple redirection just makes it easier for LTA accounts to recreate the article in the future while avoiding NPP. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- For the benefit of any would-be spammers reading, articles created from redirects do go back into the NPP queue—there's no getting around it quite that easily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. It is not the closer's fault that possibly relevant sources were offered too late in the discussion to sway consensus. The two other "keep" opinions offered no policy-based arguments, and none of the "redirect" opinions makes an argument for why the history should be retained. The "delete and redirect" closure therefore reflected rough consensus in the discussion. As ever, all are free to recreate the article if proper GNG-compliant sources are found. Sandstein 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- It is not the job of the redirect voters to explain why the history should be retained, as that is standard practice for a redirect. However, as several people brought up already in the DRV, no voter brought up a valid reason to not retain the article history. Frank Anchor 18:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
2024 Duki coal mine attack (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Firstly, AfD is not the right forum for MERGE or REDIRECT discussion. Let me also remind that it's WP:NOTAVOTE. Secondly, the over a dozen references within the article itself assert notability while fulfilling and meeting the WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:NCRIME criteria of WP:NEVENT which reads:
Thirdly, at the expense of being called out for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'll still say that having articles on street brawl and stabbing incidents in the West but not one on a terrorist incident that occurred outside of an active warzone in the Global South is a pure example of WP:GEOBIAS. — Mister Banker (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |