Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
| 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".
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'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)
- I'll summarize what I said on my talk. Consensus on the existing sources was clear-cut. Multiple editors wanted time to find sources: they have it, as the article is in draftspace. Recreation is not disallowed, if new sources are found. Relisting achieves nothing except wasting the time of regular AfD participants, who have no evidence to examine, and AfD closers, who would be re-examining the same discussion I did. I don't see a constructive purpose to this DRV. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisting achieves nothing except wasting the time of regular AfD participants
- if I didn't vehemently disagree with this, I wouldn't have opened a DRV. There's a huge difference between shunting something into draftspace and to relisting a discussion. The latter allows for more time for other people to participate in the discussion and look for sources. No one in the discussion asked for it to be draftified, either! SportingFlyer T·C 01:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse close: There wasn't a single keep vote, there were four people who supported deletion for valid reasons. No one presented a reason for actually keeping, except that there simply must be something. More time was requested to find sources, but there wasn't really a good reason not to close the AfD. As mentioned in the close, there's nothing stopping someone from recreating the article. Also, your mention of someone who voted delete supporting a relist is inaccurate, they specifically stated they did not oppose it. You wanted time to find sources, you have it now with Draft:Thamir Muhsin. Frankly I'm astonished that this was brought to DRV considering this is the best middle ground someone could have asked for. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just because there wasn't a single bolded keep vote doesn't mean deletion was unopposed. SportingFlyer T·C 01:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Deletes don't have to be unopposed. -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- There wasn't a rational given to keep and that's what's important, there's no other way this discussion could have been closed. Regardless, you got the time you asked for by the article being moved to draft space. That's 6 months of no edits before it's deleted, which is why I'm truly astonished that community time is going to be wasted on this DRV.
- Do you wish to address the misrepresention that you made in your statement where you stated half the people there asked for more time? I count two, and one person who said they didn't oppose a relisting. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is a very frustrating close. I'm frustrated an experienced administrator completely ignored the fact participants agreed this AfD would benefit from a relist. I'm frustrated the outcome was essentially to draftify when no one even discussed that option, which is a supervote. I don't want this to be draftified, I want an additional week of discussion where everyone would be invited to do a very difficult source search. And I'm frustrated the rationale to delete was that it wasn't "terribly fair" to AfD participants to leave it open, when two out of the four delete !votes were as lazy as you will see at an AfD, and of the other two one supported finding sources (and is someone who I know would change to keep if good sources were found) and the other did not object to a relist.
- Finally, three out of six participants supported a relist. That's half of the participants. I don't understand why that could possibly be considered a misrepresentation. SportingFlyer T·C 05:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be very clear, I was referring to fairness to AfD participants in general, not those who had !voted. It is not respectful of an editor's time to ask them to read through and participate in an AfD that has functionally reached consensus but is awaiting more evidence that may or may not be found. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- It hadn't functionally reached consensus, though, not unless you overly weight two delete !votes with a combined thirteen words between them. Most of the discussion was a discussion about how sources might be found, and discussion was still active, with most of the discussion occurring in the last 24 hours. SportingFlyer T·C 07:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- One editor saying "No objection to a relist" is not the same as asking for more time. GiantSnowman 16:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- It hadn't functionally reached consensus, though, not unless you overly weight two delete !votes with a combined thirteen words between them. Most of the discussion was a discussion about how sources might be found, and discussion was still active, with most of the discussion occurring in the last 24 hours. SportingFlyer T·C 07:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- To be very clear, I was referring to fairness to AfD participants in general, not those who had !voted. It is not respectful of an editor's time to ask them to read through and participate in an AfD that has functionally reached consensus but is awaiting more evidence that may or may not be found. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just because there wasn't a single bolded keep vote doesn't mean deletion was unopposed. SportingFlyer T·C 01:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse - The closer correctly interpreted the consensus of the participating editors that the article should be deleted. Of the non-delete-!voting participants, the first questions the AfD nominator on their WP:BEFORE check, but does not provide their own specific sources to the discussion that would indicate that the nominator failed in their BEFORE duties. The second (the requestor here at DRV) admits that they cannot find any sources. Both of their comments can be more or less boiled down to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and are therefore weaker than the arguments in the delete !votes. A relist would be have inappropriate as although one of the !delete voters sympathized with the MUSTBESOURCES arguments enough to express a lack of opposition to a relist, they did not go so far as to abandon their position. Allowing draftification is an appropriate compromise that both respects the outcome of the discussion and allows those attesting that sources must exist more time and less stress with which to find them. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 03:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse as a reasonable implementation of the consensus of the participants, except for a detail. The close says Delete, but the actual action was Draftify, which was a reasonable alternative to deletion, and has almost the same effect as Relist. A Relist would have given seven days to find sources. Draftification gives six months to find sources, and longer if the draft is tweaked during that time. Proponents of an article for the subject have a longer window of opportunity to find sources than they would have with a Relist. Maybe the close should be changed on the record to Draftify, which is a mere matter of paperwork. This was a better close than a relist. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see a small but important distinction between a consensus to draftify - typically associated with TOOSOON cases, CRYSTAL cases where the topic is likely to be notable, or clearly notable cases where the article is not policy-compliant - and a consensus to delete, after which the article is draftified as a courtesy to one or more editors. This is the latter case, for me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse per Robert. GiantSnowman 12:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will add - the article was draftified over 2-and-a-half days ago and precisely ZERO sources have been found and added - not even considering all the time during the AFD itself. GiantSnowman 16:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse but add a post-closure note with the link to the draft. That way, interested parties are more likely to find and edit the draft. I agree that this close was better than a relist as it gives as much time as necessary to find and evaluate any new sources through the draft/AFC process, rather than a week to evaluate sources that may or may not exist. Worst case here, no valid sources come up and the draft will be abandoned and G13ed, which is a low-level risk. Frank Anchor 14:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- That is a good idea: I will add such a link. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse although I understand SF's frustration because a mainspace article is much more likely to get the attention re: sourcing than one in draft space and systemic bias + pre internet is a huge issue here. That said, there was no sourcing to support retention. While I don't agree that draftification was a supervote anymore than redirect is when the closer finds that ATD, I think in this case it's the better outcome since this otherwise is likely a delete without you and other editors having access to the article to improve it. Star Mississippi 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Endorse as a reasonable close and the only reasonable close of the deletion discussion. It was redirected in place of deletion because the separate article was inadequately sourced and did not support individual musical notability apart from the band. Any editor may submit a more complete draft for review, with reliable sources and providing information beyond his role in REO Speedwagon, provided that any conflict of interest must be declared. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse A draft isn't necessary, nor is our permission. to un-redirect and expand, provided a non-COI editor wants to do that--and there should be someone willing to. A draft is indeed the appropriate step for a COI editor. At the same time, I question the accuracy of the past AfD--it happened right as REO Speedwagon was in the news for the Hall/Cronin rift and cessation of touring, and I see plenty of Google News coverage for Hall--there's no question in my mind that at the time of the AfD there was an adequate amount of sourcing for Hall's individual notability, and the AfD outcome, though clear, was wrong on the merits. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse - The closer correctly interpreted the consensus of participating editors that the article's subject did not meet Wikipedia's notability policies as an individual, and that info about this subject that is known would be better suited for inclusion in another article at this time. As Robert McClenon states, this does not disqualify the subject from a future article if better sourcing can be found. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 21:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse The reason this was deleted is because we couldn't find enough information specifically on Bruce that was written by a secondary source (non-interviews, for instance) to allow him to have a stand-alone page on the website, but he's notable as part of being in his band, so we've redirected the page there and have included information about him there. If that's incorrect, it's possible a new article could be created if good sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
| 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)
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. |
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Was upmerged because it only had one member (silver hypoiodite) and proposed that there would not likely be more. Now we also have sodium hypoiodite. And per the other Category:Hypohalites, Hypoiodous acid would go in it as well. This would make a consistent diffusion of Hypohalites. DMacks (talk) 08:34, 5 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. |
|
I am writing to respectfully contest the speedy deletion of the Draft:Term Paper BD under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, which cites the page as unambiguous advertising. I believe this page can be significantly improved to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality and verifiability. Term Paper BD is an educational organization that has provided academic writing support to students since 2013. Over the years, it has completed more than 5,000 successful projects and assisted thousands of students, making it an important contributor to the academic community in Bangladesh. The purpose of the article is to document the history, impact, and activities of the organization, not to promote it. I acknowledge that the initial draft may have unintentionally contained language that could be perceived as promotional. However, everything written in the draft is factually accurate and based on the real achievements of Term Paper BD. If it seems promotional, it is not by intent—it is simply the truth. The information is meant to provide an objective overview of the organization's history, mission, and contributions to the education sector. please give me back my article. I have been working for for the past whole week on this. I have spend many many hours one day. please give it to me back. if you still not convince. please mark my mistake I will figure out how to fix it. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.U Shadin (talk • contribs) 15:10, 4 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)
Ancient TL (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This was an unfortunate AfD featuring wall-of-text comments, COI meatpuppets, and a generally poor signal-to-noise ratio. My metaphorical hat is off to the closer, OwenX, for tackling this. However, that said, I do think he missed some crucial signal amid the noise. During the discussion, three of us !voted to keep on the basis that papers in the journal are cited frequently in reliable sources including Science and Nature. See [2] [3] [4] for specifics. These arguments were founded on Criterion #2 of the WP:NJOURNALS essay, according to which frequently cited journals would count as notable. In determining consensus, the closer discounted these !votes on the grounds that C2 requires frequent citations of the journal itself, not of papers in the journal. See their closing statement and this clarification for details. However, this subsequent discussion on the NJOURNALS talk page resulted in a unanimous consensus that that C2 is indeed satisfied by frequent citations of papers in a journal. So putting aside the COI !keeps, there seems to be an even split among the P&G-based !votes, which doesn't look like a consensus to me. Botterweg (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Lycée naval (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Administrator asilvering relisted this "don't delete" discussion requesting more evaluation of sources for the subject to determine between keeping the article or merging into a related topic. The non-administrator closer seems to have ignored that comment and only counted the bolded comments when closing as "merge" without any more comments in the discussion. The closer did not respond when asked about it and has not edited in nearly two weeks. This discussion should be relisted. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Zainal Arifin Mochtar (closed)
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
In a relisting comment, administrator Liz noted that the discussion should be closed as no consensus if there were no further comments. The closer, who is not an administrator, appears to have counted the bolded "keep" comments without reading the discussion nor the relisting comment, did not reply to inquiries on their talk page, and has not edited in nearly two weeks. Discussion has already been relisted twice and should be overturned to no consensus. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Stephen Barlow (conductor) (closed)
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Closer failed to observe WP:RELIST and closed this discussion on the basis of a single comment. Closer did not adequately explain their close, did not respond to comment afterwards, and has not edited at all in about two weeks. This should be relisted to give time for additional comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:58, 25 November 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. |
Not only was this a WP:BADNAC per criteria #2 (this is covered under Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics), the close didn't explain why merge !votes were weighted more heavily that delete ones, especially given the technical considerations such as WP:TOOBIG. On a purely numerical basis, there were 18 !votes mentioning delete (14 of which were to just delete without merging), 15 !votes that mentioned merging (including an equal number of "merge or delete" and "merge or keep"), 9 !votes mentioning keeping, and 1 !vote specifically opposing merging. Since merging didn't have a strong numerical advantage over deleting, I have a hard time seeing a clear enough consensus to not have relisted instead of closing. An attempt was made to discuss this with the closer at User talk:Mattdaviesfsic#Recent non-admin closes at AFD, but the closer immediately stopped editing when that was posted and has not been active in the 11 days since. --Ahecht (TALK
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
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. |