Wikipedia:Deletion review/Active

WP:DELREVD

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


1.	Click here and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in `page` with the name of the page, `xfd_page` with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and `reason` with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, `article` is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: {{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: `{{subst:DRV notice\|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~`
3.	For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach `<noinclude>{{Delrev\|date=2024 December 15}}</noinclude>` to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
4.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion: If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2024 December 15}}</noinclude>` If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use `<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd\|date=2024 December 15\|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>`

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".

Active discussions

15 December 2024

14 December 2024

Cartoys

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. Sounder Bruce 00:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Welcome to the club! :-) Wikipedia works best when we all collaborate despite its imperfections. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

12 December 2024

Thamir Muhsin

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Deletes don't have to be unopposed. -- asilvering (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 12:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Robert. Giant Snowman 12:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That is a good idea: I will add such a link. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Bruce Hall (musician)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

11 December 2024

Shakir Pichler – Socks of banned users do not have standing to lodge DRVs. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Endorse and speedy close. Looks like Ponyo re-redirected and semi-protected recently after the IP had contravened OwenX's closure of the deletion discussion as redirection. There appears to be conduct--COI and sockpuppetry--issues surrounding this, so I suggest we do absolutely nothing other than offer to educate the COI IP editor: either a clue will be obtained, or a block will, I suspect. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considerable efforts have been made to educate the appellant, and multiple blocks issued to socks and IPs she's used. This is a SPA who doesn't care about policies or guidelines, and will continue her attempts to restore the article regardless of how we handle this. Technically, the appellant is still banned, but since I'm involved, it would be improper for me to block the IP in the midst of a DRV against me. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand your grievances with how I handled the AFD but I've never had one before and at the time, I didn't realise I was 'sockpuppeting' or what that even was. Therefore, I have informed you that there is now that there is a lot of credible references added to provide a good wikipedia entry which was the trigger for the afd to begin with and I am VERY happy to never EVER edit a wiki article again in my life, but as mentioned, I think it's extremely unfair that Shakir Pichler is punished for how I handled things.

I honestly wasn't trying to deceive and I thought my role was to in fact argue and try to correct points of contention.

And I honestly thought my user account was banned and not me personally, which was later explained.

My heart was in the right place, just my skillset wasn't.

Would be great if someone looked at the revision with the new links etc added just before afd closed and structured it better or allowed Shakir to find a good editor to take control of the page properly.

I do apologise for my handling of the case but again Shakir Pichler shouldn't be punished for my mess-up. If any consolation, he has blocked me too! But Id like to make this right please as I feel terrible. 157.211.83.46 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Redirect was a reasonable reading of that discussion if you ignore all of the involved editing, and while there's a chance he's notable there's nothing in the sources which makes me think redirecting this was a clear mistake. SportingFlyer T·C 19:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Endorse - The appellant admits that they are a blocked user. The close was reasonable, but we should not even be considering the close unless an appeal is made by a good-faith editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
again, why should the subject suffer the actions of the original editor though? seems unfair. 157.211.83.46 (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 December 2024

Pump.fun

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've tempundeleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm happy to re-create the article as a draft page/ Any thoughts? Chiffre01 (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New coverage from 3 days ago

Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Draft:Shay Albert Vidas (closed)

Draft:Shay Albert Vidas – Deletion endorsed. There is not going to be a restoration of the draft to DRV starter's userspace, because they have been indefinitely blocked. (non-admin closure)—Alalch E. 05:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC) —Alalch E. 05:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Endorse, having not seen the deleted draft, but trusting the judgment of Bbb23, and being familiar with autobiographies. The originator should be able to reconstruct what he wrote about his own career if he didn't keep a copy on his computer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but it doesn't hurt for someone to email him the deleted content. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Egregious spam. Endorse and do not provide the deleted content, on the slim hope he'll have to pay someone to write it again if he wants to use it elsewhere. —Cryptic 10:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect he did pay someone to write this. The standard of his English seems to vary from one contribution to another. Deb (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and do not undelete. Vidas or his company may well be notable but nearly every single sentence of that article is unusable because it's 100% promotional (about the only one that would survive is the one about where and when he was born; even the sentence about his wife feels the need to eulogise her.) Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we are very known in israel, i can show you a lot of proof i'm not sure how to attach it,

can i do another one, and you will tell me now if it will pass or not ?

or adleast give me some info on What was wrong, so i will know to change it,

i can do another draft and this time just tell me what to modify it ?

would it be ok ?

it's ok if it needs to be deleeted

just to refrain from that happening again and again, can you look at a modified version i will write now and tell me what is wrong with it ? Shayvidas (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“I cannot contact Bbb23 directly because their talk page is restricted”.

This is a failure of WP:ADMINACCT on the part of User:Bbb23.

Userfy or email. User:Shayvidas, ensure that you have enabled email. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe I'm not entirely sure what else Bbb23 is supposed to do when your talk page history includes 57 protection entries from 21 different admins and 118 removals of offensive material via revision-deletion. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. Create a special mechanism to flag a desire to talk? Give the DRV applicant some benefit of the doubt? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tricky one. I'm sure there's some cunning way of getting around it, though. Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't a tricky situation even before the editor became auto-confirmed. User:Bbb23 has email enabled. An admin who has semi-protected their talk page and has email enabled has made administrator accountability feasible. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shayvidas has recreated Draft:Shay Albert Vidas. It is tagged as G11. I'll let another admin evaluate the tag. As an aside, the user is auto-confirmed and could have posted to my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the user is auto-confirmed and could have posted to my Talk page - that is incorrect. They are autoconfirmed now, but when they attempted to contact you, they had only 8 edits to their name - two edits short of the number needed for autoconfirmed. They made a genuine attempt to contact you, and when that failed - they tried to get help at the Help desk before bringing it here. Owen× ☎ 16:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all the feedback and understand the concerns about promotional content in my draft. My aim is not to use Wikipedia for advertising but to provide factual information about my career and contributions to watchmaking i have no reason to lie to you, this is 100% true. I am committed to rewriting the draft to meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and notability.

I would be grateful if specific examples of problematic content could be highlighted, so I can address them in a revised version.I dont want to be blocked, as i worked hours on all the text and I acknowledge past mistakes and am seeking guidance to ensure my next draft avoids similar issues can you please tell me what in my last draft was bad as in spacific sentences ?.

I oppose providing any conflict of interest editor with specific examples of problematic content. They are asking us to do their work for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed suggestions about restoring the draft to my user page or emailing it for further revision. I would greatly appreciate this, as it would help me revise the content more effectively and align it with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you friends. --Shayvidas (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to acknowledge Robert McClenon suggestion that I can rewrite the draft with a more neutral tone. I am more than willing to remove or rewrite any sections that were problematic.

I didn't suggest that. I am often in favor of and never against rewriting promotional material with a more neutral tone, but I didn't make that suggestion. I said that the appellant should be able to reconstruct the draft without the need for undeletion. They should remember what their own career has been. If it really took them a long time to write a promotional autobiography, they just wasted a lot of their own time. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest or advocate restoring the deleted draft. If they forgot to keep a copy of their work, we do not need to do their housekeeping for them. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to address the point raised by User:Bbb23about contacting their Talk page. As Owen× correctly pointed out, I was not yet autoconfirmed at the time I attempted to reach out. I made a genuine attempt to resolve this issue and avoid any misunderstandings.

If it’s possible, I would kindly request the restoration of the draft to my user page so I can make the necessary revisions based on the feedback provided.

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.

Endorse No LLM-generated deletion reviews. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i actually wrote it myself and it took quit a lot of time.

and also talked to friends, revised it over and over and over again

and it took hours. i can show proof if needed. Shayvidas (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can easily tell that you wrote it yourself because it only concentrates on the good things about you and your company. That's not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If the friends to whom you showed it were familiar with Wikipedia, they would have been able to tell you that we don't accept promotional articles. Deb (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Appellant has been blocked. Closure seems in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 December 2024

Category:Beast (Canadian band) albums – Procedural close; restored by the deleting admin. Owen× ☎ 16:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's entirely possible I made an error here, and I'm happy to admit it when I do so. I often make mistakes but know that other wikipedians will bring such foibles to my attention. I was away from keyboard last evening, but I'm wondering why in the last day User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars felt it necessary to request another administrator then file here, but chose not to ask me directly? This even after specifically being instructed to do so. Am I a scary figure to anybody? Compared to many older admins, I'm relatively fresh at speedy deletion; I certainly have little experience with categories and in this case responded to what I saw as a good faith CSD tag. MY eyes were focused on the adjective "one". One album in the category, category name same as album name same as band name. I think arguing this was not eponymous is entirely splitting hairs. To extend Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's argument, if Garth only made a single album, (but other than the world being a much drearier place) I wouldn't normally expect such a subject to have 1) an article about him or 2) a category holding that single entry. That's my bias, I'll concede. BusterD (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I thought I was just following procedure. I requested a reversal of the deletion which you denied so I figured that made you aware of my reasoning. Your denial was followed up immediately by another editor who said my concerns can be taken to deletion review. So here we are. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 13:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you point me towards my first refusal? I'm not seeing it in my contribution history, and I have no recollection of the exchange between us. BusterD (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What was the purpose of this category be, or what will its purpose be? So why is the appellant filing this DRV? It appears that the band made one album, and the album is eponymous, and the band no longer exists. The category is about the band. The article about the band could be put into the category, making it a category with two articles. If we were to overturn the speedy deletion, which appears to be consistent with a precise reading of the guidelines, then the category could be sent to CFD, and there would still be a question of what its purpose will be. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been restored by the deleting admin. It has currently a single category member. I believe this discussion may now be closed. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.