Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:VfU)
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, 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".
my page and there are extensive additional sources. no effort was done to locate more. extensive expert interviews citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgreaney (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse
and speedy close. The appellant has two accounts on en-wiki: one that he opened 17 years ago to write a one-line bio about himself (twice within five minutes) and add his birthday to the July 24 page, for a total of 5 edits, and the other that he just created to file this DRV. The guy is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Still, one has to admire the chutzpah of coming here and demanding "his page" back after 17 years... Owen× ☎ 22:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)The AfD was closed unanimously and correctly. If the appellant has new sources establishing notability, they're welcome to submit a fresh draft. Owen× ☎ 22:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)- You're looking at the wrong article; dara greaney was about a different person. (I'd have G11'd this one, though it's good that it went to AFD so we can G4 recreations; it was also an uncaught G5 when created.) —Cryptic 22:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you for fixing the link in the nomination. I'll amend my !vote. Owen× ☎ 22:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- You're looking at the wrong article; dara greaney was about a different person. (I'd have G11'd this one, though it's good that it went to AFD so we can G4 recreations; it was also an uncaught G5 when created.) —Cryptic 22:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy close. Not a real challenge and no real need to have a discussion. "My page" is irrelevant, there is no claim that the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, and "there are extensive additional sources" is not new information. "Extensive expert interviews citations" doesn't sound promising. There's no prospect of success.—Alalch E. 00:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse or Speedy Endorse - The close was correct. The claim of existence of other sources, made after the AFD, does not affect the validity of the AFD. There was no obligation by the closer or the participants to locate sources; an effort to locate other sources is sometimes done during an AFD but is not required. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment to User:Alalch E. - I disagree with your statement that "My page" is irrelevant. It is so relevant, although not in the way that the appellant thinks. It means that they have a conflict of interest that will need to be considered in reviewing their draft. But you knew that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I just don't have a feeling that the DRV nom will be creating a draft. He hasn't shown any interest in or awareness of drafts. If "Dgreaney" creates the draft "Dara Greaney", it will be obvious that the page is a COI creation, so this does not need to be explicitly noted in advance. Conflict of interest is a situation that arises when a user edits content about a topic they have an external relationship to. This user hasn't been editing content and there is no indication that they want to contribute. The situation hasn't produced any tangible COI concerns yet. —Alalch E. 01:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Allow Review of Draft with a notation of conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The discussion was closed as kept only 14 hours after it began after a self-draftify of and article that started in the draft space to begin with. The page creator has done this exact same thing before (about the exact same subject) in an attempt to derail an AfD discussion and was warned by Liz about it last time. cyberdog958Talk 18:05, 7 October 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. |
|
She has done 3 lead roles in Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal? , Sasural Simar Ka 2 and Do Chutki Sindoor. She also played the lead role in the marathi film Rangeela Rayabaa. Currently, she is playing the lead role in Main Dil Tu Dhadkan. I have supported all these with reliable sources in Draft:Radhika Muthukumar. So please review the last afd and move Draft:Radhika Muthukumar to mainspace 117.230.159.51 (talk) 17:00, 6 October 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. |
The rationale for deleting this page was that "All three currently target glossary of professional wrestling terms, specifically for a section on the word "school" which no longer exists." This is no longer the case as the glossary page has been updated to include this item. Circa 50 articles linked to "Professional wrestling school" and the decision to delete this page has therefore had a disruptive effect. I would propose recreating this redirect, along with the redirects Wrestling School and Wrestling school, pointing to Glossary_of_professional_wrestling_terms#school, as the arguments for deletion are no longer sound. McPhail (talk) 16:48, 6 October 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. |
|
There was only one keep vote, which was also countered. Most editors, including myself and the nominator of the AfD, Bastun, were in favor of draftifying it, yet the AFD was closed as NC. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:40, 6 October 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 saw the discussion on the talk page (Talk:Russians#Ethnic_group_?) and noticed again that deleting an article in 2015 causes problems. It is necessary to restore the article about the people of Russia. The lack of this article is the biggest shame in the history of Wikipedia. Otherwise, I will propose to merge into one article such articles as: British people and English people, European Americans and Americans, Belgians and Flemish people, Swiss people and Germans, Han people and Chinese people, Kosovars and Albanians and many others. The reasons for restoration are obvious to anyone who understands the difference between citizenships and ethnic groups. ruASG+1 04:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
The article in question had only recently been questioned for whether or not there is significant coverage of the IP. Over the course of the ongoing discussion there had been various sources being added to the talk page, which all: discussed/detailed the history of the franchise. Furthermore, there are ongoing (i.e.: newer) sources being updated in the meantime. The article was deleted due to the usual AfDs time-limit of 7 Days (as detailed at here), but as the discussion was ongoing and there were various editors commenting to keep the page -- with requests to add more details, its deletion seems premature. The article's reinstatement would be both constructive, and allow for the contributors to further detail why the article does in fact have significance/notability.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse Both the nom and Oaktree b's comments suggest the sources don't provide "critical discussion of the franchise" or "little discussion of it as a series or a franchise." In response the editors arguing to keep the article largely asserted sources exists ("More than enough sources to establish its notability" and "There are a number or reliable sources that detail the franchise as a whole"), but did not actually engage with or adequately refute the nominator's rational. I think delete was within the closer's discretion. --Enos733 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The closer was correct that the delete arguments carry more weight. Saying that a franchise is a franchise and that the nominator has made similar nominations isn't relevant. Saying that an article about a film franchise is a set index article listing all of the entries in the franchise... all of which are named differently... can't be counted as a serious keep !vote (this is what a film set index article looks like: List of films titled Hansel and Gretel). On the issue of notability, the keep side did not offer anything of substance in the discussion.—Alalch E. 21:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree with Liz that the long deletion statement was useful, similar to how a source assessment table is useful, although somewhat different. I do not think that it was useful for the nominator to respond to all of the Keeps, which got close to bludgeoning, but that does not affect the question of whether the close was correct. I do request a temporary undeletion in order to provide context for some of the statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I can't find the deleted article in the history. I will try again after getting a few hours sleep. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: temporarily undeleted for DRV. Daniel (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse; the closer considered the policy-based arguments, which were primarily delete, and rightfully considered that over sheer numbers. One keep was actually a suggestion to turn the article into a list and move it. One keep was just an accusation. Two others didn't respond to the concerns expressed in the nom statement. It was open for three weeks, and the only addition since the second relist was a delete, so there wasn't growing support for keep. I'd have come to the same conclusion if I'd been closing. Agree with Robert Mc that the bludgeoning by the nominator didn't help. Valereee (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - While I'm a bit disappointed I wasn't tagged for discussion with this as was suggested to the nominator here, I do want to acknowledge that yes, my responses were probably a bit close to bludgeoning. I'm relatively new to proposing deletion of content that is more complicated than this, I tried to encourage further discussion, failed, and took a bad approach. If there are any further approaches like this in the future, I'll definitely try to be a bit less badgery for obvious reasons stated above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse This was a clear case where even though the keep !votes were more numerous, the delete !votes were much stronger. I appreciate the undelete as well, in order to make sure we haven't made a mistake in deleting something we shouldn't have, without turning this into AfD part two. After reviewing the last version of the article, I don't see any reason why the delete argument was mistaken or wrong. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Endorse - I think that No Consensus would have been a stronger close, but the Keep arguments included a personal attack and were mostly vague waves. This is a case where the closer was within their discretion to ignore the numbers. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - This AFD was something of an truck wreck, with unpleasant conduct both by Delete !voters and by the nominator, which was not easy to close. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment -- Seeing as this is now under review, I appreciate the efforts by those to do so. I would also like to say that a reference I made to previous similar actions by agreeing with another editor's comment of "stench", may have been out of line. I publicly apologize to User:Andrzejbanas and reacknowledge that the declaration was not meant to be a personal attack, but rather that this ordeal seems very familiar as it had before. I too believe that a repurpose of the content matter into a list article may have been helpful. I am not at all sure what/if anything will happen of this, but again thank you for the review.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Failure demand (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Despite the author's COI and some mild puffery, article wasn't bad enough / promotional enough to meet the standard for deletion under WP:CSD#G11 - ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Lauren Fagan (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I see a clear keep in the discussion: There are four policy-based keeps, and the nominator's original concern about the state of the article was addressed... No one, including the nominator, claimed that the subject was not notable. Source analysis showed two strong GNG-compliant sources. A super detailed analysis by one participant shows that NACTOR is satisfied. I shared my objection with the closing admin before coming to DRV. The article will be retained regardless, but if the AfD is overturned to a keep as I recommend, we will be able to confidently remove the notability template from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 October 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. |
|
This category was significantly expanded throughout the duration of the deletion nomination, to the point where parts of the original rationale and earlier "delete" votes may no longer be accurate. The expansion was noted in the discussion, however the discussion was closed before any new participants could join the discussion. RachelTensions (talk) 20:07, 4 October 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 a screenshot of software as claimed in NFCC#1 section, and with a PD (all be it lower quality) image available on commons (see C:Category:Fuad Shukr)I contested that nomination with the following comment: Claim is it is a screenshot of software or a website. The website it was screenshotted from is clearly identified. Previous image was of such a low quality that it was entirely useless in identifying the subject, we'd literally be better off with nothing. This is a publicity image that was deliberately, widely distributed after the subject's death, it is meant to be re-used to show what he looked like. There is no possiblity of creating a new free image as subject is deceased. At the very least this should be discussed as opposed to being speedy deleted.but apparently the deleting admin did not find that compelling, so here we are. (the article in question is currently displaying a third image, that seems to have just been grabbed from a news website and is therefore not a publicity image as this one is, so it's probably going to be deleted soon) If there is absolutley no room for making an exception to the rules for the good of the project, then I guess the deletion will stand, but I'm hoping that's not the case. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:07, 29 September 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. |
|
Wikipedia has a lot of pages for intersex or gender diverse people. Son, Daughter and Child(Kid) page cannot replace the structural need of separate page for this meaning. Why there are gender neutral pages for parent, sibling, nibling, stepchild, childlessness but not for child(offspring)? Sharouser (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
|
| 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. |
|
This was a WP:BADNAC closed by an editor who has never closed an Afd in their life. Likely paid to close it as no consensus. I would like it reopened so a qualified admin can take a look at it. scope_creepTalk 09:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |