Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DELETION REVIEW)
This page deals with the deletion discussion and speedy deletion processes. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.
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

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. 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);
  2. (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.)
  3. 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);
  4. 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);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
  9. 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.)
  10. 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

Shortcut

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. 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.
  2. 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=2025 May 19}}</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=2025 May 19}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2025 May 19|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

19 May 2025

16 May 2025

Shakir Pichler

Shakir Pichler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reliable sources and citations added https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shakir_Pichler&oldid=1259223011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.8.220.109 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Close, Endorse. No deletion has occurred. New sources is not in scope for DRV, take it up at the redirect target’s talk page if you want to propose a WP:SPINOUT. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14 May 2025

List of Delta Air Lines destinations

List of Delta Air Lines destinations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this AfD as "merge", but there has been a follow-up conversation on my talk page objecting to this. To resolve the logjam, I'm opening a discussion here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. None of the Keeps addressed the actual question of meeting NLIST. Two of them relied on an RFC that determined that an airline destination list does not violate WP:NOT, which still doesn't tell us whether it is notable. One comment suggested it may be a useful navigational list, which was refuted. One relied on a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at a wikiproject, and one was a VAGUEWAVE. On Ritchie333's Talk page, Axisstroke (679 edits) dismisses Aviationwikiflight (10,000+ edits) as a "noob", and brings up the argument that "The reference for each destinations (sic) passes widely WP:GNG", which tells us nothing about whether the list, as a whole, passes NLIST.
    The 2018 RFC, unanimously upheld at a 2024 AfD, was not superseded by a local consensus at the wikiproject. This is one of those AfDs that was bound to reach DRV no matter how it was closed. Ritchie333 closed it correctly based on P&G weight rather than on a nose-count. Since the page isn't deleted, I'd normally suggest participants take the matter to the article's Talk page and continue as a spinout discussion. However, seeing as Axisstroke is unwilling to discuss the matter or even listen to opposing views, Ritchie333's close stands. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a newer RFC from this year. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you link it, please? The most recent RfC I'm aware of is November 2023. Once again, I'm going to bemoan the fact that we don't have a searchable index of RfCs. We ought to organize them in the same way as we do AfDs, but for some reason we don't, and every time I suggest this, nothing happens.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's linked in the AfD: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 60#RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely that's an RFC about an unrelated airline in a different country.—S Marshall T/C 02:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the closest thing to a recent, on-point polling of the community about how it sees lists of airline destinations. I don't think the airline name or country are relevant differentiators. Both Delta and BA are large, global airlines. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, okay. Whether you prefer that one or the November 2023 one, it's pretty clear that there's fundamentally no consensus across the whole community about these.—S Marshall T/C 07:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the times of your relists it should have been closed as “no consensus to delete”. I suggest this biases your perspective here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There was not a consensus to merge, or anything else. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was involved, but this was clearly a bad close. Furthermore, after the most recent consensus we should probably restore the United Airlines destinations as well. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC per Stifle. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think most people want these lists completely deleted, although there's a vocal minority who do. I think the more useful question is whether they should be separate pages or included in the main airline article. We as a community can't agree on that so I guess that instead of a logical, principle-first approach, we're going to get contentious, fractious, ad hoc decisions that are inconsistent. Which leaves me at a reluctant overturn to no consensus, as there was none.—S Marshall T/C 07:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "No consensus" was my second choice in closing this. Actually, that brings me to another point, there doesn't seem to be a consensus (a meta-consensus?) when closing AfDs of this kind between "no consensus" (which keeps the article) and "merge / redirect as a compromise" (which doesn't.). I'm certain I have done a mixture of both. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be too concerned. Long as the information isn't lost, I'm not overstressed about whether it's in the main airline article or a separate list.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When in doubt, don't delete. (from WP:DGFA) is pretty clear: we keep the article on NC, rather than merging it as a compromise. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – The first two keep votes are correct in that the list does not violate WP:NOT per a recent RfC. However, the RfC discussed whether or not these lists (along with airport destinations) violated WP:NOT, not on whether these lists were notable. One keep vote cited "WP:AVIATION guidelines", however WikiProject guidelines do not trump official Wikipedia guidelines. Lastly, no evidence was provided as to why WP:GNG/WP:NLIST was met, so all in all, the close was correct. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I get what you're saying, but it's actually pretty obvious that had the arguments been made with a different emphasis, the discussion would have uncovered plenty of RS'ing. I just don't see an argument from silence--no one argued RS/GNG--as normative when the bulk of the discussion was NOT vs. not-NOT. At most, such an oversight would call for a relist. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This dispute is difficult for at least three reasons, two of them interrelated. First, this was a deletion discussion where the majority of participants cast !votes that were at variance with policies and guidelines. Such disputes often end up at DRV, because the closer either agrees with the majority, but against guidelines, or overrules the majority. Second, this was a dispute about a list of airline destinations. Disputes about lists of airline destinations are usually controversial. Their inclusion in Wikipedia violate various guidelines, but there are editors who are enthusiastic about wanting to include lists of airline destinations, and for those reasons the majority of participants often call for inclusion and argue against normally accepted guidelines. It is difficult for at least a third reason, which is that two editors have been uncivil to each other, but DRV is a content forum, and it is not easy to ignore the conduct, but DRV is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is your opinion that they violate policy. There are plenty of other editors, both participating here and at the AfD, who disagree. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and as the most recent AfD shows, the consensus of the last RfC was that a similar list did not violate policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The comment by User:Jclemens is correct. On the one hand, there are sometimes deletion discussions where the majority of participants cast !votes that are at variance with policies and guidelines. On the other hand, I am persuaded that this is a deletion discussion where there is No Consensus on what the guidelines say or should say. In an ideal world, the guidelines would be revised to make it clear that we don't know whether lists of airline destinations are encyclopedic, but in an ideal world, we would have a guideline one way or the other. Lists of airline destinations are like articles about films that are about to be released. Reasonable humans disagree, and disagree unreasonsably. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus because there is no consensus as to what the guidelines are or should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the civil follow up User:Ritchie333. My three points questioning the AfD were:
A) This specific list had seen previous AfDs which should have heightened the bar for thiw latest iteration, but previous AfD conclusions were not mentioned nor taken into account.
B) Consensus from the British Airlines list with wide participation was ignored.
C) Plenty of destinations were properly referenced and the sum of references are proper WP:GNG.
As I was involved in both the vote and previously in improving the list my bias is quite clear. Axisstroke (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (uninvolved, in this AFD anyway) per OwenX. Policy-based arguments were made based on WP:NLIST which weren't decisively rebutted by the other side. The BA discussion, which bundled unrelated issues related to a specific airline and a specific branch of WP:NOT, says nothing relevant to the specific issues on which this was decided. FOARP (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. We've had these discussions so many times now that merging is clearly without precedent. The simple fact is that we can't keep up with a commercial flight destination list and shouldn't need to. Therefore violated WP:NOT in various ways. Claiming there is no consensus is at odds with regular practice. The information doesn't need to be kept, the destinations are found on the airline website, we don't need to be a mirror. That's it. That's how we've consistently dealt with these AfDs many many times now. JMWt (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm given to agreeing that straight-forward deletion is probably the correct thing to do with what are ultimately list of commercial services, and that the outcome of the BA discussion owed a lot to the bizarre bundling of different issues by the nom in that discussion, as well as their attempted withdrawal that gave a lot of people the impression that the discussion had ended. However, this is DELREV and we're supposed to review the close, not re-litigate the discussion. FOARP (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe I am relitigating. The point is that those who dismissed Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the discussion (which are !merge and !keep votes) are not taking account of consensus and many AfD results. There's no point in counting or weighing these as valid !votes.
    Any other solution gives us the ridiculous situation that this specific airline has had the information kept via a merge when many other airlines in exactly the same situation at AfD have been deleted and not merged. JMWt (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "many other airlines in exactly the same situation at AfD have been deleted and not merged". Indeed, in excess of 200 of them. I know, because I nominated most of them. Unfortunately Sunnya's bizarre and misguided RFC back in January - which was anyway targeted primarily at lists of airport routes, not airline destinations - has made a complete mess of this field. FOARP (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The logical fallacy there is that there are articles which could and should have been deleted in that list and ones that probably should not have, based on what can be sourced. There's no reason this information isn't encyclopedic. SportingFlyer T·C 16:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes no sense. In what sense is this information encyclopedic? It's like saying that the parts of town that the local Dominos pizza will deliver to is encyclopedic. JMWt (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a completely incorrect analogy. Destinations that were served by air transport providers have a long history of being reference information - I recently even saw volumes of books in a bookstore listing different air mail routes from maybe 100 years ago now. SportingFlyer T·C 21:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Books of stats/catalogues, something that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. But we’re going OT. FOARP (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to “no consensus”. That was not a consensus to merge. It is not workable to call a WP:Rough consensus of “merge”. “Merge” is the start of a process requiring consensus that is subject to change. An AfD close cannot create a future consensus to merge. If the discussion needs to be stopped before an actual consensus has arisen, it can be closed as “no consensus” defaulting to “keep”, or “redirect with the option to merge material from the history”, which defaults to “redirect”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But consider Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 March 14#Masini Situ-Kumbanga, where I was criticised for closing a similar AfD as "no consensus" when people wanted a merge / redirect. These two deletion reviews seems to directly contradict each other. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, you could try avoiding difficult cases. No, don’t do that.
    my advice is for closers to avoid the word “merge”. AfD is not for merges. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd be criticized either way. As I said, this was bound to come to DRV regardless of how you closed it. Listening to criticism is good, but don't take it as proof you made a mistake. The variety of opinions here tells us this AfD was anything but straightforward. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having been involved with both, I think they are two entirely different AfDs. The one from 14 March was problematic because a majority of people didn't want the article to be a stand-alone page. This one was problematic because keeps and merges were split evenly, and those saying the keeps don't hold water here are also the ones who don't think this material is encyclopedic when it is. SportingFlyer T·C 08:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    those saying the keeps don't hold water here are also the ones who don't think this material is encyclopedic when it is - please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS. I have no opinion whatsoever about whether the content is encyclopedic. I am here to voice my opinion about whether the AfD close reflected P&G-based consensus or not. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an aspersion. SportingFlyer T·C 12:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read further, it is very unsatisfying, but, per Stifle. No consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without a single !vote to redirect, closing it as such would be seen as a supervote. I know you're not a fan of closing AfDs as Merge, but our current policy clearly lists it as a viable option. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator’s proposal was to delete. There was no consensus to delete, even consensus to not delete. After the nominator, no one !voted for deletion or simple redirection. User:TurboSuperA+‘s !vote is invalid due to self-contradiction. You are right, closing as “redirect” would not be defensible. “No consensus” was the result.
    A proposal to merge scan be started on the talk page. Go to WP:PM, proposed merges are not in scope for WP:AfD, even if sometimes a consensus for something out of scope can arise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Like OwenX, I do not see the (first two) Keeps as grounded in our policies and guidelines. The close of "merge" does preserve the information. --Enos733 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12 May 2025

  • IdeaForge – The combination of a critical deficiency in the use of this process, as noted by some responding participants, and express endorsement by the rest, yields the result of speedily endorsed. —Alalch E. 22:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
IdeaForge (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article has been deleted. It was made through AfC process & went to mainspace after multiple checks. There are reliable sources which supports it. Suddenly went down. 36Flames (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: @36Flames, your review request does not tell us why you think that the closer was wrong to conclude that consensus in the AfD was to delete the article. It is not enough to repeat arguments from the AfD; this is not AfD round 2. You also have not notified the closer of this review request as you are required to. Please remedy both deficiencies promptly or this review request may be procedurally closed. Sandstein 13:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per WP:DRVPURPOSE - no valid reason stated for appeal. Owen× ☎ 14:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The appellant makes one plausible argument, which is that the article was reviewed as a draft and accepted through AFC review. The conclusion is that the reviewer was mistaken in good faith. The reviewer thought that there was a greater than 50% chance that the article would survive AFD, but the closer reasonably concluded that the nominator was correct in seeing this as a listed corporation that does not pass corporate notability. The title has not been salted, and the appellant or another editor can submit a new draft with better sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced the AfC reviewer was mistaken. It is perfectly possible for an article to have a >50% a priori chance of surviving an AfD, and still fail it. My Bayesian statistics are a bit rusty, but there's probably a >25% chance of exactly that happening. :) Owen× ☎ 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems statistically correct. (Having taken statistics in graduate school, I prefer continuous statistics over discrete statistics.) In any case, the AFC approval is not a reason to question the AFD or the AFD close. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse, there seems to be nothing wrong with the discussion, the close, or indeed the AfC review. Toadspike [Talk] 18:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clear result at AfD. I can’t see the AfC reviewed version or who did it, but AfC reviewers are allowed to make mistakes, AfC is a low level check. AfD is a more serious check and the AfC approval will be completely overridden by the AfD result.
    If an experienced Wikipedian still thinks there’s a mistake, they may go to REFUND and request undeletion to draftspace and fix it to overcome the reasons for deletion. Instructions at REFUND should be improved to assist people in not making hopeless requests for undeletion in mainspace, and if 36Flames (talk · contribs) wants to do it, first get some editing experience improving existing content, otherwise we will suspect that you are an inexperienced COI or PAID editor misusing Wikipedia and wasting our time. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


Recent discussions

10 May 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lucy Rose (writer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was speedily deleted due to having been created by a block/banned user. I'm unfamiliar with the blocked/banned user in question and unaware of the situation at hand, but I would like to make the case to restore Lucy Rose (writer) or at least restore to draft. Although the blocked/banned user initially created the page, most of the page was not written by said user. I expanded it and added several added citations.

Furthermore, I do believe the subject (author of The Lamb, for context) is notable enough to warrant an article with WP:SIGCOV of her work, and it would be preferable to not have to create the article all over again from scratch, if possible. I understand if not, though. – Starklinson 05:05 UTC, 10 May 2025

  • Temp undelete to assess whether the no substantial edits by others clause of G5 is met. On the other hand, restarting fresh is always an option for the appellant, as noted. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored it without conditions. I would have appreciated a request on my talk page first. The relevant sock is WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Slowking4 under the guise of Dudsdons (and revisited by Toadgoad), who as I explained just yesterday, has been abusive for a very long time, and is particularly sneaky since many of his articles are started or motivated by participation at meetups, with the clear and obvious objective of WP:GAMING the WP:G5 criterion. I agree that this one probably should not have been deleted given the before-other-user-participation state and after. I try to balance Slowking4 articles the best I can in the context of G5. Izno (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 May 2025

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2026 Nebraska gubernatorial election (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

AFD ran for only 4.5-5 days depending on how you count it, not a full 7. Requesting a relist for full discussion. 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:1D (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No relist There was clear consensus to keep, and it would be the same result if it was ran again Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Perry_Mansfield (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletion of the Perry Mansfield article was premature and should be reconsidered for the following reasons:

Notability Potential: Perry Mansfield, as a surgeon, has the potential to meet WP:GNG within his field. While the article may have initially relied on self-published or primary sources, these could be supplemented with independent, third-party sources such as medical journals, professional associations, or academic publications to establish notability.

Incomplete Source Evaluation: The deletion discussion did not fully explore the availability of reliable secondary sources. Further research could have identified reputable sources that verify his professional contributions. Deleting the article before this opportunity was fully explored was premature.

Opportunity for Improvement: Wikipedia’s guidelines emphasize content development over deletion. The article had the foundation for expansion and could have been improved with more comprehensive sourcing. Deleting it stifles the potential to build a notable, well-sourced entry.

Value of Documenting Medical Professionals: Deleting articles about professionals in specialized fields limits the diversity of Wikipedia’s content. As shown in WP:PROF. Many notable individuals, like Mansfield, contribute significantly within their professions. Preserving the article would allow for its growth into a valuable resource.

In conclusion, the article should not have been deleted but rather improved through additional sourcing. Its deletion prevented the opportunity for further development. Wq4m820 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 May 2025

  • Georges Dejaeghère – No action taken. Two people are in favor of procedurally closing this DRV, and two would endorse the AfD's "redirect" closure. One person is in favor of draftification. In any case, there is at least consensus to not overturn or modify the closure. Sandstein 20:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Georges Dejaeghère (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In the right way according to the discussion, the outcome of the AfD was redirect. I wanted to reply with new information yesterday, but it was to late and so I want to ask to relist the discussion, according to Wikipedia:Deletion review point 3. There was consensus in the discussion that there was sourcing regarding to Dejaeghère. Continuing my search in offline content, I found sourcing not being discussed in the AfD which would be good enough for keep the article according to the wikipedia guidelines; one of the sources for for instance like this. , Apart from that I see some wrong statements are made. For instance here is stated that with this input there are 7 articles with this search there are 8 articles. However that is not the number of articles, but the number of different sources with a multitude of these numbers of articles. At another point here is stated that he is not meeting NGYMNAST while he is without a doubt national champion. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and start a new AFD. The version that was redirected at the AFD and the article that was re-redirected are vastly different (such that if the article was deleted and not redirected, a WP:G4 speedy would not have applied). The "new" version was about double the size of the old onw and included several new references which were not discussed in the AFD. DRV is not the appropriate venue to evaluate sources so I will not do so here. Relisting the original discussion is a viable option, but I would prefer a fresh discussion due to the vast differences between the two versions. Frank Anchor 12:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with a procedural close and further discussion off this forum, as per OwenX below. Frank Anchor 15:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. The page was not deleted, and the appellant concedes that the close was correct. If indeed newly discovered sourcing proves the subject is notable, the redirect can be reverted and the sources added. If the sources are found insufficient, anyone can renominate or restore the redirect. Either way, this is an editorial issue that can be discussed on the Talk page, not a case for DRV. Owen× ☎ 13:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse—do not relist. The IP is repeating the same arguments from the AfD. The subject won the individual event named "Concours artistique" (artistic competition) at the 1904 Federal Gymnastics Festival in Arras (Fête fédérale de l'Union des sociétés de gymnastique de France; see also fr:Union des sociétés de gymnastique de France). There, he earned the title "Champion of France" by winning the Carnot Prize (a unique top prize, given to the single top scorer, followed by "Crown Prizes" and then "simple prizes"). He was later referred to as an "old Champion of France," possibly indicating his status as a champion during the old era / old gymnastics system (under the old federation), or perhaps simply "champion from a long time ago", or both.
    The sources supporting this information were mentioned in the AfD, albeit indirectly (the IP linked to a repository search with instructions for accessing the document). In the AfD, it was argued that none of the sources meet WP:SPORTCRIT; the source with the most discussion (a long first-hand account; you need to download the PDF) still only mentions the subject in passing. There is obviously no depth of coverage in any of the sources, as was argued in the AfD. So the reason for deletion that led to redirection as an alternative to deletion is not being overcome by the IP.
    It is possible to form a consensus to restore the content at the redirect's talk page, and WP:IAR always applies. The IP should not be trying to unilaterally restore the article from the redirect.—Alalch E. 23:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: articles I'm refering to, like this one, were not discussed in the AfD. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not need to re-open the AFD to discuss whether a single sentence in a bulletin from the Association régionale des gymnastes du Nord et du Pas-de-Calais is an independent, reliable source giving significant coverage to a gymnast who was apparently a member of that group. FOARP (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, don't relist (involved) - As others have pointed out, if new sourcing is found that meets WP:NSPORT, the response should be simply to restore or recreate the article with the new sourcing. We should not allow the exhaustion of the community through continual extension of the discussion and adding of endless "Notes" about new bare-mentions found in newspaper coverage as the IP has been doing: find actual SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources, not just bare mentions. FOARP (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd recommend looking at the last version of the page and creating a draft of it to work on, and then allow resubmission if GNG is met or at least better sources are added. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 May 2025

  • Kepler-1972 – Restored to draft (Draft:Kepler-1972). There is at least implicit consensus that the 2022 deletion was correct. Participants disagree, however, about whether the source that has now been provided supports restoring the article to mainspace, or only to draft space, with some taking no view on that issue. A maiore ad minus, I see at least consensus for draftification in this DRV. Those who are confident that the article is ready for mainspace are free to move it there; then we'll see what happens if and when there is a second AfD. Sandstein 20:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kepler-1972 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The preprint mentioned in the discussion has been published.[1] With this article, WP:NASTRO could probably be met, as the article has a primary focus on the topic and provides an in-depth look at the planetary system.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kepler-1229b (talk • contribs) 03:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Leleu, A.; Delisle, J.-B.; Mardling, R.; Udry, S.; Chatel, G.; Alibert, Y.; Eggenberger, P. (May 2022). "Alleviating the transit timing variation bias in transit surveys: II. RIVERS: Twin resonant Earth-sized planets around Kepler-1972 recovered from a Kepler false positive". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 661: A141. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142822. ISSN 0004-6361.
Endorse. The close was correct long ago. If you want to recreate, got to WP:REFUND and request undeletion to draftspace, improve it, then submit it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to mainspace. Nothing wrong with the original 2022 deletion. As particpants noted, it was WP:TOOSOON. Now, three years later, WP:NASTRO is easily satisfied with the article cited by the appellant, which covers the planet as its main subject. There's nothing to improve in draftspace. The deleted stub was well written, and already cited Leleu et al., back then on arXiv, and now on a major peer-reviewed journal. The appellant can update the citation link once this is restored. Owen× ☎ 12:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per OwenX. Correct close three years ago, based on TOOSOON. Three years later, its not too soon anymore based on the above reference. Even the closer noted Potential to recreate when there is more published research, which would be now. Frank Anchor 15:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, and no opinion on restoring to draftspace. It isn't apparent to me that the fact that the single preprint is now a published paper strongly indicates that the topic passes WP:NASTRO, which says: A single paper is not enough to establish notability. Are there multiple sources?—Alalch E. 00:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to draft - Review can determine whether the preprint and any other sources establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no other sources. To my understanding, only one source has ever been brought up.
    DRV should decide to restore under WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 when there are multiple sources on the table, not only one. —Alalch E. 19:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per OwenX. There was no problem with the close. The circumstances have changed. That said, this could have (and probably should have) been seent to WP:REFUND. However, since this request was made here, there is no need for extra process. --Enos733 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The appellant has not said how the topic now passes WP:NASTRO, the reason for deletion at the correctly closed AfD, indeed leaving it as an explicitly open question. This is the wrong forum to be evaluating their question. If they are not confident and bold enough to recreate, then they should seek advice via REFUND and AfC submission, not via DRV. This is not the role of DRV. This is not the purpose of DRV. The apparent consensus her to “restore” could be a mistake, as no one is doing NASTRO source analysis. “Restore” should be read as “allow restoration” which was an option for any admin on request, or at REFUND, on submission that “reasons for deletion are overcome”, and in the absence of that confident submission, it should only be restored to draftspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just go and start a new article - was recreation salted? No. So just go and start a new article if you think there’s sufficient coverage available now, no need to discuss it here. FOARP (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why rewrite something if we already have a perfectly good stub that can, as a minimum, be REFUNDed to draft? It's not a lot of work to rewrite, but I see no value in replicating any work. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well then request a refund. Again, no need to discuss here. FOARP (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore to draft per the discussion/nom in the AfD and NASTRO it isn't clear this topic meets our SNG and it doesn't seem to meet the GNG. So no objection to being in draft, but we aren't at a point it would survive mainspace. Hobit (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to mainspace. Wikipedia ought to host articles about real world, Earth sized planets.08:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by S Marshall (talk • contribs)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2025 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2024 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2023 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1271841323"