Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
|
| Articles |
| Templates and modules |
| Files |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
| Formal review processes |
|---|
|
|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
| Administrators' noticeboard |
| In bot-related matters: |
|
|
| Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Deletion review may be used:
- if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
- if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
- if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
- if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
- if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.
Deletion review should not be used:
- because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
- (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
- to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
- to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
- to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
- to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
- to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);
- for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. (If any editor objects to the undeletion, then it is considered controversial and this forum may be used.)
- to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted.
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions
Before listing a review request, please:
- Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
- Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.
Steps to list a new deletion review
 | If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a PROD, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| 1. |
and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in {{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 2. |
Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 3. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 4. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:
|
Commenting in a deletion review
Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
- Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
- *'''Endorse''' The original closing decision looks like it was sound, no reason shown here to overturn it. ~~~~
- *'''Relist''' A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. ~~~~
- *'''Allow recreation''' The new information provided looks like it justifies recreation of the article from scratch if there is anyone willing to do the work. ~~~~
- *'''List''' Article was speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and merge''' The article is a content fork, should have been merged into existing article on this topic rather than deleted. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn and userfy''' Needs more development in userspace before being published again, but the subject meets our notability criteria. ~~~~
- *'''Overturn''' Original deletion decision was not consistent with current policies. ~~~~
Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Deletion review is facilitated by succinct discussions of policies and guidelines; long or repeated arguments are not generally helpful. Rather, editors should set out the key policies and guidelines supporting their preferred outcome.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.
Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by everyone. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days, unless the nomination was a proposed deletion. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.
If the administrator closes the deletion review as no consensus, the outcome should generally be the same as if the decision was endorsed. However:
- If the decision under appeal was a speedy deletion, the page(s) in question should be restored, as it indicates the deletion was not uncontroversial. The closer, or any editor, may then proceed to nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, if they so choose.
- If the decision under appeal was an XfD close, the closer may, at their discretion, relist the page(s) at the relevant XfD.
Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint: if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't.)
Speedy closes
- Objections to a proposed deletion can be processed immediately as though they were a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
- Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. They should fully reverse their close, restoring any deleted pages if appropriate.
- Where the nominator of a DRV wishes to withdraw their nomination, and nobody else has recommended any outcome other than endorse, the nominator may speedily close as "endorse" (or ask someone else to do so on their behalf).
- Certain discussions may be closed without result if there is no prospect of success (e.g. disruptive or sockpuppet nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".
I have submitted this draft for undeletion, but it deleted for accordance with the criteria for speedy deletion. I believe this is an error and I want to get it to come through please. ColeFrye (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorsed. The page was deleted per G5, being the creation of a banned sock, not per G13 as claimed by the appellant. No one else edited the page. The appellant does not need our permission to submit a new draft to AfC, but they won't get far if they believe any action that doesn't suit them is by necessity a "mistake", especially if this is their sole source for meeting WP:NFILM. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be glad to add sources and edit the page if it goes through though. ColeFrye (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the decline of restoration at Requests for Undeletion. The creations of sockpuppets are never restored at Requests for Undeletion. The appellant is welcome to write a new draft and either submit it for review or move it to article space subject to AFD, but not using the work of a blocked or banned editor to start. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Geez, I had no idea that draft was created by sockpuppets... Thanks for letting me know. ColeFrye (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- The deleted revisions by Starzoner (talk · contribs · logs · block log) appended exactly one sentence (about Russo's attachment), one linked source (the same as source 4 in your expansion), one unlinked and badly misformatted source (this), and one infobox (much less complete than the one in yours) to the currently-visible version by Captain Assassin!. You're not missing anything of value. —Cryptic 22:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Abdel Razak Yakubu (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article was speedily deleted under WP:A7. I believe this was in error as the subject has verifiable significance supported by multiple reliable, independent sources that were provided in the article. I seek review on this deletion under the mentioned criteria. Br -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I have translated a good article from the Chinese Wikipedia into this draft, and I ask for your help to review it, thank you very much. Newbamboo (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
- Submit the draft for review to AFC or Move the draft to article space subject to AFD. See the language at the top of this noticeboard:
. This doesn't appear to be a request to overturn the previous AFD, but the previous AFD does not prevent submission of the draft for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. In general you don't need anyone's permission to recreate a deleted page, and if your new version does not qualify for deletion then it will not be deleted
- DRV isn't entirely inappropriate given that an expansion of the redirect into an article was reverted citing the afd, but no administrator would G4 this if the afd had deleted in between those revisions instead of redirecting. Revert, allow a new nomination at afd, and no need to do anything with the draft by the same author. —Cryptic 21:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This is the same person as Salem Yahya Alkharejah. Either they should both be deleted or both kept. I’d say it’s better to restore and redirect one page to another for now and then maybe do another AFD. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
This should not have been speedy deleted as a performer category it was the outcome of a previous deletion discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 11#Category:This American Life personalities that already deleted a performer category for the show and substituted this category, a category of showrunners, editors, long term contributors, etc. similar to what we have for magazines, e.g. Category:Harper's Magazine people and others at Category:Magazine people by magazine. Jahaza (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. I don't see a speedy deletion here. The page spent eight days in CfD, where it was deleted - unanimously - per WP:PERFCAT. "G6" in this case is a nomneclature used to denote that the CfD was closed by a non-admin, added to the deletion queue, and deleted by an admin as part of routine queue cleanup, as is commonly done at CfD. Was PERFCAT applied correctly? I don't know, but the closer couldn't just discard all !votes in that CfD to reach a different outcome. Owen× ☎ 18:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I see that I misunderstood the speedy deletion by the admin vs. the speedy category deletion process. But I think the deletion needed to consider the previous deletion discussion, which seems to have been missed entirely. So I guess this is a new evidence review?
- While we shouldn't disregard the new !votes, we shouldn't disregard the previous community consensus either. Jahaza (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging participants @RevelationDirect, @Lafe Smith, @Timrollpickering, @Liz, @Justus Nussbaum, @Marcocapelle, @Woodensuperman. Jahaza (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I really don't think linking that very short earlier conversation would have changed the outcome but, if other editors disagree, no objection to relisting. (Disclosure: I'm a participant in both conversations, created the category, but now favor deletion; take my input with the appropriate grains of salt!) RevelationDirect (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- I have done Special:Diff/1304954556 to hopefully make this clearer. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging participants @RevelationDirect, @Lafe Smith, @Timrollpickering, @Liz, @Justus Nussbaum, @Marcocapelle, @Woodensuperman. Jahaza (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse per Owen. This wasn't speedied. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_July_30#Category:This_American_Life_people There was an entire CFD on this issue, with a clear consensus for delete from 3 editors including the category creator. If you want to appeal a closing you can ask the closer to reopen it for extended discussion. This American Life is not a magazine or an independent organization, like the example raised. I'm sorry Jahaza that you don't like the outcome, but this category has the same issues as the previous category. Even if you had raised these concerns at the time, I think that the consensus is still close as delete. SMasonGarrison 23:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
If you want to appeal a closing you can ask the closer to reopen it for extended discussion.
That... doesn't appear to actually be a policy? CfD is explicit: "CfDs involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review." Jahaza (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I see why the appellant, Jahaza, is confused. This was and was not a speedy deletion. After one week of discussion, there was a non-admin close as Delete by User:Hilst. Non-admin closes as Delete are occasionally made in CFD and TFD. The non-admim closer doesn't have a Delete button, so the non-admin closer tagged the category as {{db-xfd}}, and User:Liz deleted the category as a technical deletion, G6, but it was a {{db-xfd}}, deletion after a deletion discussion. I do have one minor technical question, and that is whether there is a way that such deletions can be recorded as if the deleting admin had been the closer. As it is, one can tell that it was a deletion after CFD if one knows how to interpret the log. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Linking to the XfD in the deletion log is the natural way of doing it, which is exactly what Liz did. Owen× ☎ 01:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- I actually only listed it at WT:CFD/W, it was tagged by someone else (presumably Ymblanter, since he's the one who usually cleans up that page). Not really a meaningful distinction at the end of the day, but it should be noted. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 02:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- (The actual person who added the G6 tag was the nominator, who preempted the WT:CFDW listing). * Pppery * it has begun... 04:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse as the correct conclusion by the closer, but I don't think that the appellant was challenging the close so much as wondering what the rationale for the deletion had been. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This article was deleted several years ago due to being seen as not notable. I've rewrote it and added several more sources at Draft:Black Menace. Should it be undeleted? Nighfidelity (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2025 (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 deletion request reads like its own argument in the AfD. It represents the opinions of the closer, and does not align with a consensus. To me, this seems like no consensus, but that is debatable. What is clear is that there is no consensus for a redirect. Ike Lek (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
| |||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
OwenX has been brought here a lot of times before, so this is another. There is no consensus to delete or merge the article. No source analysis or anything like that in the whole discussion; just personal opinions like why there is no article titled "Praise of" or comment like I voted to keep this article in the previous AfD, it seems that the article no longer serves any meaningful purpose
(really? this is not a !voting contest or a political tool to serve your purposes) or comment like "Not to mention that a lot of listed sources are not actually reliable" (I'd say almost all the cited sources are high quality reliable sources and it is a blanket statement and should be discounted). There is not even a consensus where to merge this article so how User:OwenX reached this consensus is not clear.
It is clear that this consensus is very weak versus this discussion, which remained opened for over 6 months, and was recently closed with the consensus to not merge, or this AfD, where the consensus was to keep this article. So at least we should notify these good-faith contributors and relist this AfD for a clear consensus. I'd also like to add sources I found during my research in the deletion discussion. Mkrosman (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse Even though no one mentioned WP:CRIT, you need a strong preponderance of opinion to keep such an article, and this had nothing of the sort. The fact that a prior merge discussion got no attention does not invalidate an AfD result. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. The difference between the previous AfD and this one is surprisingly stark, but even taken together I see a rough consensus to merge. The proposed target, Pakistan Armed Forces, is not the page discussed in the failed move proposal and a condensed version of this page would make sense as a section there. Some of the delete comments make poor arguments (there are clearly plenty of reliable sources that address this topic directly not just random op-eds from thier political opponents), but there was plenty of policy/guideline based concerns about this as a stand alone article. The comments by Sheriff and Lorraine Crane are particularly well-reasoned. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse there is a clear consensus not to retain the article, no relist is needed to achieve that. Consensus can change, and did. No consensus is needed to determine a target as that is one of editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 01:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse If OwenX is brought to Deletion review a lot, it's because he is willing to close discussions that other closers pass on because they know that, however they are closed, they will be brought to DRV. I agree with this closure. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse: OwenX regularly tackles some of the toughest AfD closes, so being hauled to DRV comes with the territory, and therefore isn't much of a meaningful argument regarding the merits of this specific case. The results of a talk page merge proposal for a different target, and a 5-year-old AfD are of little relevance for this consensus. The delete/redirect/merge dispute seems to come up here sometimes but it's still a consensus against retaining the article, and if nobody advocating for deletion specifically opposes the merge, then the merge is within reasonable discretion to carry out that consensus as an alternative to deletion. There are multiple arguments against retention grounded in sensible interpretations of policies and guidelines such as WP:NOPAGE and WP:NPOV. I see only two comments advocating to keep the page, and they are relatively weak in terms of policy-and-guideline weight. Left guide (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I've stated my view elsewhere that we need a wider discussion about the concept of consensus in AfD discussions because it often seems to be the strength of opinion in a specific discussion even where those opinions are not clearly policy based. Here the main argument for a merge was WP:NOPAGE which to me needs a clearer rationale given that there are multiple sources directly addressing the topic. NOPAGE here being a trump card to delete/merge pages that would otherwise clearly pass the GNG in my opinion. JMWt (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse - Either Merge or Relist would have been valid conclusions by the closer, and Relist would have probably resulted in Merge in one or two weeks. The number of appeals against a closer proves nothing if the closes are usually endorsed. See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_reviews#Unrealistic_assumptions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Clearly correct decision. The first sentence of this nomination statement was unnecessarily uncivil towards an experienced closer, and is wrong given what the comment immediately preceding this one points out. Local Variable (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Dear editors,
I am requesting a review of the decision to delete the profile for several compelling reasons described below As you can see, the academic easily qualifies under the following, and there is compelling and overwhelming evidence. The academic qualifies under (1) WP:PROF#C1; (2) WP:PROF#C2; (3) WP:PROF#C3; and (4) WP:PROF#C4; (5) WP:PROF#C5; and (7) WP:PROF#C7. As you can see from the evidence presented here, there are phenomenal contributions made by the academic, and this has also been ratified by highly accomplished professors from around the world—many thanks for your critical review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuckerbaba (talk • contribs)
|
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |
|
1 WP:PROF#C1 1.1 World's first "Bite and Switch" Sensors The academic was the first to develop a new "Bite and Switch" Sensor, and this has made a tremendous impact in imprinting technology. Several research groups have adopted this new technology. The article discusses the introduction of this new idea and its applications in several research areas, which have proven to be true over the years. The citation score is a testimony to this [2]. The academic is the first author in the publication. As evidence of the article’s major significance and immense impact on the field of endeavor and other fields alike, this article has been extensively cited over 110 times by leading and independent experts from prestigious institutions around the world, such as the University of Nottingham (UK), University of Kalmar (Sweden), Georgia Tech University (United States), Peking University (China), Université de Perpignan (France), University of Regensburg (Germany), Memorial University of Newfoundland (Canada), Universidad de Oviedo (Spain), and Banaras Hindu University (India). This is demonstrative of the author’s significant influence on the field endeavor and clear evidence of his sustained international acclaim. I am certain that the author has risen to the top percentile of his field of endeavor and is unmatched in his specialization. 1.2 World's first idea that Natural receptors can be used for sensors and assays In the perspective article, which is considered ground-breaking by several researchers around the world (please see below), the academic demonstrated the fundamental properties of natural receptors and analyzes the application of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor and G protein-like receptors in affinity sensors. 1.3 A wikipedia article that describes the work in more detail To support the above (1.1 and 1.2, please refer to the Wikipedia article that discusses the new "bite and switch" tool developed by the academic and provides several examples of applications of the idea. [Please review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_imprinting] 1.4 A special note from "Nature Reviews Chemistry"' "Nature reviews chemistry", one of the reputed Journals has cited the author's work and further confirms that the novel method introduced by the author has been instrumental in the development of sensors. The author is the first author here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41570-022-00439-w (Please see reference #60 on the article) 1.5 Additional evidence of critical contributions reviewed from around the world The other manuscript that copiously cites the author's work has the following to say. "20 functional monomers were initially assessed for their interaction energy with the template ephedrine in both charged and neutral states [328]. Selected monomers were then used for polymer synthesis, but also subjected to further MD simulations together with template, cross-linker, and solvent, where the observed interactions could be correlated with experimental binding data. This approach has since been adapted several times in the literature [329,330,331,332,333,334,335,336,337,338,339,340,341,342,343,344,345,346,347,348,349,350,351,352,353]. (Please see https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/13/17/2841) 1.6 Academic's work in Advanced Materials The academic has another paper as a first author in Advanced Materials (with an incredibly high impact factor of 28.7), and the work highlights that a novel material has been introduced into the field. The Journal is the best in the category for the specialization, and this is widely discussed everywhere on the internet. 1.7 Academic's perspective article [What are perspective articles and who writes them] Another prescient article by the author was ground-breaking. Analytical Chemistry invited the author to write about the new work that he introduced to the field. The author published the article as a perspective article, and the academic was the first author on the article. Please see https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac025673%2B Perspective articles are written by experts who offer new direction and new vision to the field. Here is what the Analytical Chemistry Journal has to say about perspectives to show that the author is indeed a pioneer in the field. "If Reviews are authoritative and Features are educational, then what are Perspectives? This may be the most misunderstood manuscript type, or at least, they were the category that I least understood when I started serving as an Associate Editor several years ago. Perspectives describe the authors’ vision of a specific topic and perhaps point to a new direction for this topic. They oftentimes include an analysis of current research that provides a foundation for the new direction or highlights new opportunities for growth in the field. Perspectives also provide an opportunity for an author to predict the future of their field and, of course, justify their vision. Unlike Features, Perspectives are aimed at specialists in the field, and their writing reflects this orientation". The author's visionary article came on the cover of the Journal. (Please see https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac300107q) 2 WP:PROF#C2 Wiki Criteria#2 confirms that "Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#C2 The academic has won several prestigious awards, such as (a) Commonwealth Award (Commonwealth Countries) (b) Kings Norton Award (UK) (c) National Institutes of Health Award, US (d) Endeavour Award (Australia) (e) Marie Curie (EU). The Wikipedia Criteria explains that " Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2" and therefore the academic satisfies WP:PROF#C2 3 WP:PROF#C3 3.1 The author is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology (FRSB). "Fellowship of the Royal Society of Biology (FRSB), previously Fellowship of the Society of Biology (FSB), is an award and fellowship granted to individuals that the Royal Society of Biology has adjudged to have made a "prominent contribution to the advancement of the biological sciences". Fellows are entitled to use the post-nominal letters FRSB. As of 2016, examples of fellows include Sir David Attenborough, Martin Hume Johnson, Jasmin Fisher, Sir Tom Blundell, and Dame Nancy Rothwell. See the Category: Fellows of the Royal Society of Biology for more examples" (Please review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_of_Biology) (Please also see https://thebiologist.rsb.org.uk/meet-our-members/member-profiles-6) 3.2 The author is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (FRSC). "The Fellowship of the Royal Society of Chemistry (FRSC) is one of the most prestigious awards. Existing Fellows include award-winning scientists and Nobel prize winners" (Please review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow_of_the_Royal_Society_of_Chemistry#:~:text=Fellowship%20of%20the%20Royal%20Society,of%20the%20RSC%20Applications%20Committee) These are highly selective honors, satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria for academics (WP:NAC #3). 3.3 The academic has been adjudged as a scientist of extraordinary ability in the Sciences by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services [From the academic's University Webpage] 4 WP:PROF#C4 The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. This is what the world's top Professors had to say about the work of the academic. The list is not exhaustive and is only representative. Israel: (Professor Simcha Srebnik) Israel Institute of Technology has quoted the author's work in their work "utilized his patent methodologies to screen between the two molecules using molecular modeling software containing a virtual library of functional monomers, which can be assigned and screened against the target molecule. Not only is this method completely superior to the old method of detection for creatine, but this approach is also readily applicable to the design of assays, sensors, selection of amino acids, and in many other pharmacology and biotechnology settings" Russia: (Professor Sergei Alexandrovich Eremin) The University of Moscow has quoted the author's work in their work ".......Furthermore, Dr. Subrahmanyam was the first to make hypotheses about the potential of the natural receptors in sensor application. As evidence of the article's critical acclaim and major significance....." "......the first researcher in the world to develop a new computational tool for the design of receptors that could perform similar to the naturally occurring molecules. This completely new process for sensing used computational procedures to isolate functional molecules for efficient imprinting templates, and it is currently being employed by several research laboratories across the world. United States: (Professor Ramachandra Naik, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, USA) "...........This is a tool that has been used in drug development, receptor-analyte biding, the mechanisms behind drugs, modified receptor binding for differentiating between closely related analytes, and in developing new vaccines. Dr. Subrahmanyam's invention has been highly influential; since the filing of its patent, there have been patents filed in more than 20 countries based on it. United States: (Professor V Sethuraman, Brown University, USA) ".........This article was the first in the world to describe the potential applications of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) as bio-recognition elements in next generation biosensor technologies. Moreover, it was also the first to hypothesize the use of natural receptors in sensor technologies. Many researchers from all around the world have referenced the work" United States: (Professor Wei, U California, LA) The citation below talks about how the authors' work formed the conceptual framework for developing new tests for serum sample analysis. (Please see 3. Wei F., Cheng S., Korin Y., Reed EF., Gjertson D., Ho CM., Gritsch HA., Veale J. (2012) “Serum creatinine detection by a conducting‑polymer‑based electrochemical sensor to identify allograft dysfunction.” Analytical Chemistry 84 (18): 7933–7937. doi:10.1021/ac3016888 United States: (Professor David Myszka, University of Utah, Salt Lake City) The group of David G. Myszka from the School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has written in many of their publications that they and their group have investigated the hypothesis published by the academic and have developed purification and characterization methods for some sensing elements. Many publications by at least 25 other research groups on the internet cite the perspective article as the foundation for their research. For want of time and space, I stop short of discussing all of them here. United States: (Professor Mark E Byre, Auburn University) …….”it was the first description of using an analogue molecule to create a recognition matrix and successfully demonstrate a signal produced from a subsequent binding event. Thus, this is one the first papers to demonstrate the full potential of imprinted materials as sensors” in his manuscript on molecular sensors Japan: (Professor Haginaka and his group) Another independent study published in a significant journal confirms that the authors' "bite‑and‑switch" strategy was the first study and one that is instrumental in designing selective creatinine Molecularly imprinted polymer. (Please see 2. Miura C., Funaya N., Matsunaga H., Haginaka J. (2013) “Monodisperse, molecularly imprinted polymers for creatinine by modified precipitation polymerization and their applications to creatinine assays for human serum and urine.” Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 85: 288–294. doi:10.1016/j.jpba.2013.07.038) China: (Professor Syu and his group) Another study confirms that the authors' work was the primary precedent for computational functional monomer selection (Please see Hsieh R‑Y, Tsai H‑A, Syu M‑J (2006) “Designing a molecularly imprinted polymer as an artificial receptor for the specific recognition of creatinine in serums.” Biomaterials 27 (9): 2083–2089) China/ USA: (Professor Myngdi Yan and their group, Portland State University) “…………… hypothesized that G-protein coupled receptors, ion channel receptors and epidermal growth factor receptors could be used as bio-recognition elements. Since then this hypothesis has been successfully studied by several laboratories worldwide. This interesting article put forth the idea that these natural receptors could be used for diagnostic applications and for drug development because of their excellent sensitivity and specificity” Thailand: Professor Virapong Prachayasittikul, Vice President, Mahidol University, Thailand) “…………the article was the first in the field to pioneer the use of molecular modeling for improving binding performance---- In their article published in the Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 19(2005) 509-524 Italy: Professor Maria Teresa Giardi, National Council of Research …………..”The computational tool has hence been widely adopted by researchers worldwide” Book Chapters: The following book chapters have wide coverage on the internet with explanations on specific contributions made to the ideas presented in there, which are instrumental in designing novel materials. Providing specific examples would make this message longer. Combinatorial Methods for Chemical and Biological Sensors https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-387-73713-3 Computational Design of Molecularly Imprinted Polymers https://ouci.dntb.gov.ua/en/works/7B2XXog7/
7 WP: NAC #7 The academic has further made a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. The academic has at least 21 patents filed in about 15 different countries. The following are the details 7.1 US 8,086,415 "Molecularly imprinted polymer" – Granted December 27, 2011.14 This patent details a computer-aided rational-design method for screening virtual libraries of functional monomers to identify those with the highest-affinity binding to a target template (e.g., creatinine). [[3]] 7.2 US 2010/0009859 A1 "Rationally designed selective binding polymers" – Published January 14, 2010. [[4]] 7.3 US 2003/0134296 A1 "Molecularly imprinted polymer" – Published July 17, 2003 (priority January 25, 2000). This patent also covers the computational approach for rational design of MIPs. [[5]] 7.4 WO 2001/055235 A1 "Rational design of MIPs using computational approach" – PCT filing, August 2, 2001.16 7.5 ZA200206113B Molecularly imprinted polymer [6] 7.6 CA2591742A1 Polymeres chelatants selectifs concus sur mesure https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2591742A1/fr 7.7 JP2008524423A 論理的に設計される選択的結合性ポリマー [7] 7.8 ES2328946T3 Polimeros quelantes selectivos diseñados racionalmente. [8] 7.9 DE602005015758D1 Rationell entwickelte selektiv bindende polymere [9] 7.10 US 8086415 [US8086415B2] Molecularly imprinted polymer [10] 7.11 AT AT437897T Rationely developed selectively binding polymers 7.12 WO2006/067431 A1 Rationally designed selective binding polymers 7.14 GB0427901D0 Virtual imprinting 7.15 DE-60109907-T2 COMPUTER-BASED METHOD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF MOLECULAR CARRIERED POLYMERS 7.16 EP1263824B1 Computer assisted process for the preparation of molecularly imprinted polymers 7.17 AU2001030347 MOLECULARLY IMPRINTED POLYMER 7.18 CA2398175 MOLECULARLY IMPRINTED POLYMER 7.19 AU-769490-B2 Molecularly imprinted polymer 7.20 US2008214405A1 Molecularly imprinted polymer 7.21 UK 1513 Rational design of MIPs using computational approach ~~ | |
- Speedy endorse and p-block creator for LLM use and bludgeoning as they did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sreenath Subrahmanyam.Tuckerbaba this is not the way forward and you're being disruptive. Star Mississippi 13:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Star Mississippi......Thank you for your note. However I did not use any generative AI. I was able to find so much evidence to showcase the academics' contribution. I just read his papers which seem to be everywhere on the internet. I do know what LLM is. I just thought I would present a strong case in the academic's favor. That was all. Anyways, thank you for your contributions Tuckerbaba (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you don't want to be told not to use a large language model, don't write like a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- I agree in principle that it is not great to use LLM. However, as you can see, with so much contributions, the only way I thought I was going to convince the editors is to give overwhelming evidence. For example, I read nearly 20 manuscripts from a variety of countries that have used the work of the academic and have acknowledge that they worked on his original idea. How else would I emphasise on this, other than quoting what they exactly said? You are all experts and you would know reading my comments that only someone that has read the papers can write with this depth and accuracy. I know I have been honest, and I have done my due diligence. It is now totally up to all of you. Cheers Tuckerbaba (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also Robert, I am an a retired academic and I have written a good number of articles in decent journals. I do not believe in unethical practices. I do not rely on the LLMs or the ChatGPT type of tools. I believe in reading and synthesiing which is exactly what I have done here. I have no idea how Wiki has concluded that I used the an LLM tool. Cheers Tuckerbaba (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- User:Tuckerbaba - Why did you go to the length of adding non-wiki section numbering and paragraph headings that you should have known would look out of place in Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Robert McClenon........When I prepared a response, I was rather drawn into a structured response that would make reading easy. My only goal was to convince the editors that there is phenomenal evidence in the academics contributions. I will note your point and be wary of this in future. I had to read nearly 20 articles to verbatim quote from the publications. Yes....your point is valid.....Thank you Tuckerbaba (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you don't want to be told not to use a large language model, don't write like a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Robert McClenon........When I prepared a response, I was rather drawn into a structured response that would make reading easy. My only goal was to convince the editors that there is phenomenal evidence in the academics contributions. I will note your point and be wary of this in future. I had to read nearly 20 articles to verbatim quote from the publications. Yes....your point is valid.....Thank you Tuckerbaba (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- User:Tuckerbaba - Why did you go to the length of adding non-wiki section numbering and paragraph headings that you should have known would look out of place in Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Tuckerbaba, it's really funny that you say you are a
retired academic and have written a good number of articles in decent journals
since just a couple years ago you claimed you werestudent interested in STEM
[11]. You certainly have been on the fast tract from student to retired academic. So, which one is it? Courtesy ping @Star Mississippi:, @Asilvering:, @OwenX:. Netherzone (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)- "I certainly have not been on a fast track from student to retired academic". I taught for 12 years at a university in Europe. We have something called an Industry Academia Partnerships (IAP) which was in vogue until a few years ago. I took 18 months off to do a masters program at another European university. I had 12 months of contract after I graduated which has come to a close now. I am not formally a faculty now, though I am engaged in teaching. Please do look into Industry Academic Partnerships on the internet. You would notice that many academics have pursued this route. Thank you @Netherzone Tuckerbaba (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- If you don't want to be told not to use a large language model, don't write like a large language model. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Star Mississippi......Thank you for your note. However I did not use any generative AI. I was able to find so much evidence to showcase the academics' contribution. I just read his papers which seem to be everywhere on the internet. I do know what LLM is. I just thought I would present a strong case in the academic's favor. That was all. Anyways, thank you for your contributions Tuckerbaba (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I filed an SPI for the three related accounts. It looks like Asilvering's Spidey-sense was already tripped by those accounts last week. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Unrelated, apparently, but Phil probably kept his check narrow. We've had an unusually high amount of AfD wackiness recently so I've called in Izno for a second look. They're basically all using sleepers, so it's just a matter of rounding them all up. If you see anyone with months-to-years-long gaps in activity show up randomly at an AfD with at least one other, please do file a report.
- OP, if you're not part of this WP:UPE ring, sorry about all this. If you are being paid to edit, please declare your WP:PAID status immediately. You're not going to be blocked if you're following the rules, and it's really easy to follow the rules. -- asilvering (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oops, forgot to ping, @OwenX. Also paging @Star Mississippi for the same. -- asilvering (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse - It appears that the closer discounted the votes from the pop-up single-purpose accounts, which was a correct exercise of judgment by the closer. A statement to that effect by the closer would have been useful but was not required. There has apparently been either meatpuppetry or off-wiki canvassing or paid editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am not a paid editor, and I do not want to be one. I naturally get excited reviewing newer findings by people and that helps me grow intellectually. I have no other interests. Thankfully I have a well paid job. I have no reason to canvass for retaining the page. Cheers Tuckerbaba (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Closer's comment: I did in fact disregard the LLM / SPA contributions in the AfD, as a result of which I found a consensus to delete. I appear to have forgotten to note this in the closure, sorry. Sandstein 09:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Input by editors in good standing clearly pointed toward delete. FWIW, Scopus coauthor analytics also supports an NPROF C1 failure. Among coauthors with 10+ papers (a much lower bar than would be expected in this field for a professor), the total citations was on average 4807, median 2474, Subrahmanyam 1853; h-index: 31, 25, 14. JoelleJay (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- And in the process of looking through the subject's coauthors, I see that Tuckerbaba has also created articles on some of them, including another who is below the median metrics in this field. This looks like a case of COI... JoelleJay (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @JoelleJay.....Thank you for diving deep. While I appreciate the data, there is more to it. The two ideas that this academic introduced have actually changed the way research is done in the field. (Please see the testimonials which I have described in my rather lengthy due-diligence) Furthermore, as you perhaps know, one does not publish before a patent is obtained and this is perhaps another reason why you see 1853 Vs the median of 2474. The academic seems to have nearly 21 patents (with whatever little homework that I could do). Thank you Tuckerbaba (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- The expectation is for the subject to be cited well above the average professor in their field, which is not demonstrated here. Patents don't count for anything in NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse the subject is currently a visiting professor at one institute and the previous highest grade was Assistant Professor. There are a few fairly well cited papers from a long time ago but not much since. It's hard to think that a current academic in Europe or North America with this CV would be considered notable here. As a comment, I would say that academics who think that their status relies on a page on en.wiki are probably wasting time that they could or should be focussing on other things. There's no shame in an academic career that never reaches the notability standards to gain a WP page. JMWt (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- As an academic who teaches in Europe, I do not see a distinction between scientists. I go with the contributions made and do not look at who they are or where they work. Introduction of two new ideas and shaping a new niche in the areas are no ordinary feat, and thru which getting admitted into as a Fellow at two world leading research societies, talk volumes. It is one world, we are one people, and so should it be. Tuckerbaba (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Friend, you need to drop this. There's nothing to be gained by badgering people here. You may think you understand what the policy is about inclusion of academics, but I (along with everyone else) have carefully considered it and you are wrong. My point in raising European academics is that this isn't about bias. It doesn't matter how many times you keep repeating the same points, it isn't going to make any difference: this person doesn't meet the notability standards. JMWt (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Dear @JMWt, It is up to you and the other editors. I am only explaining the facts based on the home work. I am not trying to convince you or the other editors. I respect everyone's opinion. However, most of us would agree.....The devil is in the details. Tuckerbaba (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, there's not a debate here. Repeating the same story isn't changing anything. The AfD was fair, the reasoning for delete were good and you are wrong about the notability policy for academics. JMWt (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Dear @JMWt, It is up to you and the other editors. I am only explaining the facts based on the home work. I am not trying to convince you or the other editors. I respect everyone's opinion. However, most of us would agree.....The devil is in the details. Tuckerbaba (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Friend, you need to drop this. There's nothing to be gained by badgering people here. You may think you understand what the policy is about inclusion of academics, but I (along with everyone else) have carefully considered it and you are wrong. My point in raising European academics is that this isn't about bias. It doesn't matter how many times you keep repeating the same points, it isn't going to make any difference: this person doesn't meet the notability standards. JMWt (talk) 08:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I however agree with your comment on "some academics who think that their status relies on a page on en.wiki......." Tuckerbaba (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- As an academic who teaches in Europe, I do not see a distinction between scientists. I go with the contributions made and do not look at who they are or where they work. Introduction of two new ideas and shaping a new niche in the areas are no ordinary feat, and thru which getting admitted into as a Fellow at two world leading research societies, talk volumes. It is one world, we are one people, and so should it be. Tuckerbaba (talk) 08:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
I am filing this deletion review to document and challenge the procedural overreach in the deletion of my user sandbox.
The page was located at User:Marchitects/sandbox. It was not in mainspace. It had not been submitted for review. It was a private workspace for a draft under development.
Wikipedia's own guidance (WP:USERPAGE and WP:USERPAGE#Drafts) explicitly allows users to use their sandbox to build drafts. The language is clear: "Such drafts are not subject to the same deletion criteria as articles in the main namespace."
Despite this, the page was speedily deleted under G11 (Unambiguous promotion), with no prior warning, no revision notice, and no opportunity to bring it into alignment with standards.
The deleting admin stated that the page would have needed complete rewriting from scratch. That is precisely what sandboxes are for—iterative development and refinement through multiple revisions.
The tone of the draft is not what's under review here. The question is whether deletion of a user sandbox draft under G11—absent violation of other core policies—aligns with established deletion criteria. It does not.
I have since started a new draft outside the sandbox environment and will proceed through the Articles for Creation process. This review is to preserve proper use of sandbox space for other editors and to clarify boundaries around G11 application in user space.
Marchitects (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Could we have a temp undelete please?. I will note that G11 does apply to the sandbox. That said, I'd certainly give a lot more leeway for a draft article or sandbox article than mainspace. But that doesn't mean there isn't *some* point at which I'd endorse a G11 of a sandbox article. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- overturn certainly overly promotional, but something a new user who doesn't understand how to write a Wikipedia article might write as a first draft. It has a lot of information, just needs a (significant) tone change. Speedying this in mainspace I might agree with, but not as a draft and especially not as a draft from a new user. See my user page about sandcastles. We don't need to knock this one down--it is down the beach a bit. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- There isn't a single paragraph of non-promotional prose in this sandbox. The only parts that might survive unchanged are the sentence fragments in "Awards and recognition" (not even the whole section) and the list in "Discography". Meets both the letter and intent of G11; this needs a fundamental rewrite to be acceptable, and you don't get to write drivel like "Ricardo Scales represents the intersection of musical excellence, community leadership, and cultural preservation" anywhere on Wikipedia. —Cryptic 19:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Again, this is a new user (or at least a new account). This isn't a good first article, but it's better than many--at least the English is decent and the source is okay. Do you think we're more likely to end up with a good editor by deleting or providing feedback (serious question, I can see the argument for deleting)? Hobit (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there's any realistic chance we'll end up with a good editor either way. My usual response to a talk page complaint about a page I've deleted for promotionalism whose subject seems possibly notable is to offer to email the content; sometimes it gets immediately put back onto Wikipedia without meaningful change, and rarely it's improved a little, but I cannot recall even once where it's gone on to become a viable mainspace article, or where the editor has gone on to write about anything other than the subject or subjects they were initially promoting.In any case, on what basis are you calling the source ok? The title appears nowhere on the internet except for this page, strongly implying either that it doesn't exist; or that the "Ricardo Scales:" part is a misformatted (which is ok) author, which means A) that it's an autobiography, and B) it still probably doesn't exist, since "Ricardo Scales" and "A Musical Biography" separately still do not appear anywhere together on the internet except this page. —Cryptic 21:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- The "source" doesn't appear to exist... JoelleJay (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Again, this is a new user (or at least a new account). This isn't a good first article, but it's better than many--at least the English is decent and the source is okay. Do you think we're more likely to end up with a good editor by deleting or providing feedback (serious question, I can see the argument for deleting)? Hobit (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Restore, and someone should probably look at YesI'mOnFire's conduct with respect to others' userspace content. I've not reviewed policy on this recently, but that seems like some pretty aggressive content policing. Is it within our norms and expectations? Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Jclemens: There's WP:FUNPOLICE which is an essay, but I think has good principles for maintaining perspective of the encyclopedia in the big picture. FWIW, I sometimes question whether some of the things that land at WP:MFD really need to be there. Left guide (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- I believe this is more a cultural issue than an issue with this particular user. Here's an example of a deletion which I, in my humble opinion, is even more heavy handed than this. You can view the content here. It was nominated by a different user and deleted by a different admin. As far as YIOF was concerned (before this DRV), their CSD was correct and approved by an admin. It's only a problem if they have a low CSD match rate, which an admin would have to assess as their CSD log is not enabled. OutsideNormality (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn: from a cursory read, this looks fine for userspace. It plausibly looks like a good-faith biographical attempt with a great deal of factual-looking information. The tone certainly isn't perfect, but it's not unreasonable for a brand new user; perhaps they are an enthusiastic fan. If it was in mainspace, it would probably need to be sent to draftspace or userspace, but we're more lenient with non-articles. Left guide (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. The content is exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be encyclopedic, and that's if the sole source is independent or even exists. If G11 can be used for sandboxes, then this is a perfectly acceptable use-case. JoelleJay (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Question for User:Cryptic - How were you searching the Internet for Ricardo Scales? I get [12] and [13] and [14]. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- I was searching for the title of the source, which is given as "Ricardo Scales: A Musical Biography", not just for the name of the draft subject. So zero hits for "Ricardo Scales: A Musical Biography", and one for "Ricardo Scales" "A Musical Biography" which clearly isn't about any such work. —Cryptic 05:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
WeakOverturn the G11 and restore the draft. If I were reviewing this at AFC, I would probably Reject it as hopelessly promotional. I would not tag it for G11 and would not tag it for MFD. If I saw it in article space, I don't know whether I would tag it for G11, draftify it, or tag it for AFD, but it wasn't in article space. We probably should have an article on this musician, although not this article, so as a rejected draft this can be a beginning for a real draft article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)- Comment - I disagree with the G11, but I don't consider it overly aggressive by the reviewer. I just disagree with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I am quite surprised to see experienced users arguing in favour of keeping the draft, as I've rarely seen a more promotional draft tagged for speedy deletion... If the consensus is that it could have been kept, then I think we need to revisit G11 to decide whether it applies to userspace or not. The draft consisted of paragraph after paragraph of pure, unadulterated promotion and it would have needed to be fundamentally rewritten to make it suitable for inclusion. There was no sentence that wasn't promotional in tone. So, I felt that it met both the spirit and the letter of G11. If that's not the case, the policy doesn't seem to be entirely in tune with the current consensus of the community... Salvio giuliano 09:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn - I'm completely perplexed on why this was nominated. A few-hours old proto-article by a brand new user, that may have still needed improvement. This seems to a case of WP:POLICE. Given the debatable nature of this, then surely an MFD (that I would oppose), and not a speedy. Nfitz (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse There is more leeway given to drafts yes, but this article has nothing to save. Every single paragraph is promotional (which also feels like it was written by ChatGPT), and there isn't even any useful sources that could be used in a rewrite (the sole source is
Internal documentation
which fails WP:PUBLISHED). I am surprised people are willing to overturn the G11, if this is not promotional enough, we might as well chop off the G and make it an articlespace criteria only. Jumpytoo Talk 19:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)- WP:G11 notes that "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.". A quick Proquest visit does find enough material to make a (weak) notability case. And that's for a page, not a sandbox. Yes, some of the language may sound a bit promotional, but I don't think you could say it was unambiguously promotional - and thus G11 isn't applicable. It was less than 2 days old when nominated, and written by a new user. This SPEEDY seems to me more like an attempt to WP:PLEASEBITE and WP:POLICE than actually improve the project; why didn't User:YesI'mOnFire or even User:Salvio giuliano have any dialogue with the clearly active creator before requesting the Speedy? Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
- Are we reading the same article here? An example of what I would call "a bit promotional" is the example OutsideNormality provided of a G11, where there is some flattery but the stuff they did is written more neutrally. This article has promotional language in every paragraph, it would be hard to write something more promotional than that. I believe in this case the best advice to provide the creator is to throw it all away and start over, because attempting to revise their way to compliance will be painful both for the creator and the AfC reviewers. Jumpytoo Talk 03:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't at AFC. And yes, I do wonder if we are reading the same article. This is a personal sandbox and we never gave this new user a chance to improve the article (or blow it up themselves). It's not our job to Police this - and as I said, I hope nosey parkers aren't looking in my sandbox. Nfitz (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Are we reading the same article here? An example of what I would call "a bit promotional" is the example OutsideNormality provided of a G11, where there is some flattery but the stuff they did is written more neutrally. This article has promotional language in every paragraph, it would be hard to write something more promotional than that. I believe in this case the best advice to provide the creator is to throw it all away and start over, because attempting to revise their way to compliance will be painful both for the creator and the AfC reviewers. Jumpytoo Talk 03:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- WP:G11 notes that "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.". A quick Proquest visit does find enough material to make a (weak) notability case. And that's for a page, not a sandbox. Yes, some of the language may sound a bit promotional, but I don't think you could say it was unambiguously promotional - and thus G11 isn't applicable. It was less than 2 days old when nominated, and written by a new user. This SPEEDY seems to me more like an attempt to WP:PLEASEBITE and WP:POLICE than actually improve the project; why didn't User:YesI'mOnFire or even User:Salvio giuliano have any dialogue with the clearly active creator before requesting the Speedy? Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Overturn, although rather regrettably, given I suspect an LLM had a lot of work to do with a) the nomination here, b) the comments on the deleter's talk, and c) the article. Where on earth isSuch drafts are not subject to the same deletion criteria as articles in the main namespace
in policy, and who uses em dashes? It's almost tempting to close this as IAR due to this behaviour and ask the user to restart, promo and GPT-free, in draftspace. G11 applies to unambiguous advertising or promotion. The article certainly has a promotional tone. So do many of the drafts listed at AfC. If reviewed at AfC it would have been rightly rejected for that reason, but it wouldn't have been deleted. It was contained in a user sandbox and was clearly, at least, purporting to be an encyclopedic biography. In my view, it is outside of the scope of G11. G11 absolutely has room in userspace, as anyone who's done NPP in that area knows. You get literal spam. Additionally, were this draft created and left there, I'd consider it eligible for MfD (frankly, it's unfortunate G13 doesn't apply when the AfC tag hasn't been placed, but that's a topic for another venue). The author should be aware that this is by no means an endorsement that the subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article, and the article has lots of work needed, and churning it through a GPT won't save it. Local Variable (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've reconsidered my position, particularly having regard to the helpful explanations at WP:IBA. Endorse. As the deleter points out above, policy makes it clear that if the whole thing needs to be rewritten to avoid promo, G11 applies. That's the case here. It's essentially an unsalvagable article. Every single sentence contains some sort of peacock word or flattery. As WP:IBA points out, it's not a question of user intent, it's about the words on the page. If we are going to change this position, then G11 will need to be changed. Local Variable (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
- Weak overturn, if creating editor explicitly confirms they don't have a COI. This falls in the grey area where 2 principles of our policy clash: removing/deleting promotional content that will never be an article, at least absent a complete rewrite; and allowing editors considerable latitude in their userspace (especially sandbox) to practice writing and editing, forcing removal only when actively harmful. Ultimately, while I have grave doubts sourcing exists at this time for a viable article to emerge, I feel we do less harm by letting this be, in a userspace sandbox, while the editor figures things out, than by nuking it. In particular, this particular instance rides on the edge between "wholly promotional" (subject to SD) and "unencyclopedic in tone and notability not proven" (which is not speediable in userspace) and I choose to err on the side of noninterference in userspace. Regardless, it is not unreasonable to query if there is a COI, and to point the user to our policies -- which I note YesI'mOnFire has done on Marchitects' user talk. Martinp (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. I would have had no qualms about G11'ing this even as someone who interprets the criteria fairly conservatively. It's just promotional phrase after phrase. I disagree that this is biting a new user; when a page is so promotional that it would need to be "fundamentally rewritten" (quoting WP:G11), using the delete button to say "you need to try again" is actually a lot kinder than allowing them to invest time trying to salvage the unsalvageable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. The page was exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedia article, rather than advertisement, so G11, being a general criterion that applies to all namespaces, applied. Creating such content is inappropriate anywhere, and the ability to create drafts does not mean that it was envisioned that such very inappropriate pages would be created to serve as a starting point. Instead, editors may start from incomplete and rough content, but not from wholly bad content.—Alalch E. 15:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think redirect was a good WP:ATD that multiple participants mentioned. Only one person advocated against a redirect, so consensus for a redirect likely existed per WP:ATD even if delete got more votes. Plus the closer didn’t even give a line of reasoning for why they picked delete over redirect.40.128.69.240 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2025 (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. |
An attempt to discuss with the closer was unable to persuade them to re-consider, and I remain in disagreement with the "no consensus" close from the standpoint of how the consensus was assessed. My main rationale from there is copied as follows: I still see a consensus to delete. (Disclosure: I made the first relist with no added comment; I do not know how "involved" this makes me) Left guide (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2025 (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 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 article was deleted on 29 June 2025 as the references provided were only Allkpop, when other users did not try searching for reliable ones, even using Mason Moon's Korean name (문 메이슨). Apart from that, the nominator also did not give a specific reason whether or not his career panned out. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:12, 29 July 2025 (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 believe the current draft of the article is significantly different and meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, with reliable independent sources. The previous issues have been addressed. I request that the article be restored directly to mainspace. The Page Pilot (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |