Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for Undeletion)
 |
| 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".
On the deletion page it states 'not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC'
The band satisfies many of the criteria for WP:NMUSIC. 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. "Skate 2" on Playsation 2 purchased a license to use "Return to blood beach" in the game. https://www.discogs.com/release/23747615-Various-Skate-2-Soundtrack
5.Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels 1) Drop Out - Rally Records - 2002 2) Hang Out - Red Scare - 2006 3) Tales from Planet Earth - Asian Man - 2009 4) Canadian Graffiti - Something to Do records - 2017 https://somethingtodorecords.bigcartel.com/product/the-riptides-canadian-graffiti-12 Dan Parent from Archie Comics did the album art. 5) Burn After Listening - Pirates Press - 2025 https://piratespressrecords.com/news-welcome-riptides/
Discography on Spotify https://open.spotify.com/artist/4MELFYzpsOtvvwR7IgytQs/discography/all
"End of the world" Music video published by Pirates Press Records https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWuCV2vXdh4
Many other singles have been released over the years but I believe the above is sufficient to satisfy criteria #5.
11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Sirius XM - Faction Punk - Currently on rotation. "Fade to Black" Streaming on SiriusXM's Faction Punk https://xmplaylist.com/station/factionpunk/track/O3UW-SBD7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowAboutThemApples92 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. This isn't AfD round 2. A unanimous quorum of highly experienced editors all deemed the subject to fail our notability criteria. Owen× ☎ 17:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse clear consensus to delete. It is possible that the subject has become more notable in the past five months. One of the references is dated 2025, but is from the subject's record label so not independent (as WP:GNG requires). I support a WP:REFUND to draft space if the appellant or another user wishes to expand the article, however, I do not believe the sources currently exist to get the subject past GNG. Frank Anchor 12:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please review the deletion of Priyanka Choudhary. Choudhary meets the WP:NACTOR criteria now. She has played lead role in Udaariyaan and became the runner up in the hit reality show Big Boss 16. Next she played the lead role in the web series 3G Gaali Galoch Girls and Dus June Kii Raat. Now, she is going to play the lead role in Naagin 7. She also has done a couple of movies and music videos as well. Can anyone tell me what is the problem with Draft:Priyanka Choudhary? I mean there are so many articles of actors in Wikipedia which are not as good as this draft and those actors have not even done as many roles as Priyanka has done.
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Shehzad Shaikh (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please review the deletion of Shehzad Shaikh. Shaikh meets the WP:NACTOR criteria now. He's played parallel lead roles in Qubool Hai and Bepannah. Next, he has played lead roles in multiple television shows, starting in Sindoor Ki Keemat for nearly two years and then played the lead in Mehendi Wala Ghar. He's currently playing lead in Zyada Mat Udd. Iamaninnocentsoul (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Adolf Uunona (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think this page could be restored as either a navigation page that links to both Ompundja Constituency and Oshipumbu, or simply a redirect to Ompundja Constituency, which appears to contain the most information about Uunona at the moment. If the salted page Adolf Hitler Uunona is also restored (as a redirect to either Ompundja Constituency or to Adolf Uunona if it's a navpage), it could be tagged with {{R with possibilities}} as there is a draft with that title. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
This deletion decision was taken despite an obvious lack of consensus for a deletion and against wikipedia guidelines on notability. The article clearly passes GNG with multiple sources of sigcov, but this was ignored as per the closers talk page because the closer didn't want to deal with a deletion review from pro-delete users by keeping the article. This isn't a legitimate reason for a delete decision. It also gives false legitimacy to the views of a group of pro-Delete users who aggressively misinterpreted essays regarding "presumed notability" as if they were a requirement for passing GNG, instead of supplementary information that aren't consensus in the first place. Articles need to be deleted or kept based on consensus and guidelines not because a closer thinks one side of an argument might be more annoying to deal with afterward.Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn (involved) I am not sure what the formal appeal of a close is either, but I agree that in this case the best verdict would have been a "no consensus" close. Which in this case, would mean a restoration of the article to what it was during the AfD. The weight of the arguments in my view was tilted even towards the Keep side, but even if that is not the case, "No consensus" would have been and still should be the correct close decision. The closer, respectfully, even mentioned that this was a bit of a tortured decision. When it is that painfully close, and again, I do not think it really was, but in this case a "No consensus" is warranted and a restoration implemented. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Some serious WP:ASPERSIONS being cast at @Ritchie333 here, you’re accusing them of deleting the article to avoid personal annoyance or something? GraziePrego (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't accuse me of bad faith. This is his quote on his talk page "NC close would have probably resulted in those wanting to delete the article raising a deletion review anyway", and indication that he chose to delete instead of Keep/NC not on guidelines but personally wanting to avoid a review. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's not correct. I have summarised the reason for the close both below and at the AfD. In fact, the reverse is true, if I wanted a quiet life I would close as "keep" to avoid bludgeoning here. (See also Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews#Unrealistic assumptions) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't accuse me of bad faith. This is his quote on his talk page "NC close would have probably resulted in those wanting to delete the article raising a deletion review anyway", and indication that he chose to delete instead of Keep/NC not on guidelines but personally wanting to avoid a review. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment A draft exists, but this appears to lack the recent history consistent with it being the same article that was just deleted. Can we get a temp undelete or confirmation that I'm wrong and the draft is what was being discussed? Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've temp-undeleted the mainspace version so people can look at it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- The draft version is worse than the final version that was deleted (the main section proving her notability is absent from the draft page). Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse as closing admin. I thought the close I made gave a compromise (emphasis mine) that would provide a way forward for this article with the minimum objections. The comment Macktheknifeau refers to above is a simple observation that if, as an admin, you close "difficult" AfDs like this, you get abuse thrown at you from the "losing" side, whichever way you close it, so I felt a DRV was inevitable from somebody. Paging AfD participants : 111.220.216.105 121.45.42.90 128.250.0.193 Bearcat Bearian BuySomeApples Caeciliusinhorto-public Cortador DesiMoore ExpertEgeo GMH Melbourne Gnangarra GraziePrego ITBF Iljhgtn Jpatokal Kusma KwanFlakes Macktheknifeau Mekomo Mpen320 Newystats Nil Einne Oaktree b Perringaiden PhilKnight Servite Spiderone TarnishedPath Thebiguglyalien Uncle G Unskathd Wistherdisc Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's probably also worth mentioning, in the interests of full disclosure, that I have previously blocked Macktheknifeau for edit warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- And in the interests of full disclosure on my end I had no idea that was the case and this has nothing to do with who the admin was. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- The "compromise", even as admitted essentially by the closing admin, would have been "no consensus", this could have been avoided with that outcome. Waste of everyone's time... Iljhgtn (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- And in the interests of full disclosure on my end I had no idea that was the case and this has nothing to do with who the admin was. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's probably also worth mentioning, in the interests of full disclosure, that I have previously blocked Macktheknifeau for edit warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved) I understand the perspective of those who !voted to keep. The guidelines at WP:NPOL create a bit of confusion and there is currently a discussion that will hopefully provide a bit more clarity. Amelia Hamer does not have any sources that establish notability outside of the 2025 Australian federal election and there is nothing extraordinary about her candidacy unlike that of Teresa van Lieshout or Katherine Deves, therefore I think the arguments of deleting were stronger. There is also a draft which can be improved, and if she wins the election the draft will be moved to main-space. If she loses then the draft can still be submitted to AfC if consensus changes. Also note I have nominated Roshena Campbell for deletion who's article is a very similar situation to Amelia Hamer.
- GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- NPOL is only "confusing" when it is incorrectly assumed to be a requirement that must be passed in addition to GNG or a reason to discount GNG passing sigcov. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (nominator) Fwiw, the point of determining a consensus isn't to get a majority vote, it's to decide whether the page meets the community's rules and norms. I feel that the stronger policy-based arguments were in favor of deletion, and I think that's consistent with the outcome for other unelected political candidate pages who aren't notable outside of campaigning. She might become notable, but she just isn't now (she isn't the first candidate to be accused of hypocrisy). But I'm the nominator, so I'm biased :^) BuySomeApples (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (involved), Ritchie is an experienced AFD closer whose closes are high quality. I think he would have correctly assessed that there were a number of keep !votes, which were casting aspersions about delete !voters being engaged in a partisan push and that such arguments were subpar and should be appropriately down-weighted. In general the keep !votes were of lower quality that the delete !votes. As per the argument above that the subject clearly passes GNG, that was the view of the keep !voters and no one else. TarnishedPathtalk 08:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- The so called "aspersions" only started in the discussion in the first place because of this line from a delete commenter "The Aussies might not be aware that the richest man in the world is trying to cripple our charitable foundation by using political articles against us". Is it an "aspersion" to defend yourself from being accused of being on the side of Elon Musk and that wanting to keep an article means you are participating in a "springboard for crippling the foundation"? Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- That truly was a ludicrous comment. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- The so called "aspersions" only started in the discussion in the first place because of this line from a delete commenter "The Aussies might not be aware that the richest man in the world is trying to cripple our charitable foundation by using political articles against us". Is it an "aspersion" to defend yourself from being accused of being on the side of Elon Musk and that wanting to keep an article means you are participating in a "springboard for crippling the foundation"? Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn (involved), the closing was premature. Spurred by this article, there's a very lively discussion over Wikipedia talk:Notability_(people)#Unelected_political_candidates_with_notable_coverage over how WP:GNG and WP:NPOL fit together. I think even the most ardent delete voters people would agree that the current wording of WP:NPOL does not square up with the (alleged) "consensus" that unelected candidates are not notable, even if their candidacy has have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (read: meets WP:GNG). Until this is resolved one way or another, we should not be deleting articles of political candidates that match this description. Jpatokal (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I agree Overturn. An election campaign doesn't count as a "one thing" that can collapse all the independent coverage that would otherwise establish general notability. Newystats (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Newystats register your thought then with a clear bolded !vote. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I agree Overturn. An election campaign doesn't count as a "one thing" that can collapse all the independent coverage that would otherwise establish general notability. Newystats (talk) 10:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. I see a clear consensus to delete the mainspace version - even clearer once you weigh the arguments based on their P&G merit. The appellant's argument here seems to be directed at the participants of the AfD. We're not here to discuss the article and its sourcing. We're here to review the process followed in that AfD. I think you have to be pretty biased to see an
obvious lack of consensus for a deletion
. I know exactly what Ritchie meant when he said,It's a hard life being an admin closing difficult AfDs!
. As Liz often says, some AfDs are bound to reach DRV no matter how you close them. My read of the exchange on Ritchie's Talk page does not support the appellant's claim that hedidn't want to deal with a deletion review from pro-delete users
. Ritchie made the difficult, correct decision here despite knowing it would likely be challenged. Although frankly, I don't see this particular appeal as much of a challenge. Owen× ☎ 11:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)- Not even remotely true. There absolutely was a complete lack of clear consensus for a deletion. "No consensus" was the only "obvious" close. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Iljhgtn, do you intend of commenting against everyone who !votes endorse? TarnishedPathtalk 12:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Knock it off. I did not do so, and what is the purpose of this comment? Iljhgtn (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Iljhgtn, do you intend of commenting against everyone who !votes endorse? TarnishedPathtalk 12:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not even remotely true. There absolutely was a complete lack of clear consensus for a deletion. "No consensus" was the only "obvious" close. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse close and restore article history to draft. When weighing the !votes based on P&G merit, there was rough consensus not to keep the article in mainspace such that a delete/draftify close was reasonable. However, there was no reason to delete the history of the article, particularly when parts of it were significantly more developed than the current draft version (specifically the election campaign). When an ATD is identified that would normally preserve the history of an article and there is no specific reason to delete it (e.g. copyvio or personal attacks), then it is best to find a way to maintain the history to assist in the development of the draft. Frank Anchor 13:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- The only reason that hasn't been done (yet) is because it's technically difficult to history merge the two independently-created and written pages together. However, if an admin experienced in history merges wants to give it a go, I don't think there'll be any objections. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Good idea, but please not while this DRV is open. Owen× ☎ 14:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, understood and thanks for your response. Frank Anchor 14:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- The only reason that hasn't been done (yet) is because it's technically difficult to history merge the two independently-created and written pages together. However, if an admin experienced in history merges wants to give it a go, I don't think there'll be any objections. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse close (involved). There is a continued failure to assume good faith in disagreements on this article. The appellant is claiming that the AfD only went in favor of a deletion because the closer was lazy and the people who disagree with the appellant(?) are bad contributors who seek to be disruptive out of malice by doing some version of this appeal. There is a Wiki-etiquette against this exact thing laid out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I also want to note my disagreement with the idea that "no consensus" was a better way to close. AfDs are not a vote at a town meeting where closers are just expected to count the number of hands raised. They consider the substance of arguments which involves contributors explaining their viewpoint on the merits of the AfD using policies and yes, even essays. In that regard, I believe the sides were weighed appropriately. I also think keeping this in DraftSpace while deleting the article (which does not happen for most candidate articles) was not a compromise to placate those voting delete, but to preserve work that COULD be useful should this person get elected (personally, rooting for Labour from afar). I have never been asked to contribute to this kind of discussion. Am I expected to need to reiterate my views in favor of deleting the article or is my reply that I believe the closer acted reasonably a sufficient endorsement to close? --Mpen320 (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Mpen320, what you wrote here is sufficient. As an aside, even if we do go by nose-count in that AfD, those arguing against retention still have a clear, 2-to-1 majority there. Owen× ☎ 15:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse The decision to send the article to draft space is well within the discretion of the closer. --Enos733 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - as long as the article history can be recovered, I have no problem with the closure. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn (involved). AfD discussions are decided by the arguments made for keeping or deleting an article. The closer has failed to explain why they came to conclusion that the delete side made the better case, and did so three times (on the AfD page, their talk page, and here). Omitting an actual explanation can't be excused by an AfD supposedly being "difficult". Cortador (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse: I see two issues. The first is whether an article should be in article space. The closing admin found that the deletion arguments were stronger than the keep arguments, and that was a valid conclusion (which also was consistent with a vote count). The second issue, if the article is deleted, is whether to draftify the existing article, or whether to delete the existing article and leave the draft standing. I am not sure that is being challenged, and I see no reason to question that closer's judgment. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: This argument is different from many deletion discussions and deletion reviews concerning political candidates in that it appears that opponents of the candidate want to keep her article. Usually it is supporters of a candidate who want to keep the article. Either way, being a political candidate is not ipso facto notability, and general notability must be established. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- "Usually it is supporters of a candidate who want to keep the article." 100% unsupported speculative assertion. I am not from Australia and do not even know of this woman prior to seeing the AfD. That said, the subject has clear notability as well established by the many cited reliable sources and deep and not routine or passing coverage of the subject. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- On what basis do you claim that those supporting the article be kept are political opponents of the subject of the article? Cortador (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon, I !voted delete and I am by no means of supporter of the candidate. I'm merely an editor who thinks we reduce our creditability by allowing the hosting of pages dedicated to nobodies. TarnishedPathtalk 22:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I based my comment on [1] rather than anything in this DRV, and I concede that it was not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't live in her state and I'm not a member of any political party. My comment was to provide important context of why her coverage was significant and not the "routine" coverage any generic candidate would receive in an election (such as being included on lists of nominations, minor biographies from party sites or the AEC). I stand by my original call that this was a Type 3 Speed Keep. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn to keep due to the scope, volume, and duration of coverage. While she is a political candidate, she is not covered solely in that context. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, point 5 under "Deletion review should not be used" "to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion". Deletion reviews are not for repeating the same arguments already discussed in the original AfD, this is to discuss whether the admin was procedurally correct in interpreting consensus and closing the discussion in the way that they did. GraziePrego (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- As per closing statement, there has been no interpretation of consensus at all. The closer just stated that they decided to delete the article without noting what arguments convinced them to do that. Cortador (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't make any arguments at the AfD, so I can't possibly be repeating them. And no, DRV is not limited to procedural considerations; the most fundamental question is "Was the outcome correct?" which is a content decision and is the basis of my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, point 5 under "Deletion review should not be used" "to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion". Deletion reviews are not for repeating the same arguments already discussed in the original AfD, this is to discuss whether the admin was procedurally correct in interpreting consensus and closing the discussion in the way that they did. GraziePrego (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. (Involved) As per WP:DRVPURPOSE, the point of a deletion review is not to relitigate the arguments made during the AfD, as many of the “Overturn” votes here are doing. The only argument to consider is “did the closer interpret consensus correctly”, and I believe they did. I certainly don’t believe the argument that the appellant and others have made that’s essentially accusing the closer of being lazy or scared of confrontation. GraziePrego (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse I see no issue with the closing, it was entirely appropriate to be merged with an existing draft space article on the same where it can be developed appropriately and assessed before becoming an article. Gnangarra 10:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Bearcat's and ITBF's delete comments are particularly well thought out, and go into detail on why the article should be deleted. There aren't really any equivalently well thought out keep comments. Most just assert that the article meets GNG without a good explanation, if any. It seems many of the people who voted keep just want an axe to grind rather than wanting to improve Wikipedia. Steelkamp (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. I would not be entirely opposed to a relist for a deeper assessment of the sources, but from the discussion, I do not see a "clear" pass of GNG or an "obvious" lack of consensus as alleged by the nominator (of this review). I do not see a reason to strongly weigh one side more, although AfD participants, both for and against, could have expanded on more detail on their views on routineness of coverage, which is typically the primary issue in unelected-candidate cases (I see it was mentioned 4 times, in only 3 of the close to 90 comments).
- In my view, it is well within discretion for an administrator to judge the discussion as having sufficiently assessed the sources, and that the overall assessment is in the negative. If an administrator instead judges the source assessment in the discussion as inadequate, I would suggest that relisting with instructions to address the perceived inadequacy be the best option, and while closing as no consensus might also be valid, I would consider it less preferred. I do not see any way that the discussion could reasonably be closed as keep based on the discussion, and I decline to make an independent review of the sources, as out of scope for this review unless someone wants to argue there were sources not considered. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse as an evaluation of consensus well within the closer's discretion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment few if any of the pile on "Endorse" comments address the notion that "No consensus" really looked to have been the best close prior, and one that would have avoided wasting all of the additional editors time in coming to this appeal. The discussion need not center around "Keep" versus "Delete", but realize instead that the "No consensus" close would likely have been, and still would be, the best and most accurate close for this discussion. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes that has been addressed. Endorse editors have stated that the delete !votes were of better quality than the keep !votes. TarnishedPathtalk 23:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
The deletionist participants in the discussion cited reasons such as "pseudohistorical," "neologism," or "close paraphrasing" — issues that should have been addressed on the article’s talk page or referred to WP:CCI. There was a lack of focus on actual the topic and instead the discussion veered into discussing unimportant and irrelevant issues. Had the arguments been based solely on the sources provided, there would not have been a need for this DRV, even if the article had been deleted. However, the arguments presented clearly contradicted the sources, which offer extensive coverage and support 'Sikh-Barelvi War' as the most appropriate title." AlvaKedak (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Procedural close - The OP hasn't notified the AfD[2] of this discussion. CharlesWain (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- The appellant notified the closer, and I've just added DRV notice on the AfD. Neither is a valid reason for a procedural close. Feel free to amend your !vote to address the merits of the case. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. I see a rough consensus to delete among the P&G-based arguments in that AfD. Some of the Keep votes carry no P&G weight at all, including the appellant's own "Speedy keep". An accusation of bad-faith AfD nomination is not a valid criterion for a SK close per WP:SK, especially without evidence supporting this accusation. Similarly, "No WP:BEFORE" is not a reason to keep an article after valid Delete arguments have already been entered. Having been a potential FA candidate is neither here nor there. Owen× ☎ 15:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse - Good closure, the article failed WP:GNG and was created under a neologism invented by the author and therefore pseudohistorical. It was entirely plagiarised from the sources. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. I also see a rough consensus to delete. With the exception of Rangers Rus, the "keep" advocates did not have a strong P&G basis for their !votes. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Dclemens1971: Vague wave is not a rough consensus, and shouldn't be seen like it. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse close with the the ability to recreate an article (possibly under Sikh Barelvi War or Syed Barelvi holy war against Sikhs per RangersRus and through the AFC process). Copyright violations are a sufficient reason to remove a page. --Enos733 (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Enos733: But there was no copyright violation. If there had been, it would've been speedily deleted. It's really not hard to understand that close paraphrasing can be a subjective case, unless an admin gets involved and gives their nod to delete the copyrighted part. Shakakarta (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse (closing admin) I have reread the discussion and don't see any other way I could have closed it but have no issue with this being opened. AlvaKedak, I don't think you meant anything by your use of "deletionist participants" and English may not be your first language, but that can be a loaded phrase here. In future discussions I'd suggest: "those who vote to delete" or similar language. Star Mississippi 01:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. Deletion review is for cases where deletion process has not been properly followed, not for where you merely disagree with the outcome reached. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn (involved) - I would differ from the closer, we have dozens of pages for the coverage, which have been provided in the AfD. For the sake of verification ease, here are the sources:
- www.DiscoverSikhism.com. History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore (Maharaja Ranjit Singh, 1799-1839). pp. 159–167.
- Khān, Mu'Īn-Ud-Dīn Aḥmad (1968). "Sayyid Aḥmad Shahīd's Campaign Against the Sikhs". Islamic Studies. 7 (4): 317–338. ISSN 0578-8072.
- Adeem (2019-12-18). Sayyid Ahmad Barailvi His Movement And Lagacy From The Pukhtun Perspective By Dr. Altaf Qadir. pp. 54–191.
Given the sizable ammount of coverage, arguments indeed looked puny. The sources could have easily satisfied a non-partisan !voter. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Userfy or Overturn: Gone through the sources, which pretty much has a significant build up. Another AfD of the user was closed as keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Kangra in which the same copyright issue was raised but that was unfounded and unnecessary in regards to the AFD. Shakakarta (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Endorse. This wasn't the easiest discussion to parse, but there was policy-based support for the closer's reading of consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- An undocumented feature of Wikipedia deletion decisions is that there are actually two kinds of "delete".
- If we decide to delete something for a content reason, such as (for example) there are no acceptable sources, then the content is deleted and may not be recreated until new sources emerge. We might call this a Type I deletion.
- If we decide to delete something for a user conduct reason, such as (for example) it's irretrievably promotional or advocational, or the copyright issues are simply too rife to fix, then the content is deleted but can be recreated by a good faith editor. We might call this a Type II deletion.
- This was a Type II because it was the close paraphrasing that sunk it. So an "endorse" here isn't a final murder of the article's chances. It should be userfied to any good faith editor on request to enable them to fix it.—S Marshall T/C 03:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Overturn as per the sources. I initially thought to endorse the closure but checked out the books given and the last one had 100+ pages of coverage, only for the broader conflict. So in my opinion, it's an important topic to fill the gap, issues such as cleanups, copyediting, grammar or close paraphrasing which existed could be solved by draftifying, also support renaming it to Sikh Barelvi War𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 02:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
This page was speedily deleted under WP:G4 because the page was deleted in 2024 for a lack of coverage in reliable sources. This page should not have been speedily deleted because the current version of it is much different than the page from 2024, containing more references covering the article's subject, such this article in The Atlantic. I contested the speedy deletion on the talk page but it was speedily deleted without addressing what I mentioned. Cyrobyte (talk) 14:51, 11 April 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 can't really imagine how it was decided the the founder of The Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music at New York University, now (several years after the deletion) Dean of the University of Southern California Thornton School of Music is not notable. ("Journalist" is long-outdated as a description, though he was one once.) Article may have been under-cited, or something like that, but he's a pretty heavy hitter. I would think that just founding the Clive Davis Institute (literally a unique institution within American academia) would be enough to make him unquestionably notable, and he is now dean of a department with roughly 1000 students and over 150 faculty members. Here's the page about him on USC's site: https://music.usc.edu/jason-king/ I don't maintain a watchlist on en-wiki, so if someone wants my specific attention, please ping me. Jmabel | Talk 02:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I disagree with this merger. There was sustained, specific and detailed coverage, as documented by Raskolnikov.Rev(link) Huldra (talk) 22:43, 9 April 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 draft was a product of an edit-a-thon where there should be ongoing improvement. Participants are recommended at the event to submit their drafts for review directly. However, most of them should be further developed. --1233 ( T / C） 16:21, 8 April 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 was alerted on my own talk page that I closed this one prematurely, having received only 1 !vote and not being a clear-cut WP:OCYEAR; the concern was that it is anachronistic because Switzerland did not exist at the time. In any case, it will need judgment from someone with knowledge of medieval history, other than the nominator. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |