![]() | Skip to: |
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.
Deletion review may be used:
Deletion review should not be used:
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Before listing a review request, please:
![]() | 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. |
{{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:
|
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:
Examples of opinions for an article that had been deleted:
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.)
Global company with more than 10000 employees. Innumerable credible inline news sources and books . New articles with new sources , should not be deleted due to old article as innumerable credible sources have emerged 121.242.91.74 ( talk) 06:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
A non-admin closure was performed after just two days on grounds of WP:SNOW, which is disallowed under WP:NACAFD. While I don't disagree with the outcome, there were several "redirect" !voters in the discussion who (a) might have changed their !votes on their own premise (once opinion polls began to be available) or (b) perhaps had reasons to maintain their positions during the remaining discussion period, who knows. Given the procedural error, I propose re-opening the discussion and allowing an admin to interpret whether a SNOW closure is appropriate. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 12:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | |||||
A user SNOW-closed a discussion after just 5 hours, so short some people in certain time zones can’t respond, and on their talk page, refused to re-open the discussion. And while keepers cited how BIO1E does not apply, this does not take into consideration the WP:RECENTISM concerns, which went unaddressed. Downerr2937 ( talk) 17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
| |||||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
G14 is not applicable, Joseph Beuys does disambiguate the term "Beuys". Paradoctor ( talk) 15:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
A redirect that ends in "(disambiguation)" but does not redirect to a disambiguation page or a page that performs a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).While a hatnote does provide disambiguation, the page itself does not function as a disambiguation page (such as set index article or list). Such redirects with
{{
R to disambiguation}}
are expressly intended for use in links from other articles that need to refer to the disambiguation page. Using this redirect in such a context to identify an intentional disambiguation would be misleading if not outright incorrect. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
While a hatnote does provide disambiguation, the page itself does not function as a disambiguation page
I think the arguments put forward by the participants to deletion discussion do not conform to the Wikipedia guidelines. The main argument was that if the article was not notable it would not have so many sources -I think the issue is not the quantity of sources but the engagement with the subject. The article has many sources that simply reproduce each other, without going deeper.. Also, I pointed out that the sources that do exist do not refer to the party but to its leader, which is not the same thing.
I have the impression that the user who closed the discussion was just counting votes not arguments. D.S. Lioness ( talk) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I am not challenging the closure per se, but as I want the redirect's suitability reviewed, and recreating it is presently impossible, as the page is create protected. Consider this a criterion 3 or
WP:IAR nomination. Of course, if recreation is allowed, the redirect can still be challenged with a new RfD nom; I just don't think a 13 year old discussion should permanently block off re-evaluation. If you want to know why I would like this redirect to exist, it is for the same reason existing cross-namespace redirects like
cite web and
cite book exist:
Even if you disagree with my reasoning, a new RfD should be held to debate about it. Mach61 14:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
This is presumably what is being appealed, but it is entirely unrelated to the RfDEven if the page wasn't salted, a recreation of the redirect would fall under G4. Better safe than sorry
an editor who has not yet learned about namespaces is not yet ready to deal with even basic template syntax (and template:Infobox person uses some pretty advanced syntax)I would dispute that. In the source editor, infoboxes have code that resemble the finished product (a vertical list of fields and values), and the visual editor holds editor's hands with the TemplateData system. As an AfC reviewer, I have seen many more instances of broken citations than broken infoboxes, and I recall being able to "successfully" vandalize an infobox as a young child.
{{Infobox person
| name = Halle Berry
| image = Halle Berry by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg
| caption = Berry in 2017
| birth_name = Maria Halle Berry
{{#invoke:infobox|infoboxTemplate|child={{{child|{{{embed|}}}}}}
| bodyclass = biography vcard
| above = {{#if:{{{honorific prefix|{{{honorific_prefix|{{{honorific-prefix|{{{pre-nominals|}}}}}}}}}}}}|<div class="honorific-prefix" style="font-size: 77%; font-weight: normal;">{{{honorific prefix|{{{honorific_prefix|{{{honorific-prefix|{{{pre-nominals|}}}}}}}}}}}}</div>}}<div class="fn">{{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}</div>{{#if:{{{honorific suffix|{{{honorific_suffix|{{{honorific-suffix|{{{post-nominals|}}}}}}}}}}}}|<div class="honorific-suffix" style="font-size: 77%; font-weight: normal;">{{{honorific suffix|{{{honorific_suffix|{{{honorific-suffix|{{{post-nominals|}}}}}}}}}}}}</div>}}
| abovestyle = {{{abovestyle|}}}
The article was deleted and directed to redirect because it was unsourced. However, the subject has become notable now with his multiple lead roles in Kandy Twist, Pandya Store, Suhaagan (TV series) and his prominent role in Awasthy Vs Awasthy. I have created a draft Draft:Akshay_Kharodia which supports all these roles with reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES but a reviewer has rejected the draft. Please move the draft to the mainspace and relist it in AFD. 202.41.10.107 ( talk) 05:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
vexatious litigationas it appears to have been made in good faith. Frank Anchor 11:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The article is a redirect to the page of one of her shows. Now she has already done several significant roles and is also playing the lead in Suhaagan (TV series). Ideally a recreation of the article should be allowed. 202.41.10.107 ( talk) 06:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not sure what should be done here. If the closer really felt that the keep votes should have been discounted as mentioned and that there was "a clear consensus to delete", then it should be deleted. The given merge target was only suggested by one person and thus feels like a supervote. Moreover, the given target very clearly won't support the giant off-topic stats dump that this would bring to it. As desperate as relists can be sometimes, maybe that would be better here to get some more eyes on this. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 13:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Thetreesarespeakingtome. At the very least, this article could be merged to NCAA Division III independent schools.It includes no details beyond the destination's title and makes no argument for merging, so it should be given very little weight toward a merge outcome.
Closer did not allow adequate time for new voices to engage in discussion after AfD was re-listed for that express purpose. Closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly Rockycape ( talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days. There is no need to keep that AfD open just to give the appellant more time to bludgeon participants. Owen× ☎ 10:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
stopping someone from edit/move in advance of something going into the draft space seems like over-reachit's not, because you continue to badger and prove you don't respect the community consensus that Down-ball is not notable. The alternative is you losing any access to edit it. Star Mississippi 00:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Rockycape ( talk) 04:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
So instead of the easy low blow of impugning my motives please take a look at yourself.and the ongoing bludgeoning. If it continues, I strongly suggest a p-block to allow consensus to form. Star Mississippi 01:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
I am requesting a review of the deletion of the page 1971 East Central State Academicals: Manuwa/Adebajo Cup. The page was deleted and moved to Draft:1971 East Central State Academicals season by reviewers User:CambridgeBayWeather and User:Classicwiki. I did not create this title or the content in the draft, which is invalid. The original content I created under "1971 East Central State Academicals: Manuwa/Adebajo Cup" meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. The move and deletion were done without proper consensus or discussion with me, the original creator.
-- Msogbueze 12:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |