Help
Book creator ( disable )

Wikipedia:Deletion review

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


Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
Formal review processes
For RfCs, community discussions,
and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Discussion about closes prior to closing:

Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. This includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. (This point formerly required first consulting the deleting admin if possible. As per this discussion an editor is not required to consult the closer of a deletion discussion (or the deleting admin for a speedy deletion) before starting a deletion review. However doing so is good practice, and can often save time and effort for all concerned. Notifying the closer is required.)
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or
  9. for uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Shortcut

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

 
1.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example: 

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2022 September 9}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

5.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2022 September 9}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2022 September 9|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review

Any editor may express their opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

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.

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. 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 finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

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
  • 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 nominations, if the nominator is repeatedly nominating the same page, or the page is listed at WP:DEEPER). These will usually be marked as "administrative close".



Active discussions

9 September 2022

8 September 2022

File:Jenny Wright Lawnmower Man publicity photo.jpg

File:Jenny Wright Lawnmower Man publicity photo.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Per WP:Non-free_content#Images_2, retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable. The image is a crop from a publicity photo for a movie. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • To satisfy the whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance part of the criterion there would need to be some content about how her appearance was relevant to her notability, but there is nothing even close to that currently in the Jenny Wright article (the article the NFUR on refers to). If you can add relevant content that supports the image then I'd be happy to send it to FFD for evaluation, but as it stands the speedy deletion was correct. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah. Generally we ask for reliably-sourced commentary in cases where we're contemplating making an exception to the items at WP:UUI - see for example items #4 and #5 there. The text quoted above is, literally, an example of such an exception. —Cryptic 02:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wikidemon, what is your interpretation of the language of this exception to the policy which you added in 2007? [1] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For clarity it is not an exception to the policy and as far as I can tell no one editor has been blessed (or cursed) with the authority to unilaterally declare an exception. As NFC is often confusing and contentious that guideline page contains examples of where something would not qualify, this is trying to update that example to ensure it covers the concept within the policy "that would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose", i.e. just assuming a freshly taken photo would be able to show the point being made may in some circumstances falls short. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse deletion for the reasons given by Thryduulf and Cryptic above. While it might be argued any actor's appearance could be a reason why they've gotten certain roles, it's not really the reason that most actors are considered Wikipedia notable. Not only is no there no sourced critical commentary of any type about Wright's appearance in general anywhere in the article that shows it is one of the main reasons for her success as an actor, there's such content stating her appearance is why she was chosen to be in The Lawnmower Man (film). In fact, there are only two brief mentions of Wright's appearance in the film: (1) the last sentence in the "Career" section and (2) an entry in the "Filmogaphy" table. According to the article about Wright, the first film she appeared in was in 1982 and The Lawnmover Man was in 1992 (which seems to be quite near the end of her career).
    For sure, Wright probably looks differently in 2022 than she did in 1992, and perhaps she looked differently in 1992 than she did in 1982; the same thing, however, could be pretty much said about any person whose still living today and whose peak career was decades ago. There have been some discussions about this type of non-free use at WT:NFCC in the past and consensus always seems to be that non-free images are simply not used because someone looks differently now then perhaps they did in their prime. Finally, one last thing to consider is that even the article about the film mentions Wright only twice by name and makes no mention of her appearance playing a part in her being cast; moreover, there's no sourced content about the appearance of any actor cast in the film being one of the reasons why they were chosen. I can't seen how any of the brief mentions of Wright and her association with film close even to being a sufficient justification (at least in my opinion) for using non-free use of a publicity photo of Wright from that film. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

5 September 2022

Magnifica VR

Magnifica VR (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was deleted due to speedy deletion which I don’t believe I got a chance to contest. I would love to get pointers as to what exactly was wrong with the article (as I checked both A7 and G11 and don’t agree with both of them). I’d like to have this deletion reverted if possible so I can fix the issues you have with the article. If restoration is not possible, I would like to get the page I created restored as a draft so I won’t lose my work and would be able to improve it before posting it again. I tried contacting the deleted administrator and got no answer. Oryanmoshe (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • FWIW, though JBW has edited a few times since you asked him, it's still only been about seven hours. I don't usually feel guilty if I put off answering similar requests on my own talk page so long as I respond within a day - you can't really assume that because he has enough time to do anything at all, that he has enough contiguous time and attention to give you a thorough answer.
    Anyway, on the merits, I agree with the A7 - unless someone can argue with a straight face that this constitutes significant coverage, since there wasn't a claim of importance in the article text - but the G11 is a stretch. I'm inclined to undelete and draftify. —Cryptic 22:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would add a correct claim of importance that satisfies the rules described in A7 exactly (I thought that the claim of importance was implicit and understandable, but I will add an explicit one as well to follow the rules)
    If possible, undeletion would be great as it would allow my to quickly fix the A7 issue without hassle.
    If you do feel some things need to change in regards to G11 I would be more than happy to do the changes, but would need some pointers for specific issues you can pinpoint that sound as unambiguous advertising.
    Thanks for the quick professional reply! Oryanmoshe (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Draftify. This very definitely did not meet G11 - the article was a neutral attempt at an encyclopaedia article and was not at all promotional; Praxidicae needs to reread the criteria again if they think that was an acceptable tagging. A7 however is a different matter, "The products are developed hand in hand with [...] government organizations [...]" and "CHATS was showcased [at the] HITS K9 Conference" are the only two statements that I can interpret as assertions of significance, and that's being generous. While I might not have tagged for A7, I can fully understand why others would and I'm not going to argue doing so was wrong, certainly it wasn't wrong enough to overturn. I see absolutely no reason not to allow someone who wants to work on this to do so in draft space though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have restored the page and moved it to Draft:Magnifica VR. I was planning to do that when I found time to write some detailed advice to the creator of the article, which would probably have been in a few hours from now, but in view of this review I have gone ahead with draftification. For what it's worth, I think it's close to the borderline for G11; I wouldn't have deleted it for that reason alone, and with hindsight it was probably a mistake not removing that from the deletion reasons for which the article was tagged when I deleted it. However, I stand by A7, and the searches which I did before deletion have convinced me that the topic does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JBW (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as A7 only. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as A7, having read the draft. I would decline the draft if it were submitted for review, as not telling what third parties say about the company. In my opinion, G11 is overused when notability is what is questioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of an A7. Deleting admins should not “stand by” A7 deletions. Alternatively, Draftify (note, already done) and remind all of WP:DRAFTOBJECT; the author or anyone a non-COI editor may move it back for it to be tested at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No. User:Oryanmoshe has a COI with the topic. They should not have written the article in mainspace. They may not mainspace the draft. They may edit the draft, and submit to AfC. If back in mainspace, they may only make suggestions on the talk page. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse A7, draftification is great casualdejekyll 14:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fitzgerald Bramble

Fitzgerald Bramble (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject of the article is now a national legislator, passing WP:NPOL. See coverage in local newspaper Searchlight: [2], [3],[4]. Also in The Vincentian:[5]. Joofjoof (talk)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse original deletion, but restore article given sources which show notability. GiantSnowman 15:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This did not need a DRV. Feel free to just recreate the article. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks, good to know this. I had assumed only speedy deletes could be recreated. Joofjoof (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No admin would G4 a recreated article citing those sources. The old version was a four-sentence stub, barely distinguishable from a bot-created database entry, that hadn't had so much as a word in its prose changed since the day it was created as a draft on 8 September 2019. Restoring it won't do a thing to help write an article that explains his current notability, though I'll userfy it for you without waiting for this week-long formal DRV to close if you really want it. —Cryptic 15:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks Cryptic, you can go ahead and userfy it. Joofjoof (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's at User:Joofjoof/Fitzgerald Bramble. —Cryptic 02:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation based on the new sources. Per User:Cryptic, there is little (if any) value to restoring the article history. Frank Anchor 16:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - Restored article in user space says nothing about political notability and would be deleted again. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article in user space is the old deleted version. I think it is reasonable to assume that User:Joofjoof would add in sourced content related to political notability before moving it into main space. Frank Anchor 12:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note. As closer, I have no problem with the idea of recreating the article as long as it's a real article, not the thing already deleted. I see that Joofjoof has already recreated the article without awaiting the results of this deletion review, though. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3 September 2022

Harry Potter's

Harry Potter's (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't want to make a big deal about this, but the closer Mbisanz has not made any edits since May 1st when they closed a bunch of discussions, including this one, so my inquiry on the closer's talk page has gone unanswered and has been archived. I don't believe there was consensus to retarget this redirect. It has been getting some sporadic use, so I'd like to see this addressed. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus (or, more specifically, "consensus to keep, no consensus to retarget"). The closer correctly realized that there wasn't a consensus to delete, but I don't see a consensus on the secondary issue of whether to retarget: Tavix made a reasonable point, Mdewman6 reasonably countered that point, and no other editor weighed in. When a discussion consists of two editors disagreeing, no consensus is the only possible closure unless one side's arguments are clearly at odds with policy (which wasn't the case here). And since this isn't one of the cases where no consensus can result in a retarget, the status quo should stand. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FWIW (it probably doesn't change the reading of the discussion anyhow, but...), I don't much remember opining on this one – but I think it unlikely I had an opinion as to the exact target, especially given that I don't have an opinion on that currently. Overturn to no consensus, default to status quo, even given that. J947 † edits 06:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to consensus to keep, no consensus to retarget per Extraordinary Writ. Tavix and Mdewman6 both made reasonable points and nobody else supported or countered either so no consensus is the only option. Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn not a good reading of the ivote discussion. Should be no consensus. Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • overturn. Non-obvious close with inadequate explanation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn per Extraordinary Writ. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Recent discussions

1 September 2022

List of compositions for viola: A to B

List of compositions for viola: A to B (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this AfD as "keep", although I could be persuaded to drop this to "no consensus" or to relist the AfD. However, my close was reverted by the nominator - WP:CLOSEAFD does not say to do that, but to come here instead. So I am pre-emptively starting a deletion review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree that the "Keep" votes were in any way stronger, nor did any of the people I responded to follow up on my criticisms. Gerda Arendt in particular provides little to no rationale other than "it's useful", "old", and that they admit they're biased. The only vote to make any sound argument is PianoDan, but I disagree with him as one of the main issues isn't the perceived notability of music for viola, just that having a list of something at such a macro-level isn't what Wikipedia is here for. If the list only had pieces for which Wikipedia had articles for, then I would not be opposed to keeping a single page (without it being spread over the current eight it is now; no other list on Wikipedia does that aside from this one as further proof of its indiscriminateness). However, that would not be the best move as categories can achieve the same basic goal of organizing articles on Wikipedia about viola music.
Furthermore, your decision to close it as "Keep" rather than relist it (the option I would've chosen as a vote was made recently, and the discussion was still ongoing) raises some questions. Not even all of the Delete votes (which outnumbered the Keep, mind you) simply pointed to a policy as you said. And even though some did, that just shows that the consensus is against indisciminate collections of repertoire such as this one in which less words suit the argument perfectly, rather than a wordy non-policy based reason to keep. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse Not a single policy-based deletion !vote to be found. "listcruft" isn't policy, and IINFO doesn't apply. Sandstein should know better. IINFO has four subsections; if you can't cite one, especially when discussing a list-class article, it's probably just an IDONTLIKEIT vote. "It's too long and comprehensive" is an inherent admission that, if consensus permitted, the list could be trimmed to notable entries, and thus, deletion is not the only option. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are four parts listed at IINFO, but those are not the only ones that constitute indiscriminate. You don't need to cite a specific one for something to be described as indiscriminate. Editor consensus has shown that overly large lists or very specific lists are indiscriminate. In fact there's other policies for this: WP:SALAT which states lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections and WP:NOT DIRECTORY which overtly specifies no simple listings. If there was a list of viola concertos or such that had only notable entries (e.g., cited/Wikipedia articles), then maybe I could live with that. Every viola piece ever, though, is silly. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Tellingly you correctly cite "consensus has shown" rather than "policy-based consensus has shown". NOTDIR doesn't apply either, as no one is suggesting it was or should be used as a directory. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, consensus has shown that the policy WP:IINFO can be applied to lists. I can find successful deletions of lists from 2006 that use IINFO as a rationale. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because IINFO has been misapplied for at least that long? Jclemens (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, because the community rightfully believes that indiscriminate listings fall under IINFO. A list of viola pieces, with the composer, date, etc., is data. A list of every viola piece ever without regards to notability or even types of compositions is indiscriminate. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If the community thinks that's "indiscriminate," then the community is wrong and needs to read WP:DISCRIMINATE. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Cool, and that's an essay that I and a substantial portion of the community disagree with. Other synonyms for indiscriminate include general, broad-based, or nonselective. Those can also be used to describe what people might use when calling a list indiscriminate. They wouldn't be wrong in doing so when a list such as this aims to include every viola piece ever. The essay boxes itself into one interpretation of a definition that not many agree with, and one that the actual policy itself disagrees with. An organized list of updates for Windows 10 or such would certainly be discriminate by the essay's definition. But it would be indiscriminate by the policy's own words. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - User:Why? I Ask - If you don't know the gender of a user and don't want to use the singular they, you can always use their name rather than guessing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Robert McClenon One-hundred percent my mistake; I swore that I saw someone refer to them with male pronouns one time. I must have misremembered. My honest mistake. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Endorse - There does not really appear to be a consensus to Keep, and maybe the close should be overturned to No Consensus, but what is the point to that? Duh. And this appeal is only being considered because the closer chose voluntarily to request Deletion Review, when they could reasonably instead have reported the reversion of the closure at WP:ANI. Reverting a closure is very much the wrong way to disagree with the closure of an AFD. That's two salmonids for the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would be perfectly fine with a No Consensus (although a re-list would be preferred considering new comments were trickling in). The issue is that deletion outcomes set precedents, especially considering that not many repertoire lists have been nominated for deletion. It was my mistake to revert the outcome even though I disagreed with it. I figured if I did it quickly enough and re-listed for a more clear consensus, there wouldn't be an issue; I really didn't want to waste more time with a deletion review (especially considering I felt the rationale for closing as a Keep over No Consensus or Re-listing was exceptionally weak). Why? I Ask (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse because Ritchie had a reasonable close after a reading of rationales. Two of the delete arguments were based on the essay: WP:LISTCRUFT and the others were of the driveby variety. The keep rationales were comprehensive. One could argue for a no consensus close, but that distinction would not change the outcome of keep. Lightburst (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    And I would like a "No Consensus" close if you had read the above. Either way, several Keep votes also neglected to base their arguments on any policy. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse keep close, NC also possible. There were reasonable if debatable arguments for keep. There were a few reasonable if debatable arguments for delete based largely on being just an indiscriminate list of information. There were numerous delete arguments quoting "listcruft", which can be assigned minimal weight: "listcruft" is a nonspecific, pejorative word, at best indicating uselessness or superfluousness, at worst just IDONTLIKEIT. It is given 10 possible meanings, quite different in nature, in the essay WP:LISTCRUFT. Absent greater clarity (and evidence of actually engaging with the list and/or the article), it is reasonable for the closer to discount poorly articulated votes like these. Martinp (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse – per WP:CSC, every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia, and that unequivocally rejects the "indiscriminate collection" argument. The close reflects good judgement in keeping this list as it is a notable encyclopedic topic with value to our readers. Atsme 💬 📧 10:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It does now that I've edited it; it didn't at the time. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (keep or no consensus), although I read “no consensus” with “delete” not being a possible reading. Advise Why? I Ask to read WP:RENOM, although if I were at the AfD I would argue against deletion in favour of merged the many repertoire into one sortable table. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I just thought I'd add that this article, which resulted in a Keep decision at the AFD, has already been altered, massively, by Why? I Ask since this Deletion reivew was started. It has been massively stripped of content, merged and turned into a redirect before this DR discussion has even been closed. I guess if you don't get your way in an AFD discussion to delete an article, you can just remove 90% of the content of a page and turn it into a redirect instead. This seems very inappropriate especially since the editor initiated this deletion review but I guess was too impatient to wait for a closure or they didn't care for the direction this discussion was headed in. I'd vote for Article restoration to the status of the article, and any other articles listed in the AFD, when the AFD was originally closed and revert these huge changes in content. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I didn't initiate the deletion review, mind you, and the list that existed prior was overly large and lacked any references. I believe it's WP:Burden that says you can add them back with reliable sources that demonstrate notability. And I really don't care where this discussion goes; my goal is to build an encyclopedia. It's not to sit around and wait. The result of the discussion was that lists of repertoire can be encyclopedic. That, I'll yield. I personally just wanted it result in a delete for a TNT. But including over 10,000 entries by composers who have not even had that piece recorded is not what Wikipedia is here for. I plan to expand it back a little bit with reliable sources in the future, but for now, it can at least contain the list of viola compositions for which Wikipedia has a page for. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, that's called WP:FAIT and is a form of WP:DE, specifically point 1. Please take the opportunity to restore the article to the post-close status yourself, now that you have been notified your actions were at best premature. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's nothing that says I can't edit a page while discussions are open. The old version did not comply with Wikipedia policy or guidelines (check either WP:CSC or, more generally, WP:VER). Furthermore, there seemed to be a general consensus against deleting the list, but merging it down to what is provided by reliable sources (per Tim Riley and Smokey Joe). If you want it reverted, then please, provide reliable citations for each entry that declare its notability. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (P.S., check what term WP:CSC uses in the first bullet point to describe what this method prevents.) Why? I Ask (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Those arguing for keep explained, generally in detail, why the list had merit and how it could be improved with editing to resolve the few issues. With the exception of the nominator, none of those arguing for deletion even attempted to refute those detailed arguments. No consensus would have been within the closer's discretion but keep imo does better reflect the consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming)

Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per this discussion with the closer, although the Keep !votes cite WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG, no actual sources that provide significant coverage or "information beyond coordinates and statistics" as required by those guidelines have been shown to exist. The only source aside from topo maps and GNIS is a brief passing mention in a guide to local climbing routes. Simply citing a guideline is not enough; there must be evidence that the article actually meets that guideline, and it is the closer's responsibility to disregard arguments that do not do so. This should be a Relist with a comment that editors seeking to keep the article need to provide sources. –dlthewave ☎ 17:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Relist No sources at all were demonstrated that would make the article pass notability criteria, AfD nominations are WP:NOTAVOTE and should not be closed as Keep due to WP:VAGUEWAVE assertions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse the consensus was clear. Lightburst (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. This is not the place to discuss again the close on the merits. Since I've already asserted keep in this process, my non-neutral view is apparent but we do agree that the central issue of the discussion WAS concerning significant coverage. The question is one of sufficiency or adequacy, which is a reasonable measurement to argue. User:Dlthewave's nomination statement makes an assertion that such coverage was insufficient (so they prodded), then after the page creator User:MONGO (an editor with many years and many more FA's in the arena of North American physical geography) removed the prod and added several sources, Dlthewave nominated the somewhat improved page (and many such other pages) at AfD, and the head count didn't go in their direction, a larger number happening to assert the sufficiency of the sources already applied, a reasonable position to take. Doczilla closed and weighted as they felt accurately measured the discussion. All this is accurate and hard to dispute. There are questions still to be resolved, in chronological order: 1) Why did Dlthewave fail to ask MONGO about the sourcing before the prod? 2) Why did Dlthewave choose to nominate for deletion so quickly, given the page was in the process of being improved by the page creator? 3) Why did Dlthewave fail to engage with me as requested after I asked them to stop prodding or nomming similar pages (which they kindly did) until we had discussed the the central issue, SIGCOV. I was actually expecting and hoping for a discussion why we disagreed on the central issue (In a comment had used the term judgement, which I knew was bold), but they failed to discuss. Reasonable cases were made, and Dlthewave's position in this DRV case is virtually identical to their position in the AfD discussion. Procedurally, this seems a reasonable close. I wouldn't have any difficulty with a relist, if such was the outcome. BusterD (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse - There was enough participation so that a Relist was not required, and there was a consensus to Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I ask how you assessed that consensus and why the Keep !votes carry the weight in your opinion? –dlthewave ☎ 02:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Dlthewave - You have asked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, how did you assess that consensus and why do the Keep !votes carry the weight in your opinion? –dlthewave ☎ 04:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse keep closure. I recognize that the notability of very small natural geographical features can be debated, but there was a clear majority against deletion, so I cannot read out a consensus to delete here. Those who voted "keep" did cite the relevant WP:GEOLAND guideline, and they were not ignoring anything very significant in so doing. Nor is there any policy reason that mandates deletion here, since the articles do meet WP:V and WP:NOR policies. The article is short, and there may not be so much material to expand the article further, but encyclopedias in general have plenty of short articles. I see nothing to fault the result of the close here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree there was no consensus to delete, but a majority is not relevant to whether there was also a consensus to keep. The question is not whether to overturn to delete (which would be unjust) but whether to overturn to "relist". The nominator of the DRV specifically says "This should be a Relist". Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relist - I disagree that consensus was clear. A majority opinion was but this did not take adequate account of WP:NOTAVOTE. To achieve consensus a discussion is required per WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, and I think the discussion here is incomplete because policy based reasons were raised as to why the article should be deleted that were not addressed as described above. It clearly is the case that more people wanted to retain than to delete, but that is not the same thing as consensus, and ending this case as a keep without even relisting for an additional week of discussion does beg the question why anyone should engage in a time consuming process of hunting for sources and, on finding there are insufficient, taking the effort to check the policy arguments and make a response challenging interpretation of the policy thus far cited, based on the text of the policy, if the case is already won, simply because enough people have simply stated a page meets policy without evidencing it. An alternative to relist is to overturn the decision to "no consensus". Consensus was not achieved. I also note that in a response above there is mention of the number of FAs an editor has, and this is indicative of some of the discussions around this and related nominations. It appears that some of the judgement may be forming around the personality and achievements of the editors involved. Although understandable, the decisions should be based on the quality of the arguments and not who is making them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please forgive me for unduly characterizing the page creator, someone, I'll grant, I have had positive interactions with over the years. I happen to know of their vast experience in this content area. On the issue of sufficient RS I have ample reason to trust their judgement more than I might trust the nominator's judgement, which I have questioned. I requested and gave a chance to the nominator to convince me otherwise in this very reviewed procedure, but they chose to avoid entering the arena entirely. BusterD (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But again, the judgement of the nominator in making the nomination is not relevant at deletion review. The question for DRV is whether the close adequately reflected the consensus (or lack of it). In this AfD, it seemed like too many people were indeed prepared to trust the judgement of another editor when making their !vote. That is not the way it is supposed to work. I completely understand why it happens; I am not criticising anyone here, but questioning whether the arguments were fully considered. I am not saying we overturn to delete here - I am saying that the discussion is unfinished because all we have is a set of perfectly understandable judgement calls. Perfectly understandable, but insufficient to demonstrate significant coverage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. I did not vote in this discussion, but if I had, I would have voted delete. However, I agree that the consensus in the discussion was to keep. Even though I thought the keep arguments were weak, they were valid arguments and the close was a proper reading of their participation. Jacona (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. The discussion had a consensus to keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. While User:Sirfurboy🏄 pointed out seemingly valid points against keeping the article, I think, in a broad sense, there was a leaning towards a keep consensus. Joesmithroots (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse – the close was accurately based on WP:PAG, specifically CONTN, NEXIST and GEOLAND. Atsme 💬 📧 09:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse per Sjakkalle and Atsme. Brunton (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse' The article meets GEOLAND and it appears the closer did more than just do a vote count.--MONGO (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also added a passage and two more references. Sorry this article is not about Lake Superior or Lake Baikal as there would of course be more coverage.--MONGO (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. Could not have been closed as “delete”. Read advice at WP:RENOM. —-SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The deletion review requests relist, not delete. WP:RENOM refers to renomination of a page for deletion and not DRV. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Deny relist. The nomination did not persuade enough others. Maybe a better nomination would help. A relist, which means the same nomination, would be hopeless. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer correctly interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I am disappointed to see the nominator here, yet again, challenging unambiguous AfD closes that didn't go their way. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse I'll say it again since this is the third or fourth time we've been through this with this particular editor. The fact that you disagree with consensus does not make it not consensus. This was unambiguous. No way it could have been closed any other way. If you disagree with consensus, that's fine, but it was clearly closed in accordance with consensus. You can't start a DRV every time you disagree with the close. This has to stop. Smartyllama (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

31 August 2022

Miraz

Miraz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin incorrectly interpreted the discussion as no consensus. The AFD was already showing a reasonable consensus to redirect based on policy and evidence. After a re-listing admin directly asked "if the page should be redirected instead"[6], the new comments all supported a redirect (with some leaning merge vs delete). There was a consensus to redirect the article, and the AFD should have been closed as redirect, not no consensus. Jontesta (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Overturn to Redirect, discussion was a pretty clear consensus to redirect; discussion mostly broke down to "This article meets GNG" Vs. "No it doesn't", with both sides advancing reasonable arguments for their point. As such, given the !vote was 8-4 in favour of not keeping the article, with 6 of those 8 advocating a redirect and the remaining 2 advocating deletion, it should definitely be redirected. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as a valid conclusion by the closer. It is true that there were more editors calling to delete or redirect than to keep. It is also true that !voting is not purely numeric. Closer's comment about where to redirect is noted. The appellant can make another nomination in two months. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect - there was a consensus to redirect here. I would discourage Robert McClenon's suggestion that someone re-nominate this, as it's best to strive for consensus and avoid more WP:BATTLEGROUND discussions. At best, the closing admin closed it prematurely, when a consensus was forming not unlike the DRV below. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse: There's good arguments made on both sides, and with four keeps, six redirects and one delete, I don't see a consensus here. It should be noted that a delete is not the same as a redirect, so I wouldn't count any delete votes the same as a redirect vote. MoonJet (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD participants often remind each other, it is not a vote, so highlighting the perceived numerical advantage for the redirect position against the keep one without any context is irrelevant. And if further discussion on the talk page would supposedly lead to more battleground behavior among editors whom I presume are preoccupied with improving the contents of related articles, then I would seriously question the maturity of said participants and whether they should continue to participate in any and all contentious discussions on Wikipedia at all. Unless consensus about the purpose of AfD's change, the fact remains that AfD's are not supposed to be a one-stop solution for any and all issues about articles, especially those of an editorial nature. Closer's decision is valid and does not preclude another AfD to take place in a later time. Haleth (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus closure because there wasn't consensus. The argument was basically a "this article meets GNG" vs. "this article does not meet GNG" argument, and a numerical advantage for the redirect/delete side does not trump the relative even strength in the arguments. Frank Anchor 13:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse as involved. The appellant/nominator is as incorrect in the appeal as in the original nomination. The closer correctly assessed, I presume, that the redirect !votes were policy-based but not fact-based: the article as it stands now meets GNG, and more sources were brought up in the AfD that could have additionally been used. The changes during the AfD addressed every single policy-based reasons for deletion. As the closer said, a redirect discussion can be started on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Closer comment I stand by my close. Not only do I not see a consensus for redirect, but I don't even see consensus on a topic to redirect it to. Star Mississippi 00:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse a classic no consensus. Good close from an experienced closer. Lightburst (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Willoughby Kipling

Willoughby Kipling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer interpreted the discussion incorrectly when closing as no consensus; the AfD was relisted once, and after this relist a total of seven editors weighed in, all of whom advocated for the article to be redirected and advanced legitimate reasons for it to be redirected. Given this there was a clear consensus to redirect the article, and the AfD should have been closed as redirect, not no consensus. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Close as redirect: This is unequivocally a consensus to redirect. I can respect that it wasn't unanimous, but there was overwhelming support for a redirect, from editors, policy, and evidence. A redirect also pushes editors back towards the editing process to address the best way to cover topics without stand-alone notability. Jontesta (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Close as redirect, but noting that I'm WP:INVOLVED as I voted for redirect. There are 5 votes for keep, 9 votes for redirect (plus 1 vote for delete and 1 vote for merge), making the total keep votes 5, total merge/redirect votes 10, and delete vote 1. I'm unconvinced that the keep side has a clearly better argument, as they insist these four refs are meeting GNG, some of them (Jclemens, MoonJet) are potentially convincing despite my strong disagreement, but the rest are just assertions that it passes GNG. I'm iffy on why this was closed as no consensus, as redirect seems to have a clear numerical majority, and the arguments for redirect is at the very least as strong as the ones who voted keep. VickKiang (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and Redirect: The AFD was relisted once, as the initial discussion was split between keeping, merging, and redirecting, and the hope was that a clearer consensus between those three options would generate. This very much happened, as every one of the seven new commenters after the relist, myself included, advocated for the Redirect option. While I appreciate that Jclemens and MoonJet did respond to one of the redirect supporters, their comments did not really present any new argument that was not already presented in the initial discussion before the relist and the wave of relist arguments appeared. Closing the AFD as a No Consensus rather than as a Redirect is basically just ignoring the very clear consensus that emerged after the relist. Rorshacma (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and redirect Per Jontesta's reasoning and others. All the presented sources were pretty much shot down as trivial coverage, so I'm not sure how it would be enough to overrule numerous redirect opinions. WP:CIR and part of that is being able to distinguish a significant source (on the part of the !voters who are attempting to argue for notability). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Overturn to Redirect - In this case, consensus was clearly moving toward a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Redirect per my previous argument, 9 redirects to 5 keeps seems like a rough consensus. Note that history should be preserved (WP:SOFTDELETE), and that the article has not been improved (which would merit a revision of the older votes). Given no improvement, just some disputed sources presented in the AfD, abiding by the numerical rough 2:1 consensus seems the right thing to do. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn and redirect - As a rule of thumb, a re-list is basically like a new discussion, and every editor agreed to re-direct. Even accounting for the few keep !votes from the earlier part of the discussion, a redirect is a consensus alternative to deletion that avoids retreading the issue in another WP:BATTLEGROUND. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse (as involved) four non-trivial RS means it's notable, no matter that they may, in fact, say substantially the same thing and that they all focus on one adaptation of the character. No objection to any discussion resulting in merger or redirection, but there's no policy-based justification for it to be an AfD-mandated outcome. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Closer comment I'm fine with this being re-closed as redirect in way fewer than seven days if consensus is clear here. I will be on and offline with the holiday weekend. I had considered closing it as redirect, but I felt that would have been erring close to to a supervote and a n/c but go finish this amongst yourselves seemed fairer read personally. For future, @Devonian Wombat: feel free to come to my Talk to discuss a close. We don't always need seven (more) days of bureaucracy. Star Mississippi 00:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Eh, NC or redirect were reasonable closes, keep may have been too. The argument comes down to sources and I felt both sides had a reasonable viewpoint though I think the sources are enough over the bar that keep had the stronger argument. endorse as I think the closer got to the outcome that best represented the discussion. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

30 August 2022

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Amar Jit Singh Sandhu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Action not required. several edits were made to the article. Article required. Dvj1992 (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Overturn. It is very significant article with relation to Indian history. The article has a significant secondary source, where a chapter was dedicated to the Person. also several sources including primary sources were mention it is appaling that the article was deleted. Several edits were made. Ten refrences were made. Article should be restored. Dvj1992 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's implied when you start a DRV that you think the close should be overturned. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support closer. Clear consensus.Onel5969 TT me 17:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse Every participant except the DRV nominator supported deletion. WP:ITSIMPORTANT and arguments that should have been raised in the AfD are not convincing at DRV, where your job is to argue that the closure itself did not reflect the consensus the discussion had come to. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse close, but undelete draft. It is hard to read the AFD discussion as anything other than delete; there is no indication the discussion or its close were faulty. It seems the article creator(?) feels strongly the subject "deserves" an article, but the sourcing was not up to snuff. That all said, I am sensitive that EN:WP notability assessments can lead to a bias against subjects in developing economies. At the same time Indian sources not infrequently suffer from editorial independence issues that non-Indians find hard to parse as well. If the creator/appellant is passionate about this article, no harm in letting them try working further on a draft, and for sourcing to be calmly evaluated in the less under-the-gun atmosphere of draft-for-promotion rather than article-for-deletion. It seems such a draft existed, at least one AFD participant suggested not touching it, but it was nuked after the article AFD close. Martinp (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse, discussion could not have been closed any other way. No problem restoring draft. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Endorse closure as deletion of article. Closure was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn deletion of draft. The AFD did not say to delete the draft (and I said not to delete it in the AFD). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - When both a draft and an article exist, and the article is deleted at AFD, should the draft normally be deleted, or kept for possible improvement? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Since it's not immediately obvious, and to save other admins the irritation of tracking it down, the draft was misplaced at Draft:AJS. The author's second-last revision to that page was marked "Requesting deletion" (as can be seen by nonadmins in the move log from its previous title). All that was left at Draft:Amar Jit Singh Sandhu was the redirect created from another page move. —Cryptic 04:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      There was a objection by someone that both an article and a draft existed so I requested that the draft be deleted. Now the draft is gone and the Article has been deleted as well. All data has been lost. Dvj1992 (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Overturn restore article as the it contained information about an important personality of Indian Armed forces. The subject of article had taken part in several engagements with the enemy. An entire chapter was dedicated to him in a book recently published and he finds mention in Indian air force documentries as well. All this information was atteched and cited in the article. Several edits were made by multiple users as the objections were raised in the Talk page. All comments were replied to. Some of the editors dont seem to understand that Indian follows the british system of awards were the bar is set extremely high. only one menber of the Indian airforce has received the highest War time gallentry award till date. It is very rare to see a Indian airforce officer decorated twice in two years. Dvj1992 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't keep "voting". Your nomination statement is your vote. Feel free to comment but please stop voting "Overturn". Your opinion is very clear. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 August 2022

Lovejoy (band)

Lovejoy (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that there is much more information and many more sources available for Lovejoy since it was removed and changed to a redirect. A redirect to simply their discography won't explain who the band is or what they do. Per WP:BAND, Lovejoy meets criteria 2, for appearing on various counties national music charts, and criteria 10, for appearing on Crywank's complication album Here You Go, You Do It (Crywank are notable, and have their own Wikipedia page). Lovejoy has also performed concerts. All this information, and more, is available (with sources), on the Draft article I made for Lovejoy. I would like this to be reviewed, commented on (if required) and hopefully moved to the articlespace if it fits the criteria. Thanks! Strugglehouse (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't think that's a challenge to the original XfD closure, which I endorse, but if sufficient reliable sources have been located to merit inclusion under WP:N then I've no objection to a new article being created. Looking through the references at the draft article, I'm struggling to spot many that aren't primary or passing mentions though. The Sportskeeda articles might just about cut it.
WaggersTALK 11:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Review Draft as per my AFC comments on draft. If the reviewer finds that musical notability is satisfied, accept draft with round-robin swap. Redirect should not be deleted but should be moved if draft is accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Allow recreation, but only via AfC. I think the AfC submission was correctly declined (note also that Sportskeeda is generally unreliable), but if you can find some higher-quality sourcing, resubmit the draft, and convince an AfC reviewer that the band is notable, I have no objections to recreation. But as it stands, I don't think the sourcing we have at present is quite sufficient for a stand-alone article, mostly for the reasons given by the AfC reviewer. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Strictly speaking Cryptic is correct that the AfD did not reach a consensus to merge (though it undoubtedly would have had it run another two days), and it would be inappropriate to revert a recreation attempt citing the AfD. Still strictly speaking, this request is thus out of scope. That said, given the comments above and from the AfC reviewer, it would be unwise to un-redirect the article unilaterally (you'd probably end up right back at AfD). My advice remains the same: find some better sources and then resubmit at AfC (or, even better, get consensus for a split at Talk:Wilbur Soot). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • DRV has no place here. There's been no deletion and no result at afd (not even a no-consensus result). The users reverting it to a redirect citing that afd need some serious trouting applied, but that's about all we can do. —Cryptic 20:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archive

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2022 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2021 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=1088722578"