Wikipedia:Deletion review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
 |
| 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, 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".
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Hope this is the right place. I'm looking to undelete this article and add sources. The deletion discussion concerned sources' lack of independence. I've located what should be enough independent coverage to show notability in TopDrawerSoccer ([1] [2] [3] ), Ouest-France ([4]), archives at Newspapers.com ([5] [6]), etc. Thanks! Hameltion (talk | contribs) 19:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
This was speedily deleted out of process under criterion G7, during an ongoing RfD that had multiple !votes to keep and had no obvious consensus at the time of deletion. On their talk page the deleting admin stated they "don't share the interpretation" that this was not speedy deletable, despite WP:CSD saying [if] the deletion is controversial [then] another deletion process should be used.
and Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases
. Deletions during ongoing deletion discussions where there are good-faith recommendations for actions other than deletion are, by definition, not uncontroversial. It's true that this is not the most important redirect on the project, but it is very important that blatantly out of process speedy deletions are not allowed to stand, as these are one of the most harmful things an admin can do. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you feel this strongly about it, you can just recreate it. (And then restore the history behind it, or ask someone else to on WP:REFUND if doing it yourself makes you uncomfortable.) Then we can have a new rfd and delete it again there. —Cryptic 19:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree that once the Keep !votes were entered at the RfD, the G7 speedy was out of process. I also agree with the appellant's assertion that this type of CNR is harmless, and with the only other Keep !voter that the redirect is cheap. But what are we to gain from overturning this? The only user who likely made any use of this CNR was its creator, and he no longer has any use for it. So yes, if we're going by the book, we should:
- overturn the speedy deletion;
- delete the redirect again per clear consensus at the RfD; and
- allow recreation, if someone has a use for such a CNR, which is highly doubtful.
- Or, y'know, just leave it deleted, and issue a half-hearted finger-wag to the deleting admin while tacitly thanking him for trying to save us from some pointless bureaucracy, and move on to more substantive issues. Owen× ☎ 19:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Overturn G7 and keep listed or relist at RFD. This was never a valid G7, which is a request for deletion by the originator. If Delanoy had returned from eight years absence to tag it with G7, it would still have been a valid G7. Maybe Jake Wartenberg meant to be deleting it as a G6, any of various sorts of non-controversial technical deletions, and that would have been reasonable until the Keep votes were entered, because they made it controversial. This is essentially a useless DRV, because the RFD will delete the redirect, but it was also a useless speedy deletion, since there was no need for an admin to intervene, except to make a point, and we assume that they knew better than to make a point. If the G7 is overturned and the RFD is resumed, I will vote to Delete, but this was definitely not a G7 or a G6. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)- Comment - Based on Cryptic's statement, reconsidering. It is still a stupid cross-namespace redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- It was created (and deleted) by Jake Wartenberg, not J.delanoy. —Cryptic 00:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn/reopen Once there's an XFD going on, and it's gotten some reasonable "keep" votes, I don't think we ought to accept a G7. In my opinion, G7 during an XFD is appropriate only if all the voters have supported deletion, or if all the keep votes are worth ignoring: socks, nonsensical, obviously confused, etc. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. With the creator having removed any basis for keeping, the keep !votes were merely supporting his right to have the shortcut, the RfD should now be closed, by an uninvolved experienced closer, with prejudice against re-creation, and a possible finding of consensus to SLAP the creator. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- It was a relic from 2009? Multiple people are too quick to initiate formal discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse per Cryptic. It was deleted solely because of who created it. If you want the redirect to exist, just recreate it and the RfD will take care of it. -- Tavix (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: As the other !keep voter over on RfD, I'd like to point out that I actually don't feel very strongly about this redirect; its history page noted that it was created "for the lulz" by Jake Wartenburg and not Delanoy; usage was practically nil. My !keep vote was mostly due to A: it going from Wikipedia namespace to User namespace, which meant that the impact of the XNR on reader confusion would be minimal to nonexistent, and B: WP:CHEAP. It basically amounted to "We don't NEED to take any action here." That said, now that action's been taken... I similarly don't feel the need to restore it only to get it immediately re-deleted by RfD. I think WP:SNOW applies here? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Overturn G7. Once there is genuine support to keep in a deletion discussion by any number of users, the deletion is clearly not uncontroversial, a requirement for speedy deletion. The in-progress RFD should be reopened, as that is the proper venue to delete this page. Frank Anchor 10:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. The keep arguments are the following (paraphrasing): "not intrinsically harmful", "no reason to delete", "redirects are cheap". These are not substantive arguments that the G7 should not be acted on. The reason to delete is G7, so there is a reason to delete. The stated arguments do not in any way contradict the basis of G7. The idea that something is not harmful and cheap always exists in the background. An unwanted draft tagged by creator and deleted is presumed "not harmful" and "cheap", so nothing new has been said by making these points. Arguably, G7 exists to handle non-harmful pages so saying that is actually consistent with the envisioned general scenario of G7 application. The G7 itself has not been made controversial. To do so, one would need to say: "I do not want this deleted because it's useful to me/someone" or "G7 was not requested in good faith". And no one has said that.—Alalch E. 12:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Whether reasons stated for keeping are or are not "substantive" is something that is completely irrelevant to whether speedy deletion applies (they are something that can only be judged in the context of a deletion discussion). All that matters is that good-faith objections to deletion exist and have been expressed - anything else would require a change to speedy deletion policy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- There need to be objections that specifically target the criterion under which speedy deletion was requested. For example, in an AfD, there is a "keep, notable actor" !vote, and the page is tagged for G11 and deleted. That keep recommendation is not an objection to speedy deletion. —Alalch E. 14:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Can you cite any policy that backs up that argument? It certainly is not present in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, which simply says (in multiple ways) that deletion must be uncontroversial. If there are objections to deletion it is not uncontroversial, regardless of why there are objections. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- There need to be objections that specifically target the criterion under which speedy deletion was requested. For example, in an AfD, there is a "keep, notable actor" !vote, and the page is tagged for G11 and deleted. That keep recommendation is not an objection to speedy deletion. —Alalch E. 14:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Whether reasons stated for keeping are or are not "substantive" is something that is completely irrelevant to whether speedy deletion applies (they are something that can only be judged in the context of a deletion discussion). All that matters is that good-faith objections to deletion exist and have been expressed - anything else would require a change to speedy deletion policy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- endorse. i'll actively disagree with the keep votes, as "not intrinsically harmful" and "no reason to delete" are not necessarily equal to "not harmful" and "there is a reason to keep", or correct here. this is the one context i've seen in a while where wp:pandora is correct, as this type of redirect isn't mentioned in any policy or essay page (that i could find, at least), has no other examples (that i could find, at least, redirects to subpages related to generally useful stuff like wp:lupin notwithstanding), and could reasonably convince others to create similar redirects (where's wp:ferret?). i was going to argue that the one case where i thought a projectspace > userspace redirect would have been plausible would be wp:jimmy/wp:jimbo, but those already go somewhere else cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- There needs to be a reason to delete to delete, not a reason to keep to keep. Here, there was a reason to delete under policy---G7---and so, to not delete, we would need a reason that the provided otherwise valid reason to delete should not be a reason to delete in this concrete case (that's a contested speedy deletion situation), and we don't have that here. "Harmless page" is not it because the page being harmless is already the default supposition. —Alalch E. 16:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- There are 67 redirects from the Wikipedia namespace to User base pages; about 2/3 are in the all-uppercase no-spaces shortcut format. I'm not sure whether I expected more or less of them. —Cryptic 21:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Most of those CNRs are to bot accounts, which are technically "users" but for all practical purposes they are a wiki public tool or resource, making it sensible to park a redirect in project space. Joke redirects like WP:BASTARD to real users should probably be cleaned up, but I don't feel strongly about it either way. Owen× ☎ 22:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- If WP:BASTARD is retained, we should start an RfD to find a better target. I can think of several. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let's schedule this for the next April 1st. Owen× ☎ 22:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- If WP:BASTARD is retained, we should start an RfD to find a better target. I can think of several. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- thanks, my eyes hurt, i'll likely flood rfd tomorrow cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 22:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Do not flood RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- foiled again~
- don't worry, i likely wouldn't even nominate 7 of them. really, the only one i'm 100% not sure about (as opposed to being on the fence or unwilling to nom) is wp:nazifancruft cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 22:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Do not flood RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Most of those CNRs are to bot accounts, which are technically "users" but for all practical purposes they are a wiki public tool or resource, making it sensible to park a redirect in project space. Joke redirects like WP:BASTARD to real users should probably be cleaned up, but I don't feel strongly about it either way. Owen× ☎ 22:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse
If an author requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the closing admin may interpret that request as agreement with the deletion rationale.
Perhaps this was slightly out of process, but the discussion was clearly going to be closed as delete anyways, and this is a giant waste of volunteer time. SportingFlyer T·C 04:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC) - Meh. I don't feel comfortable endorsing a G7 in this context where an ongoing discussion with good faith keep "votes" was short-circuited. But restoring the redirect is somewhere between pointless and a bad idea so I don't favor any action except a minnow to the deleting admin. In general, early closing of a "pointless" discussion is just as likely to generate a new round of drama and debate as it is to get people refocused on building the encyclopedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Get over it and a WP:TROUT for the appellant. No, it shouldn't have been G7ed while the discussion was going on. But also, the keep votes were of piss-poor quality from users that have a track record of overzealous keep votes. This one was egregiously asinine. The consensus was clear; what is even the point of this review? WP:NOTBURO. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
[T]he keep votes were of piss-poor quality from users that have a track record of overzealous keep votes
is not something that is decided by a speedy delete admin. The fact is that there were keep votes, therefore making the deletion not uncontroversial and G7 should not have applied. WP:NOTBURO emphasizes following the principles, not the letter of the policy/guideline. A core principle of WP:SPEEDY is that the deletion is not controversial; this article is not a good candidate for G7 even though the author does request deletion. Frank Anchor 13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- I meant NOTBURO for here, because even if this is overturned, it's only going to be to list the discussion for another 3 days before the clear consensus to delete is enacted, further wasting everyone's time, far too much of which has already been done.
"A core principle of WP:SPEEDY is that the deletion is not controversial; ..."
But it wasn't controversial, because as others have already pointed out, no one was advocating for the existence of the redirect, only objecting with generic "it's harmless; stop listing these" hand-waves. And as also already pointed out, either keep voter would have perfectly clean hands in recreating a G7ed redirect, at which point it will go back to RFD and be deleted again. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)- Everybody recommending "keep" in the discussion is advocating for the existence of the redirect. That you disagree with their reasons for doing so does not change this. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I meant NOTBURO for here, because even if this is overturned, it's only going to be to list the discussion for another 3 days before the clear consensus to delete is enacted, further wasting everyone's time, far too much of which has already been done.
- Weak endorse I agree with the OP that this should not have been deleted under G7 but I don't think its likely that leaving it open for longer would have resulted in a consensus other than "delete". The "delete" side (which has a 8-2 majority) have explained why this redirect is likely to inconvenience people and not likely be helpful while the "keep" side have argued its harmless without going much into why. Maybe it could be reopened to allow counter arguments about it being harmful but otherwise especially given its been closed 3 times (once by me) I think we can just let this one be. So while I don't really see a problem with re opening it, it does seem a bit pointless. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Shuying Li (closed)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The main page for Shuying Li, a notable Chinese-American composer, was deleted under the R2 criterion for a cross-namespace redirect. However, the article was intended to be a mainspace entry. Shuying Li's notability is supported by reliable sources from major publications, academic references, and performance history. I request that the main page be restored for further improvement and submission. 2600:1010:A13E:2DE2:D41D:BDA8:D765:C404 (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
my page and there are extensive additional sources. no effort was done to locate more. extensive expert interviews citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgreaney (talk • contribs) 21:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse
and speedy close. The appellant has two accounts on en-wiki: one that he opened 17 years ago to write a one-line bio about himself (twice within five minutes) and add his birthday to the July 24 page, for a total of 5 edits, and the other that he just created to file this DRV. The guy is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Still, one has to admire the chutzpah of coming here and demanding "his page" back after 17 years... Owen× ☎ 22:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)The AfD was closed unanimously and correctly. If the appellant has new sources establishing notability, they're welcome to submit a fresh draft. Owen× ☎ 22:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)- You're looking at the wrong article; dara greaney was about a different person. (I'd have G11'd this one, though it's good that it went to AFD so we can G4 recreations; it was also an uncaught G5 when created.) —Cryptic 22:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you for fixing the link in the nomination. I'll amend my !vote. Owen× ☎ 22:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- You're looking at the wrong article; dara greaney was about a different person. (I'd have G11'd this one, though it's good that it went to AFD so we can G4 recreations; it was also an uncaught G5 when created.) —Cryptic 22:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy close. Not a real challenge and no real need to have a discussion. "My page" is irrelevant, there is no claim that the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, and "there are extensive additional sources" is not new information. "Extensive expert interviews citations" doesn't sound promising. There's no prospect of success.—Alalch E. 00:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse
or Speedy Endorse- The close was correct. The claim of existence of other sources, made after the AFD, does not affect the validity of the AFD. There was no obligation by the closer or the participants to locate sources; an effort to locate other sources is sometimes done during an AFD but is not required. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC) - Comment to User:Alalch E. - I disagree with your statement that "My page" is irrelevant. It is so relevant, although not in the way that the appellant thinks. It means that they have a conflict of interest that will need to be considered in reviewing their draft. But you knew that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- I just don't have a feeling that the DRV nom will be creating a draft. He hasn't shown any interest in or awareness of drafts. If "Dgreaney" creates the draft "Dara Greaney", it will be obvious that the page is a COI creation, so this does not need to be explicitly noted in advance. Conflict of interest is a situation that arises when a user edits content about a topic they have an external relationship to. This user hasn't been editing content and there is no indication that they want to contribute. The situation hasn't produced any tangible COI concerns yet. —Alalch E. 01:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Was the deleted page in mainspace? If yes, the user (the person, whatever accounts or IPs) was editing mainspace, contrary to the rules written at WP:COI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- He never edited it himself, unless he was one of the IPs making minor updates. It was created as a redirect to his business by Ebele092 (SPI), then turned into an article three days later by Astha willim (SPI). Though a few of the edits between then and its AFD nine and a half years later rose above the trivial, I wouldn't characterize any as significant; not enough that they'd raise COI problems if done by the article subject, in any case. —Cryptic 01:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Was the deleted page in mainspace? If yes, the user (the person, whatever accounts or IPs) was editing mainspace, contrary to the rules written at WP:COI. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- I just don't have a feeling that the DRV nom will be creating a draft. He hasn't shown any interest in or awareness of drafts. If "Dgreaney" creates the draft "Dara Greaney", it will be obvious that the page is a COI creation, so this does not need to be explicitly noted in advance. Conflict of interest is a situation that arises when a user edits content about a topic they have an external relationship to. This user hasn't been editing content and there is no indication that they want to contribute. The situation hasn't produced any tangible COI concerns yet. —Alalch E. 01:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Allow Review of Draft with a notation of conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse unanimous consensus to delete. Appelant claims
there are extensive additional sources
but does not provide any. The sources mentioned at the AFD were correctly dismissed as being about the company and only providing passing mentions about the subject person. I do not support a speedy close to this DRV. Frank Anchor 14:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)- Comment - Striking speedy endorse to agree with User:Frank Anchor that we should give the appellant the courtesy that they have not given us in allowing them a 7-day discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. It's routine to close discussions with this amount of input; it shouldn't be reopened or closed as "no consensus". When the nominator gives solid reasons for deletion, and both of the other participants do likewise, it wouldn't make sense to discount them; this isn't "delete because I don't like it" followed by a couple "delete per nom". Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. Properly deleted. The topic looks non-Wikipedia-notable. Read WP:CORP to find the sourcing standards required for a commercial topic, including the biography of a CEO. Allow userfication if the proponent genuinely wants to try again, and they understand WP:COI, including the rule that they may not edit their own topics in mainspace, and must use WP:AfC for article creations. I advise them to get experience making mainspace contributions that are not WP:COI-forbidden. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- i am not a Wikipedia editor and even less experience with deletions, so this is a learning experience. (hiring one of the hundreds of firms editing Wp seems more of a COI issue then just stating it) This issue is notability and a quick search for articles i have been quoted in or interviewed for would turn them up. Many of them are linked on this page; https://www.ledlightexpert.com/authors-dara-greaney.html. I started BuyAutoparts and much of the page was based on that, since then I have started multiple lighting companies and helped create much of commercial LED products and i have authored hundreds or articles on led lighting which is why i am routinely asked these lighting questions. The expertise in lighting and articles is notable in itself before the founder of multiple companies is considered. Elon Musk is not notable himself, but his companies are. So by the same token his page should be deleted as well, but the reality is that because of his companies, his thoughts on EVs and rockets makes him expertise and notability. The same reason why Newsweek, USnews, House Digest, Homes & garden and lots of others contact me for quotes or just insights on lighting. (Again I have not proposed changes to the page content, just the exisitence of the page. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgreaney (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Notability is not the same as the word “notability”, unfortunately. You being quoted or interviewed does not establish Wikipedia-notability. Neither does a list of your achievements. What does is independent commentary about you. We need two such sources. See advice at WP:THREE. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Elon Musk is notable not directly because of the rockets and EVs, but because people became interested in him, and, independently from him, created multiple in-depth published works about him specifically. Wikipedia has content standards, they are designed to support its purpose as an encyclopedia, and they are enforced to protect its credibility and the perception that it is a high-quality resource. Editors collate and summarize the corpus of knowledge gained from existing sources of knowledge into a digestible, structured format, that deals with the topic directly and in some detail. A Wikipedia article is consolidated information that came from somewhere else. I think it should be clear to you that the quality of the raw material dictates the quality of the output. To continue including an article on a given topic, the editors need to believe that they are able to write a valid article. Being able means that it's objectively possible to create content of meaningful length that complies with the three core content policies. Mere existence of a page, notionally as an article, situated among other articles, but which is not policy-compliant and lacks encyclopedic substance, does not provide assurance that said thing is possible. In this case, editors noticed that something is wrong with the content (that's how it usually starts), they then looked at the sources, and coming to believe that (1) multiple sources with (2) significant coverage of you, which sources are (3) reliable, and are (4) independent of you, don't exist, they determined it implausible that we can have an acceptable article on the topic of your life and work. Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence from the subjects involved. If we don't have independent reliable sources, whatever we write based on the sources that we have will not be credible. Readers will not be able to check that information comes from a reliable, credible-looking source. The content will not be neutral. Whatever article about you Wikipedia might contain, it would be deemed a poor and unworthy article according to Wikipedia's policies. —Alalch E. 22:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
The discussion was closed as kept only 14 hours after it began after a self-draftify of and article that started in the draft space to begin with. The page creator has done this exact same thing before (about the exact same subject) in an attempt to derail an AfD discussion and was warned by Liz about it last time. cyberdog958Talk 18:05, 7 October 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. |
|
She has done 3 lead roles in Kya Haal, Mr. Paanchal? , Sasural Simar Ka 2 and Do Chutki Sindoor. She also played the lead role in the marathi film Rangeela Rayabaa. Currently, she is playing the lead role in Main Dil Tu Dhadkan. I have supported all these with reliable sources in Draft:Radhika Muthukumar. So please review the last afd and move Draft:Radhika Muthukumar to mainspace 117.230.159.51 (talk) 17:00, 6 October 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. |
The rationale for deleting this page was that "All three currently target glossary of professional wrestling terms, specifically for a section on the word "school" which no longer exists." This is no longer the case as the glossary page has been updated to include this item. Circa 50 articles linked to "Professional wrestling school" and the decision to delete this page has therefore had a disruptive effect. I would propose recreating this redirect, along with the redirects Wrestling School and Wrestling school, pointing to Glossary_of_professional_wrestling_terms#school, as the arguments for deletion are no longer sound. McPhail (talk) 16:48, 6 October 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. |
|
There was only one keep vote, which was also countered. Most editors, including myself and the nominator of the AfD, Bastun, were in favor of draftifying it, yet the AFD was closed as NC. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:40, 6 October 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. |
|
I saw the discussion on the talk page (Talk:Russians#Ethnic_group_?) and noticed again that deleting an article in 2015 causes problems. It is necessary to restore the article about the people of Russia. The lack of this article is the biggest shame in the history of Wikipedia. Otherwise, I will propose to merge into one article such articles as: British people and English people, European Americans and Americans, Belgians and Flemish people, Swiss people and Germans, Han people and Chinese people, Kosovars and Albanians and many others. The reasons for restoration are obvious to anyone who understands the difference between citizenships and ethnic groups. ruASG+1 04:39, 6 October 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. |
|
The article in question had only recently been questioned for whether or not there is significant coverage of the IP. Over the course of the ongoing discussion there had been various sources being added to the talk page, which all: discussed/detailed the history of the franchise. Furthermore, there are ongoing (i.e.: newer) sources being updated in the meantime. The article was deleted due to the usual AfDs time-limit of 7 Days (as detailed at here), but as the discussion was ongoing and there were various editors commenting to keep the page -- with requests to add more details, its deletion seems premature. The article's reinstatement would be both constructive, and allow for the contributors to further detail why the article does in fact have significance/notability.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:48, 5 October 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. |
|
Despite the author's COI and some mild puffery, article wasn't bad enough / promotional enough to meet the standard for deletion under WP:CSD#G11 - ExplodingCabbage (talk) 15:22, 5 October 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. |
|
I see a clear keep in the discussion: There are four policy-based keeps, and the nominator's original concern about the state of the article was addressed... No one, including the nominator, claimed that the subject was not notable. Source analysis showed two strong GNG-compliant sources. A super detailed analysis by one participant shows that NACTOR is satisfied. I shared my objection with the closing admin before coming to DRV. The article will be retained regardless, but if the AfD is overturned to a keep as I recommend, we will be able to confidently remove the notability template from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 October 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. |
|
This category was significantly expanded throughout the duration of the deletion nomination, to the point where parts of the original rationale and earlier "delete" votes may no longer be accurate. The expansion was noted in the discussion, however the discussion was closed before any new participants could join the discussion. RachelTensions (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |