Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
| Deletion discussions |
|---|
|
| Articles |
| Templates |
| Files |
| Possibly unfree files (PUF) |
| Categories |
| Redirects |
| Miscellany |
| Speedy deletion |
| Proposed deletion |
Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result 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[edit]
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;
- when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
- 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); or
- to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.
Instructions[edit]
Before listing a review request, please:
- discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #Purpose.
- please 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.
Commenting in a deletion review[edit]
In the deletion review discussion, please:
- 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.
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[edit]
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 non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
Closing reviews[edit]
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. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]
 |
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. |
Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin 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 admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page. |
| 2. |
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=
}} ~~~~
|
| 3. |
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 deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. 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=
}} ~~~~
|
| 4. |
Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:
|
| 5. |
For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach |
| 6. |
Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use |
Active discussions[edit]
10 March 2016[edit]
7 March 2016[edit]
Donald Drumpf (closed)[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 2 § Donald Drumpf
This WP:RFD discussion closed prior to the 7-day recommended discussion time by an editor who stated a somewhat non-neutral comment in the discussion (WP:INVOLVED). Also, per WP:NACD, it may be wiser to have an administrator close this discussion since opinions regarding a possible new target vary and are split. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Castle Point Anime Convention[edit]
The AFD was five years ago, and since then the event has gotten larger (almost tripled in size according to the website) and gained more third-party news coverage. I believe the event might be notable enough and have enough reliable sources to have its article restored (or at least rewritten in some form, since I cannot see what was deleted). — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 05:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- What's here for DRV? It was a pretty straightforward deletion which hasn't resulted in protection, so if you think an article can be written that meets the standards, then please go ahead and write it. If you really need the text of the original article back (which I can't see why you would assume you would since as you say a lot can change in 5 years) then WP:REFUND to userfy or indeed any friendly admin should be able to do that for you --82.14.37.32 (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I misunderstood policy then. I didn't realize DRV was not needed. I guess this can just be closed and I'll work on rewriting it? — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Absolutely you can, as I said if you want the original text then WP:USERFY is an option to work on it before moving back to mainspace. Or as SmokeyJoe says it can be restored into mainspace if it's going to be promptly improved (there are plenty of people with itchy fingers who will likely list it for CSD or AFD if it doesn't get improved) --82.14.37.32 (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe I misunderstood policy then. I didn't realize DRV was not needed. I guess this can just be closed and I'll work on rewriting it? — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 20:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Enough has changed. Allow recreation or undelete in mainspace to be promptly improved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
3 March 2016[edit]
Einstein syndrome[edit]
- Several reliable articles can be found at https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22einstein+syndrome%22.
- Darold Treffert has written about Einstein syndrome at http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/oops-when-autism-isnt-autistic-disorder-hyperlexia-and-einstein-syndrome/ and http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/outgrowing-autism-a-closer-look-at-children-who-read-early-or-speak-late/.
- Stephen Camarata has written about it at https://mitpress.mit.edu/blog/five-minutes-stephen-camarata and http://cognet.mit.edu/book/late-talking-children-symptom-or-stage in a book chapter.
- Thomas Sowell wrote a book on this at https://books.google.com/books?id=680LYsUXPZAC&dq=mit+press+einstein+syndrome&source=gbs_navlinks_s.
- A book review of Einstein syndrome in a journal is at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1017956224167 Ylevental (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I already declined an undelete request for this, as the AFDd article was already restored to a user sandbox at ......User:Ema--or/Einstein syndrome the possible result here is to allow recreation. But first the sandbox should be improved rather than trying to make a new page.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm. But it seems that this is not the most recent version of the article. The logs seem to indicate that the most recently deleted version of the article was either a new version, or a version cut and paste from the first version -- and then improved by the addition of new references. I looked at User:Ema--or/Einstein syndrome, it cites just a single reference. But the version discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_223#Einstein_Syndrome had multiple references.
Note: The most recently deleted version was deleted under WP:CSD#G4. Since it was either a new or improved version, that suggests an overworked administrator didn't realize it was a new or improved version that required a new AFD before being deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I updated the sandbox article anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ema--or/Einstein_syndrome However, I do not have a Highbeam subscription, so I need someone with one to add the Highbeam sources at https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22einstein+syndrome%22. Ylevental (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm. But it seems that this is not the most recent version of the article. The logs seem to indicate that the most recently deleted version of the article was either a new version, or a version cut and paste from the first version -- and then improved by the addition of new references. I looked at User:Ema--or/Einstein syndrome, it cites just a single reference. But the version discussed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_223#Einstein_Syndrome had multiple references.
- Restore to mainspace and if anyone wants another AfD, they can list it for one. This isn;tthe same article. Personally, I think it is good enough now to passAfD even in itscurrent rather sketchy state. Articles aren't expected to be perfect. DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Restore to mainspace -- Last month I participated in the recent discussion at WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 223#Einstein Syndrome. I was convinced that it sounded like there were sufficient references to merit coverage in an individual article.
DGG has confirmed that the most recently deleted version of this article was not a duplicate of the version deleted after an AFD. It seems to me that means that when administrators deleted the new and improved article under G4, they did so in error.
WP:REFUND is specifically for requesting undeletions that should be uncontroversial. Shouldn't restoration of an article deleted under G4, when it was not a duplicate, be uncontroversial? Didn't the person who nominated a new and improved version of the article for speedy deletion under G4 have an obligation to nominate it for a full discussion at AFD? I think everyone agrees that REFUND should not be AFD round 2. It is unfortunate that happened, in February. Although it is frequently pointed out that this fora should not be AFD round 2, sadly it does often end up being AFD round 2.
If this article should have been uncontroversially restored via REFUND, can we simply restore it, give those who think the topic merits coverage a couple of days to bring it up to date -- and then, if there are people who think that new version should be deleted, can then they then make their arguments at WP:Articles for deletion/Einstein syndrome 2? Geo Swan (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- I deleted the recreation of the article as a G4 in 2016 at Einstein Syndrome, as I always read G4 as being applicable when the new article was near enough the old article as to have (virtually) the some content; that is what I saw here. As with all my admin actions, I don't mind if they are overturned. There was another article at Einstein syndrome which was deleted as a G4 by Favonian in December 2015. Lectonar (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Addendum: I think working on User:Ema--or/Einstein syndrome might be a good way forward. Lectonar (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Alex Gilbert[edit]
Hello All. Ok so since the last Deletion Review I did last year more sources have come to light for this article. Sources range from 2 years in coverage. The new sources on this page are as followed. The Original Deletion have nothing to do with the subject. I have been trying to get this article into the mainspace for too long now. It was approved last year but then deleted because it had to go through a deletion review. I am going to give this one last try. I have cleaned up the page and removed the small sources on the article. The previous deletion reviews are from August 2015 (Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_August_24 with more significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page.
- [1] - Campbell, Leigh. "The Social Media Project Helping Adopted People Find Their Birth Parents". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2016-02-28.
- [2] - This website could help you find your birth parents through social media | SBS. SBS Australia. Retrieved 2016-03-02.
- [3] - Mulroy, Zahra. "This man's 9000 mile journey to meet his birth mum ended with a surprise twist". The Mirror. Retrieved 2016-01-29.
- [4] & [5] - www.newstalkzb.co.nz. Retrieved 2016-02-02
- [6] - Sunday- (2016-02-02), Russian roulette, TVNZ, retrieved 2016-02-02
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by DmitryPopovRU (talk • contribs)
- Endorse deletion The Huffington Post Australia article is not independent: 98% written by him. SBS ditto, with the addition of an number of pictures from his scrapbook. The Mirror at least reworded some it it, but they used the same pictures. Newstalk, the same thing, only on video. TVNZ just the same. All of this is the subject's publicity, and we shouldn't be adding Wikipedia to it. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello DGG. The thing with a undeletion review is that it talks about the old deletion that was nominated. This is old nomination not relevant to the article. There are many other sources on the article that provide notability. These ones listed here are just new ones found since the last review. Which came up as no consensus. The fact is, is this article is endorsed I believe it will become notable in the near future so I would like to leave the Draft Live. This is simply requesting to unsalt the article Alex Gilbert. If the article goes live into the Mainspace I would like to see it go through an deletion nomination if it gets nominated and that will make a final decision on the article. Overall this article has gone through the basic notability for Wikipedia. I will otherwise leave the DRAFT on Wikipedia for the moment. Thank You --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Deny recreation per DGG's excellent analysis. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok fair call. No problem. I am sorry to annoy any editors. I tried to work on this article but it looks like it is not going to go anywhere soon. But thank you for your help .--DmitryPopovRU (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Deny recreation, speedy close this DRV, ban user, salt draft title. This guy has been working on getting this article into wikipedia non-stop for 2 years, to the exclusion of all other editing. It's been dragged to all sorts of different forums (most recenty, The Teahouse), and he's been nagging numerous editors on their talk pages. This is the ultimate WP:SPA. User should be banned for disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, block disruptive self-promoting WP:NOTHERE account. The nominator said it himself: "I have been trying to get this article into the mainspace for too long now." On that point, I agree completely. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Clear and blatant undelete. Dude, we've got more news sources here than 95%+ of all of Wikipedia articles. We are past WP:ONEEVENT with ongoing sourcing over years in reasonable sources. Feel free to send it to AfD, but this is heads-and-shoulders above our sourcing requirements. Further, no one has given an actual policy-based reason for deletion here. Which is, you know, kind of the point of DRV. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Firstly. Why would you block me? You guys asked for more information and I have found it. This is just turning into a personal attack on the subject now. And the old deletion nomination has nothing to do with the current subject DGG. Look at the policies not the typical ban of a user. I am able to work on a Draft if I want. I don't see why that is not allowed? And on a sidenote, where does it say it is written by him on any of those articles? From the subjects scrapbook? I don't see any scrap book anywhere. Newstalk is a Radio Show by the way if you look at the sources and with TVNZ it is a whole entire News Story on the subject. Nobody in this forum is looking at anything clearly at all. I am allowed to add to it as its more notable sources AS YOU ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION. This is really just personal attacks on me and on the subject. 'Based on DGG's excellent analysis?'. Are you really serious? I also comment again and again because nobody is seeing any improvements. What is wrong with the sources on the article? What policies on Wikipedia say that NONE of these sources are allowed? Does this article not pass basic notability? Have you seen other articles on Wikipedia? None of them are perfect. I don't understand why all the attacks and hate. It has passed WP:GNG. It passes WP:ANYBIO too. There is really no WP:GF here. At all. I am very unhappy with this has turned out to be. Please can any of you editors help? or am I really doing the wrong thing here? Im pinging some Wikipedia Admins who help with Bios - User:Keithbob, User:Cullen328 , User:Malcolmxl5, User:Ryk72 , User:Carrite and User:Doug Weller. Thank You. I really am over this. That is all I am going to say. Спасибо - Spasibo --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I did some hunting in the history, and found the deleted talk page for the original article. For those who don't have rights to see the deleted page, I quote:
I did not ask for an Article
I dont want one
Please DELETE ARTICLE!!!
Thanks
Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex436 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Assuming that's legitimate, we have the subject of a biography asking for the page about himself to be taken down. That should override all other considerations. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- RoySmith , that is dated from 2009. I doubt that that has anything to do with the topic now. Especially the old high school rapper deletion from 2007. That is most likely a different person. See the facts for what the article is about now. All of this subjects events only happened from 2013.--DmitryPopovRU (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- On another note RoySmith - I think you just personally just don't like the subject. I mean the point of this is to go by the policies, not search for some school kid contributions. There are many Alex Gilbert's in the world. I mean look at the contributions Special:Contributions/Alex436. Are you really serious? I doubt it is legitimate. Look at what the user has been editing and all the issues on the talk page about uploads and article creations about rap albums User_talk:Alex436. The Draft Draft:Alex Gilbert is about something that happened from 2013. So many personal attacks on this page. This draft has passed basic notability. I don't know whats with the attacks. Do people just not like Russians? You tell me. I just would like to simply put the draft on the mainspace. Is that too much to ask? If it goes though a deletion nomination then that is fine. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Recent discussions[edit]
1 March 2016[edit]
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
My name is Mike and I am an employee of Nextiva, a page that was recently deleted on Wikipedia. I have familiarized myself with your conflict of interest guidelines and have previously edited Wikipedia years ago. I offered to assist my company with this article after hearing that it was recently deleted. As I have experience with Wikipedia, again many years ago, I offered to help. The page was nominated for deletion here and the discussion was closed as delete by administrator @Vanjagenije:. I realize that deletion discussions are not a vote count, but I would like to point out that there were a total of 5 keep votes and 6 delete votes. 2 of the delete votes came after the time period for the discussion had run out and prior to an administrator reviewing for closure. The deletion rationale given was that there were no valid arguments for keeping. On the contrary, I feel that there were no valid arguments for deletion, or in the least there was no consensus for either. After reading through the votes and rationale provided by each person, I cannot see how a conclusion could be drawn for deletion. I wrote a message to Vanjagenije requesting that the page be undeleted, but was I was informed that I would need to come here with that request. A link to that discussion can be found here. I am copying and pasting my rationale for the request in the next paragraph which should serve as the reason for why I feel it should be undeleted. There are many sources out there which are press releases or are what Wikipedia may consider non-reliable sources, but there are many that are reliable sources such as The Arizona Republic, LA. Biz, The Huffington Post, and more.[7] [8] [9] Please consider my request to undelete the article and allow it to be a Wikipedia page. MikeBVIse (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
27 February 2016[edit]
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
I had translated it from zh wikipedia.偕叡廉But it used to be deleated by speedy delete in A7。But it in Zh wikipedia has references! Please put the article back, thanks.--Cjackh (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Archive[edit]
| 2016 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2015 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2014 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2013 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2012 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2011 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2010 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2009 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2008 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2007 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
| 2006 | |||
| January | February | March | April |
| May | June | July | August |
| September | October | November | December |
|
