Wikipedia:Deletion review
 |
| 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".
Moyrourkan Orange Hall is located within the townland of Drumnamether, surely this is enough notability for Drumnamether to have a Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkzy (talk • contribs)
- Endorse if this is an appeal of the close. If this is a DRVPURPOSE3 request, then it appears that the appellant is trying two different remedies at the same time, because they have also boldly restored the article and added a reference to the hall. I don't think DRV should decide whether the addition makes the place notable. That can be decided by normal editing or by another AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and speedy close per the unclean hands doctrine. The article was created last month by the appellant, although their first attempt was REVDELed for copyvio, and turned into a redirect by Justlettersandnumbers. The appellant immediately restored it after changing a few words, at which point it was nominated at AfD.
- The appellant, who participated in the AfD with an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type vote, could have discussed the issue with the closing admin. They could have submitted a new draft to AfC. They could have come here to DRV first. They didn't do any of that. Instead, they undid the result of the AfD one week after it was closed, and only when alerted on the Talk page, they finally came here with this surely AfD-round-2-type "appeal", without bothering to notify the closer. This isn't BOLD, it's disruptive and persistent, and shouldn't be rewarded with another kick at the can, especially as there is no material improvement in sourcing. Recommend temporary page-protect or p-block, as the appellant hasn't shown any intention of following process, and seems to have a single purpose in mind. Owen× ☎ 13:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy endorse and protect, as needed. Disruptive request. Star Mississippi 13:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse and protect redirect. Draft space and the WP:AFC process are available for good-faith attempts of recreation. The current recreated version is similar to the deleted version, with a little more info and a reference about Moyrourkan Orange Hall. I do not support a speedy close. Frank Anchor 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, the location of the hall doesn't make its location notable. If the Eiffel Tower were in Drumnamether, that wouldn't by itself make it notable either.The word "notability" is jargon on Wikipedia; the short version is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Nearly every word of that statement is itself jargon - see Wikipedia:Notability#GNG for the long version. The source added with the statement about Moyrourkan Orange Hall, whatever that is, was this database entry. In Wikipedia terms, it would be a stretch to call it significant coverage even of the building; the townland barely even gets a passing mention, so there isn't any question of it helping out with that. —Cryptic 17:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - See point 10 of
Deletion review should not be used:
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation.
This is not the right forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC) - Endorse the close, but I honestly don't think this is disruptive per se. I think this is just a mis-understanding of notability from a relatively new user. Townlands are not considered presumptively notable, meaning they have to pass GNG to be able to have a stand-alone article. This means secondary sources have reliably reported on them. We could have an article on the townland if those sources can be shown to exist, but I'm not sure they do after a quick search. SportingFlyer T·C 05:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
This discussion was closed as draftify despite the fact that, as I pointed out in the discussion, Takahashi passed WP:NBADMINTON having finished on the podium of a BWF World Tour tournament [[Indonesia Masters Super 100 |stop]]. Since then, she has won the 2024 Vietnam Open (also part of the BWF World Tour, causing a red link). The !vote count in this discussion was 1 drafity along with my keep and a comment providing some additional sources.
Notably, Takahashi is competing alongside Mizuki Otake who was nominated for deletion alongside Takahashi. Star Mississippi closed that discussion as "no consensus" with 2 keeps and 1 delete. I don't think "draft" is necessarily a "wrong" outcome but with two BWF World Tour wins, the subject passes NBADMINTON and I would like to seek a consensus to undraftify this article. It is also odd that, of the two, more sources were identified for Takahashi yet her article is the one which is redlinked. DCsansei (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to be saying that factors have change since I closed the AfD. That does not require an overturn of the AfD. If you think she meets requirements now, improve the draft sufficiently that it won't be a G4 and move it to mainspace. Re-reading it, I could make a case for my having closed it as N/C but I read @JoelleJay:'s comment as explaining why yours wasn't quite the right reasoning. I don't see re-closing now as helpful when we have a different route back to mainspace, but would not object if others disagree. So endorse my own close, but support improvement and restoration since factors have changed. Star Mississippi 01:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse - The appellant is providing a mistaken vote count by neglecting the nomination. See Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_reviews#Incorrect_vote_counts. The nomination is assumed to be a Delete vote unless otherwise stated, so the count was 1 Delete, 1 Draftify, 1 Keep, and 1 Don't Know. Draftify was the best close. Since the page is in draft space, the appellant should improve the draft and resubmit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. Good close. Improve sourcing in draftspace and use AfC, mandatorily if within six months of the close of the AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Have you read the whole NSPORT guideline? Meeting the criteria in NBAD or any other sport is not sufficient to pass NSPORT: the subject must meet GNG, and an IRS source of SIGCOV must still be identified and cited in the article -- which is what I referenced in my !vote -- for us to even consider the likelihood of GNG sourcing existing. Coverage of high school-age athletes rarely passes WP:YOUNGATH, so any new sourcing will need to focus on her senior career. JoelleJay (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. There was a rough consensus to draftify.—Alalch E. 11:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. Draftification was the correct, "minimally-invasive" outcome to that poorly attended AfD. As Robert McClenon points out, the appellant conveniently leaves out the nom's Delete !vote. The appellant doesn't need our permission to improve sourcing and submit the draft to AfC. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC) (P.S.: I'm semi-involved as a relister on the AfD. Owen× ☎ 14:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC))
- Endorse Sport SNGs have been functionally deprecated, so simply meeting one does not guarantee a page will be kept. The correct thing to do to be able to publish this article is to demonstrate sources exist. SportingFlyer T·C 05:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a purely WP:DRVPURPOSE#3 appeal. I am requesting that recreation of this article be allowed, as I have completed an AfC review of Draft:Ivy Wolk, and the submission has passed my review. I believe that the draft speaks for itself, that the included references demonstrate notability, and that it's a little too late to claim "too soon". Since the last time this was at DRV, an additional article was published: The Cut, October 25. —Alalch E. 02:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Allow recreation. I have no qualms about trusting Alalch's judgement on this. Owen× ☎ 08:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unsalt. The new sourcing, although not outstanding, is a clear improvement on the sourcing discussed at the AfD, and so G4 is overcome.
- This should not come so quick to DRV. The AfC review approving the draft should first go to the protecting admin and request unprotection. If the protecting admin is unresponsive, then go to WP:RFUP. Reserve DRV for appeals against a process failure or a dispute. There is no appeal here. DRV must not become a routine tickbox forum for recreation where the reasons for deletion are overcome.
- -SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that DRV must not be the article creation committee. However, this is here for the second time, and in the previous DRV comments included: "keep salted", "leave salted", "retain salting", "If this were AFD again, I would say to Delete again. If this were AFC, I would Reject it", and "the draft is not ready for AFC at this point", so I had a feeling that it's more stable to rediscuss this, or rather, to continue the discussion, as the last one was closed early and is recent. But you definitely have a point. —Alalch E. 11:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 16. You should have linked that DRV. Both that DRV and this DRV are out of scope for DRV, and I disagree with much of your closing statement there.
- If this were a proper DRV, both User:Explicit and User:Liz should be pinged, and you should be explaining what they should have done differently.
- Another common mistake is people believing that DRV will offer the recreated article some protection. It doesn’t, if the draft is mainspaced, it may be immediately renominated at AfD. AfD is the right place to reevaluate the new sources, DRV is not a good forum for source analysis.
- I believe that as there are multiple new sources, and an AfC reviewer has approved, the mainspace title should be speedily unsalted on request and the draft mainspaced, without serious source review or second guessing of the AfC reviewer. See if it gets AfDed, and see how the AfD plays out. I will watch, mainly because I think the sources are of dubious independence. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let's say I agree. However, User:Cryptic said:
It's already been G4'd twice and protected from recreation. This isn't just a DRV matter; there's no other place appropriate to discuss it.
If someone explicitly said it was a DRV matter last time, the comments were majorly against recreation, which had been sought by an established editor, an NPP with autopatrolled (the nature of Hameltion appeal was the same as mine now), and responding editors weren't pleased with what they're being shown, would it really be ideal for this to be recreated based on what is objectively just one additional source, enabled by a purely formal unsalting from an AfC pass? There is a latent dispute around the eligibility of an article on this topic, and such actions did not feel like would have led to the stable point quicker than what I did with this DRV nom. —Alalch E. 12:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)- G4 is overcome. It’s worth a fresh AfD. DRV should not run reverse AfDs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- G4 had also been overcome the last time this was at DRV and comments were as I have quoted them above. —Alalch E. 10:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- G4 is overcome. It’s worth a fresh AfD. DRV should not run reverse AfDs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let's say I agree. However, User:Cryptic said:
- I agree that DRV must not be the article creation committee. However, this is here for the second time, and in the previous DRV comments included: "keep salted", "leave salted", "retain salting", "If this were AFD again, I would say to Delete again. If this were AFC, I would Reject it", and "the draft is not ready for AFC at this point", so I had a feeling that it's more stable to rediscuss this, or rather, to continue the discussion, as the last one was closed early and is recent. But you definitely have a point. —Alalch E. 11:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unsalt, which should be a formality after an accepted AFC of an article with new sourcing. Frank Anchor 12:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unsalt, I'd even say speedily if not for the DRV earlier this month. I trust Alaich's judgement as AfC reviewer. Star Mississippi 01:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unsalt and I specifically endorse DRV as an appropriate venue for this based on the prior DRVs and G4s. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Do you really mean that an AfC reviewer should not ask the admin who protected the title to unprotect, and that a salted title means that the question must come to DRV? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- It was already at DRV; coming back here is fine. Asking the admin in question would also be OK, as I said this would be "an" appropriate venue, not "the" appropriate venue. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- This DRV is being used to reverse User:Liz’s SALT of the title. It is inappropriate that Liz was neither asked nor pinged.
- DRVPURPOSE needs fixing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- If SmokeyJoe is referring to WP:DRVPURPOSE3, then I agree that it needs clarification. DRVPURPOSE3 is qualified by what DRV is not for, point 10:
to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation.
. Most of our requests to recreate an article to add information or add sources involve articles that have not been salted, and the author can either submit a draft subject to AFC or create a new article subject either to G4 if nothing is new or to AFD. What is User:SmokeyJoe recommending? Should we take this discussion to the DRV talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC) - Liz participated last time this came up, commenting in part
I wouldn't object to restoring this version of the article to Draft space so it can be reviewed by AFC. This is the standard procedure for putting an article back into main space after it has been deleted through an AFD but I'm guessing many editors do not know that this is the case.
I see that as tacit permission for AFC to lead to unSALTing in precisely these circumstances. Liz has never struck me as an admin who would be opposed to this sort of an orderly, consensus-based unSALTing, but I'm pinging anyways because it doesn't look like anyone previously has on this thread, which appears to be an oversight shared amongst several of us. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC) - Dunno what this fixation on pinging Liz is about. She doesn't respond to them (one such statement), and has gotten a talk page pointer here as usual. I seem to recall Explicit doesn't see pings either. —Cryptic 06:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- If SmokeyJoe is referring to WP:DRVPURPOSE3, then I agree that it needs clarification. DRVPURPOSE3 is qualified by what DRV is not for, point 10:
- It was already at DRV; coming back here is fine. Asking the admin in question would also be OK, as I said this would be "an" appropriate venue, not "the" appropriate venue. Jclemens (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Do you really mean that an AfC reviewer should not ask the admin who protected the title to unprotect, and that a salted title means that the question must come to DRV? SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I would not have accepted this at AfC. There are seven sources. Three are tweets from the actor, one is a listicle, one is a mere mention of a character she's portraying, and two basically long-form interviews. I would have asked for an additional secondary source. SportingFlyer T·C 05:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also I completely agree this is the correct forum for this, it's not as if we get a lot of requests like these here. SportingFlyer T·C 05:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
BusterD wrongly deleted a redirect with totally different target. If they wanted them deleted, they should have started a RFD process. Also, November 31 is mentioned in the target page, it would be easily kept if RFD'd. Web-julio (talk) 16:39, 27 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 discussion involves a contentious topic (BLPs and BLPgroups with living adults and children) and it was an active discussion when it was closed with a no consensus determination. Beyond this, comments about self-identification were incorrectly applied (when reading his sources, most of these articles were related to 'self-identification' as one sees in census information; IE where it is applied appropriately. Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
I hope this is the right place to ask. I'm looking to restore this article and add proper sources. The deletion discussion highlighted the lack of independent sources, but I've mentioned some reliable sources based on Usedtobecool/PSN , which are highly reliable sources and old media of Nepal Here are the sources: himalayan news of nepal / nepal samachar patra nayapatrika dainik nagrik network nepal live Endrabcwizart (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. This DRV request was not properly formatted, so I fixed it. The appellant also failed to discuss it with the closer or even notify the closer of the appeal. As for the merits, the appellant appears to be making a DRV#3 appeal -- but the sources offered here were all presented in the deletion discussion and they did not attract any support for retention. The quorum for deletion was minimal, but there was a consensus (when including Mushy Yank's non-!vote comment) that the material did not belong in mainspace. A redirect might have been a better interpretation, but "delete" was within discretion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- ehimalayatimes.com is not The Himalayan Times (thehimalayantimes.com) from Usedtobecool's list.—Alalch E. 12:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Anyways, endorse. The nomination and the discussion weren't great at all, but all taken together, it is clear enough that there was a rough consensus to delete on grounds of non-notability. —Alalch E. 15:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- You're right; "ehimalayantimes" and "The Himalayan Times" are different entities. However, "ehimalayantimes" is also a national print media outlet in Nepal. It seems that User Usedtobecool/PSN may have missed including this media outlet on their page. I mention their page because it filters some online media sources and provides ratings, which can be helpful for reviewers, especially those outside Nepal, in assessing the reliability of sources for articles or pages on Nepal-related topics. visit this page Endrabcwizart (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. As Dclemens1971 says, the sources presented here were already assessed at the AfD and found lacking. Nothing to justify overturning, or even draftifying. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse It's not entirely clear on what basis this review has been lodged, but if #1, then although the AfD had very little discussion, the close does seem to correctly reflect it. Whereas if this is instead a type #3 appeal, then the sources listed here, which are of course the same as were already listed in the AfD, don't (with the possible exception of the Nagrik Network one) contribute anything towards notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Endorsecorrect reading of discussion by closing admin.Strong overturn to soft delete and restore as draft based on lack of quorum to delete (only one vote plus the nom. I do not consider Mushy Yank's comment to be supportive of deletion, I consider it an argument against redirecting). I agree with others that the sources do not come close to meeting WP:GNG, but DRV is not the place to evaluate sources. That is the role of AFD or AFC. Frank Anchor 16:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)- I read Mushy's comment as saying that he thought redirection might not be acceptable to the community since it might not be appropriate for the subject to be listed there if he didn't have a page, but that Mushy would be OK with redirection if it were. However, Mushy often !votes for "keep" and "redirect" and didn't here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- And Mushy also didn’t !vote to delete. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, can speculate on what a user thinks based on contributions to other AFDs. Frank Anchor 01:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Quorum does not exist as a requirement for consensus under policy, and soft deletion was not applied. It's possible to restore to draft regardless, but I don't agree that the decision should be based on the idea that there was a "lack of quorum". —Alalch E. 16:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:QUORUM,
a deletion discussion receives minimal participation, the article may be deleted. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request.
This AFD is a textbook WP:SOFTDELETE (assuming it was eligible for soft deletion), even if that term was not explicitly used, and therefore should be restored upon any good faith request, such as this DRV. I recommended a restoration to draft space because using only the sources presented at the AFD or here, the article would be right back at AFD again. Frank Anchor 13:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)- "WP:QUORUM" is a figurative shortcut and no guideline or policy imposes a quorum requirement in actuality. —Alalch E. 02:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- And I never said there was. However, there is also clearly no DRV-appropriate argument against refunding to draft space. Frank Anchor 04:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Soft deletion says that. WP:QUORUM does not say that deletion discussions with minimal participation must be soft deleted, just that that's one of the options. —Cryptic 09:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- "WP:QUORUM" is a figurative shortcut and no guideline or policy imposes a quorum requirement in actuality. —Alalch E. 02:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:QUORUM,
- I read Mushy's comment as saying that he thought redirection might not be acceptable to the community since it might not be appropriate for the subject to be listed there if he didn't have a page, but that Mushy would be OK with redirection if it were. However, Mushy often !votes for "keep" and "redirect" and didn't here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- …and the option that should have been chosen here. Just because the closer didn’t choose that option, doesn’t mean the closer should not have. There is no justification to have “hard” deleted (unless not eligible for soft delete) when there is minimal participation. 12:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I also find Cryptic’s edit summary on their post be an unjustified insult of my vast experience on Wiki and particularly at DRV, and request an apology. Frank Anchor 12:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Meh I think technically this wasn't the best close as further “sources” were provided at the end and could only be discounted by the admin looking at them and saying they are junk. Which isn’t part of the conversation. However they are junk so I don’t really feel this is a winner if we did relist it. Spartaz Humbug! 21:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Endorse. Request WP:REFUND to draftspace, read the advice at WP:THREE, and make a clear explanation on the talk page as to which three new sources demonstrate notability. It is not reasonable to request undeletion direct to mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- If a refund is placed in the mainspace, we can also start a Talk page to provide further explanations and discuss to demonstrate notability. Endrabcwizart (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
|
Previously a deleted article, would be useful as a redirect to Axis of Upheaval. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:25, 20 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. |
|
LaMotta only acted in ALF, he had also a leading role (One More Chance (1981 film)) and supporting roles in many films of director Sam Firstenberg and also some guest appearances in different TV Shows. I would like to get restored the article and add more information to it. --Dk0704 (talk) 15:55, 20 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. |
|
Would like to restore article and add more sources to it which discussed in AFD discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TL9027 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the deletion discussion two months ago, two new sources have been published: this piece in Interview magazine (which contains usable independent coverage in the introduction) and this brief bio in Teen Vogue. I've added these to the previously discussed profile in Variety in a draft at Draft:Ivy Wolk. She's not Emma Stone, but together these suggest notability under the basic criteria. (For future reference, the title is currently salted after repeated recreations without discussion; I'm hoping this discussion resolves that.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
If this were AFD again, I would say to Delete again. If this were AFC, I would Reject it, because it is not really an improvement over the deleted article. This is DRV, and the title can remain salted for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |