Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

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.


Deletion review may be used:

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

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. 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;
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

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


Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Discuss the matter with the closing editor and try to resolve it with them first. If you and the closer cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before deletion review. See § Purpose.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]


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.


Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

}} ~~~~

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

|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
}} ~~~~

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2019 March 26}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.


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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 March 26}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 March 26|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

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

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

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[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.

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

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint - if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't).

Active discussions[edit]

26 March 2019[edit]

Extreme Fighting Championship[edit]

Extreme Fighting Championship (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel the search term Extreme Fighting Championship should be redirected to EFC Worldwide as that is the original name of the company I also feel the same way about Extreme Fighting Championship Africa. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC) -->

25 March 2019[edit]

Mike Schmitz[edit]

Mike Schmitz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Following the AfD (January 2018), Schmitz's notoriety has accelerated. Here are some mentions which have arisen since the AfD:

There seems to be a lot more as well. Certainly there's not enough to write an FA on Schmitz, but at least he passes the GNG. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse, but allow a draft/recreation A poorly attended AfD. Upon review of the sources presented I'm still not convinced WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR is satisfied because several of those are mere mentions and I can't tell which ones are reliable or independent given the specialised nature of the publications mentioned above, but I don't have any issue with trying to write a new draft. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Recreate as draft. The AfD was under-participated enough, and none of the more severe content issues were raised, that it really doesn't need to come to DRV to recreate, IMO. Independence of the new sources will need to be demonstrated, but that can be done after some time in draft space. Alpha3031 (tc) 11:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Recreate as draft. I probably would have relisted the AfD instead of closing it, but the actual close isn't unreasonable. More to the point, as always, if additional information comes to light after an AfD, an article can always be recreated. Writing a new draft would be a good way to get some input on the quality of the new sources. I wouldn't have any objection to it being re-created in mainspace, and if somebody didn't like the new sources, they can always being it back to AfD. As a practical matter, if it's re-created in mainspace and shot down again at AfD, you'll find it much more difficult to get people to accept a third attempt. Trying it out in draft space will get you some review in a less pressurized environment. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Recreate as draft, noting that there is no prejudice against acceptance because of the AFD. This may be the same as changing the result to a Soft Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

24 March 2019[edit]


Portal:Bacon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Bottom Importance Portals

Closed three days early in a way that does not reflect the discussion or what happened. The discussion found that the Portals Classification system is too inconsistent to follow in batching nominations, so I withdrew the nomination about halfway through the 7 day discussion. Note all the Oppose votes instead of normal Keep votes, which goes to the heart of the merits of using the inconsistent classification system for MFD selection, hence the withdraw so individual pages or topical groups could be nominated instead. The closer is a member of WikiProject Portals, signed up for their newsletter, and appears to have jumped at the chance to finally tag a series of pages as Keep after so many have closed delete. I prefer a more accurate close of Withdrawn and a finding statement that most of the voters found the classifications to be inaccurate or inconsistent. Note this whole portal issue is now at ArbComm plus AN plus other places so getting an accurate close is important. Legacypac (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse close. The discussion was not closed three days early, it was closed eight hours early. The discussion was started on 11:19, 17 March 2019‎ (link) and was closed on 03:20, 24 March 2019 (diff). While it would have been optimal for the standard full 168 hours to have transpired, re-opening the discussion at this point for another eight hours likely won't change the outcome. There were also concerns in the discussion regarding the style of bundling that was used, and the number of users opining for some or all of the pages to be retained has more gravity compared to the nominator singly withdrawing. Furthermore, since the discussion did have a delete !vote present, a "withdrawn" close would be inappropriate, as these are typically only used for discussions that have no outstanding delete !votes (see WP:WITHDRAWN). North America1000 08:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
As a strong advocate of portals spam your opinion is bias. There are three days of open MfDs below this and the old business section. Legacypac (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
My opinion above is based upon objective logic and a deletion guideline. As such, my !vote is entirely valid, and stands. Also, please read and adhere to WP:AVOIDYOU. North America1000 12:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Addendum to my !vote: Upon further consideration, no prejudice to changing the close to a procedural close. North America1000 13:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and reclose as something other than "keep" (withdrawn, procedural close, no consensus, I'm not sure which, but it's not "keep"). This was a bundled nom of 18 portals assessed as "bottom importance" by the portal project. Various editors voted to keep this portal or that portal. Nobody voted "keep all". Several editors voted "oppose" (interestingly, they didn't use the word "keep") based on the argument that the bundled portals shouldn't have been bundled (which I see as distinct from arguing that the bundled portals should all be kept). The consensus was clear that these portals should not be bundled because their assessments weren't helpful. Once that became clear (early on), the nom agreed to withdraw (because it wasn't a good bundle) but asked to keep the discussion open for comments, a sensible thing that allowed folks to offer some more input about what people thought about those various (disparate) portals on the list. Closing the discussion as "keep" suggests there was consensus that all the portals should be kept, and I don't see that anywhere in the discussion. The point has been made that this nom can't be closed as a "withdraw" because there was one delete !vote. That vote was made by Robert McClenon, and I don't want to speak for him, but something tells me he'd strike that vote if that meant the discussion could be closed as withdrawn instead of keep. Although, in my opinion, having someone strike a delete vote so a nom can be withdrawn seems like a lot of BURO. In any case, this should be closed as withdrawn, or a procedural close for bad bundling, or maybe a no consensus close, but the discussion doesn't support a "keep" close because there wasn't consensus to keep those portals. (Indeed, once a nom announces they're willing to withdraw but asks the discussion to remain open, the discussion "fails" procedurally because passing voters–like me–won't bother to comment since they don't think it's a "live" discussion.) Levivich 15:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I commented so I'm not going to bold anything here, but Portal:Anime and Manga was clearly withdrawn earlier and separately from the rest of the batch and discussion didn't continue, so a "withdrawn" closure for that one specifically would not be incorrect. I see a consensus to keep Portal:Jane Austen and Portal:Harry Potter, and not much discussion about other individual portals. There was clearly no consensus to delete though so I don't see a problem with any of "keep", "keep without prejudice to unbundled nominations" or "no consensus" (other than for the three I've mentioned). I would likely have gone for "keep without prejudice" but the others are well within closers discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Set Aside as Withdrawn. In any case, Overturn. This is a case where the close could not possibly be derived from the !votes. There were multiple mistakes involved, first by User:Legacypac in bundling this bundle of unrelated portals, which is exactly what is meant by TRAINWRECK, then perhaps by me in supporting this trainwreck, then by Legacypac in making a confused close/withdraw which was neither a clean close nor a clean withdraw, but most importantly by the closer, because the conclusion of Keep the whole thing has nothing to do with what was said. Yes, I would strike my !vote if that is what is needed to permit a withdraw. These nominations should be permitted to be made again without being prejudiced by this MFD that should be viewed as having never happened. This train went into a ravine. Try again, or don't try again. In any case, wait and see if the ArbCom imposes a pause on portal deletion. Overturn as Withdrawn, or as nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
An early mistake was in classifying these portals as bottom importance. That was clearly random and arbitrary. I should never have relied on the decision making ability of users who created so much trouble. It is impossible to get a "keep" out of the votes to "oppose". I think valid points were made about Jane Austin and maybe some other topics and particularly about the lack of proper classification so I withdrew the whole thing. I also find it interesting an Admin with so little MfD experience choose this one weird MfD to close out of process. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There was a pretty solid consensus in that discussion that those portals should not have been bundled in one nomination like that, along with opposition to deleting particular portals. I think the best result would be to set the discussion aside as fundamentally flawed, and allow individual portals to be renominated separately if someone thinks there will be a consensus for the deletion of that particular portal. Hut 8.5 20:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn to no consensus Endorse, but clarify keep as without prejudice for renomination There's nothing wrong at all with the close and I almost went endorse, but I think the best way to solve the problem is to set this aside as a "no consensus" on whether the portals should be kept or not. I think "keep" works in the context of all of the portals bundled together individually, but from an absolutely semantic point of view a "no consensus" would allow the portals to be renominated. Keep it a keep but clarify you're allowing for immediate renomination. SportingFlyer T·C 00:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC) (Comment edited SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC))
  • Endorse but reclose as procedural close, procedural keep, speedy keep, no prejudice keep, nom withdraw or whatever you want to call it. The discussion centered around the bad nom, and the closing rationale notes this. Since there wasn't (and couldn't have been) much discussion on the content, it shouldn't be taken as a close "with prejudice" IMO, instead analogous to speedy keep via WP:SK1. I feel changing the wording of the close to reflect that would be the most appropriate action. Alpha3031 (tc) 11:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Even though the sole deleting !voter supports withdraw, the deletion cannot be withdrawn as there was a delete !vote and several merge !votes. I'm fine with an WP:IAR withdraw since there's support from the deleting !voter, but technically the initial withdraw shouldn't have been allowed, plus a "keep without prejudice" close is better anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sure Arbcom are capable of assessing the situation properly, whatever words appear in bold in the closing statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it behooves us to be clear "on the record" that these portals can be renominated, and the result was procedural consensus (about the nomination), not a substantive consensus (about the portals). Levivich 13:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

22 March 2019[edit]

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality[edit]

Template:Infobox Finnish municipality (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Ok so this is a bit of an odd one... I was the one who nominated this template for deletion and the outcome of the discussion WAS to delete it. So... Why am I challenging? As I started to actually look at performing the conversion, I discovered a lot more about the template and how it worked. Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, a deletion review may be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. I want to be clear, I do not believe that ANYONE acted in bad faith here. Hhkohh I am NOT questioning that you acted in good faith when you closed the discussion. At the time, I obviously 100% supported it. I think the only fair thing here is to reopen the discussion. At the end of the day, I want to make sure we get this right. If anyone has any questions or would like me to explain something more, please {{ping|zackmann08}} and I will be happy to answer! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"I discovered a lot more about the template and how it worked" Perhaps you could share those findings with us..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: great question. The biggest thing was the discovery of Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Infobox_Finnish_municipality/. While in general I am opposed to the use of templates to store data in this way, right now it is the best solution there is. Until such time as all that data is able to be ported over to something like Wikidata in a more supporting way, I think that converting the infobox will cause more harm than good. Whether or not you agree with that, I strongly believe this point warrants further discussion. In the interest of fairness and transparency, I think we need to hash out that part of the discussion before choosing to delete the template. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Endorse there is nothing that needs changing here; there is clearly consensus to not use a wrapper infobox, and it seems like there is consensus to continue to use the data subtemplates. Those two outcomes are not incompatible, as data subtemplates can be passed directly to the infobox, see Template:Metadata Population BE for an example. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist This is a unique procedural request, and I don't see any harm in granting it. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

21 March 2019[edit]

Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine[edit]

Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

the new settlement template are all (standardised) blue, while the old Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine was green, matching the Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. This is a colour that we have decided on after many discussions over the years. Unless the settlement template can be modified to include the old green colour, then please undo the deletion decision for Template:Infobox former Arab villages in Palestine Huldra (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse Good close. Settlement infoboxes don't need to have a green colour. Number 57 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No reason to reopen I'm trying my best here to WP:AGF but based on everything I've seen and the numerous messages left on my talk page, this is a pretty clear case of someone who didn't get their way and therefor is challenging the outcome. The TFD ran its course. The decision was to merge. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse I don't see anything wrong with the close. SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Seriously? The color issue was not raised by you or anyone once in that discussion, and in fact, "standardized" was an argument 2 editors used, which in this context means "use the standard color and not the green one". Don't try and game the system. --Gonnym (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse (!voted in the discussion). I too do not recall colors being discussed. The whole rationale was to use a project wide infobox and standardize - abandoned settlements exist everywhere and there is no need for separate infoboxes types. Even if there was some local long ago consensus somewhere for the color green, that would not have affected the discussion and should not affect the DRV.Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Edits in the Israel-Palestine topic area are immensely contentious and difficult, and that's why I'm cautious about treating this purely as a standardisation issue. I note that, for example, the national flag of Israel is blue and white, and the national flag of Palestine is black, green and white. I don't know if this change could be politically sensitive? The nominator is invited to give us more reasoning to work with, if there's any more to say.—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Israel is a darker blue, although it would be trivial to add a #switch based on the value in |subdivision_name= to change the colour for |subdivision_name=[[Mandatory Palestine]]. Frietjes (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Oh, thank you. I didn't know it was so simple. Why don't we do that?—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Mandatory Palestine used the Union Jack (as well as a very blue postal flag) which is red, white, and blue - the later being most of the flag. There were abandoned Jewish settlements as well in the Mandate. Not that color is a DRV issue - I would wonder (irony) if we want to color code settlements by ethnicity (should we color historic African American towns in the deep south)?Icewhiz (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Looking at Template talk:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus - it is mainly Huldra agreeing with herself it should be green - vs. challenges from other users (deviations, accessibility) Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
          • The only rationale for the infobox heading being green seems to be WP:ILIKEIT – see the comments here when a related template was first created – it wasn't done for any particular purpose. Number 57 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Lets just do that, make a switch for Mandatory Palestine. I think that would satisfy everyone's concerns. nableezy - 18:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
        • @Nableezy: this really isn't the place for that discussion... Discuss it on the template's talk page. This is for deciding if the closure needs to be undone. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. We discuss closes here; if a consensus to amend a close happens here, we would normally enact it. You could certainly could pop a pointer on the template's talk page, that's a good idea.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Discussing it here and not on the talk page of the actual template, without even notifying watchers of that template that a change is going to happen to it, is very much how we do not do things here. Also, since the op has now started a discussion there, and that one is the 3rd one happening at the same time, this WP:TALKFORK should stop. The scope of this discussion is if the actual closure was correct or not - and since it was open for 17 days (much more than the minimum) had 6 editors commenting with only 1 opposing and an involved closure, there is no reason to revert it. Any change to the actual style of the template now has to be discussed at the template's talk page. --Gonnym (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I've not looked closely, but if I'm understanding correctly, this merge resulted in a color change some might find controversial without directly discussing that in much detail. If that's correct, a technical solution which keeps the colors the same but does the merger seems optimal. Sorry, wanted to give my 2 cents but not sure I'll have time to put into this to be sure I'm understanding correctly. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • FYI: there are whole academic books written about the blue vs green issue, take "Petersen, Andrew, 2018, Bones of Contention: Muslim Shrines in Palestine" gives a good introduction, Huldra (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Personally, I just read Wikipedia's articles on Blue in Judaism and Green in Islam. That gave me enough context to understand how a change from green to blue could be controversial when applied to a template in the I-P topic area.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
        • The colour in and of itself isn't a reason to overturn the deletion discussion, but if we can change the colour of the new template, I agree we should do so. Thank you S Marshall for taking up this viewpoint on the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 01:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Dorothy Hague[edit]

Dorothy Hague (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hague was Ontario's first female reeve, and the first female member of Metropolitan Toronto's executive council making her one of the most powerful politicians, and perhaps the most powerful female politician, in Metro Toronto in the 1950s. Deletion occurred after minimal discussion, that was not unanimous, and was premised on a misunderstanding of what Metropolitan Toronto was and the false assumption that Metro and Metropolitan Toronto council were less significant than the current amalgamated city of Toronto. They were not. Metro Council was an upper tier municipal government and its executive council was even more so. Hague was accordingly a significant local figure in Canada's largest municipality. (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Endorse Plenty of participation at a 5-1 vote from experienced AfDers, I see no reason to overturn or relist this. SportingFlyer T·C 03:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse delete as reasonable. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC).
  • Overturn and relist - the nomination is reasonable but the other delete comments are variations on WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM. Since AfD is not a vote, I do not see sufficient consensus to delete at this time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's sad that we don't have articles on topics like this. I view it as a failure of our inclusion guidelines. I suspect with enough work a short and reliable biography could be assembled. I hate to see history like this removed from Wikipedia. That said, the close reflected the discussion and the discussion appears to reflect our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse as presented. This appears to be a re-argument of the deletion, rather than of whether either the closer was in error or there is new information. The closer does not appear to have been in error. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

20 March 2019[edit]


File:VinesauceJoel.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)
AwesumIndustrys (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well the F9 deletion isn't technically valid because there was a fair use rationale, but it clearly wasn't a valid rationale. The subject is a living person and that alone is usually taken to mean that the image is replaceable (because it is possible to take a picture of him and release it under a free licence). You said on the deleting admin's talk page that "he seldom shows his face", this isn't typically considered sufficient. Also the image was only being used in one page, Draft:Vinesauce, and we don't allow fair use images to be used outside mainspace so it shouldn't have been in the draft. We do also delete fair use images which aren't being used in articles so it would have been deleted for that reason anyway. Hut 8.5 23:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This would be an F4, too, give or take the week-long timeout; the source given ( is plainly invalid. —Cryptic 02:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

19 March 2019[edit]

User:Rockstone35/list of banned users[edit]

User:Rockstone35/list of banned users (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I contested the speedy deletion, and the page was restored. Another admin has speedily deleted it without addressing the reasons for contesting its deletion and has thus far not responded to my attempts to communicate with them. If it is the consensus of the community that this page, which is in user space, should not exist, then that's okay, but I would like for consensus to actually be established before a deletion occurs. At the very least, it shouldn't have been speedily deleted without a consensus being built. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Overturn CSD. WP:G4 requires that the page be substantially identical to the deleted version, and that it is not a user space copy. This fails both of those. I can't see any reason why somebody wants to maintain this list, but I also can't see any reason to object to it. And, even if somebody does have a good reason to object to it, take it to WP:MfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Roy, where G4 discusses userspace, it says it excludes things in userspace "...for explicit improvement". I can't see this article, but my sense is this isn't an article being improved, but something intended to live in user space. Would you agree with that? Hobit (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The lead is identical except for paragraph breaks. The idea that you can claim a list is nonidentical in substance because, while you don't include any of the entries that were on the deleted version, you link to an offsite archive of the deleted version, is patently absurd. And while G4 exempts material moved to userspace for explicit improvement, listing "newer bans" is not an improvement in the context of the discussion at MFD. This isn't even a close call. Endorse. —Cryptic 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee, where the consensus was to place Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee under the sole discretion of

    "of any Arbitrator or Clerk. — xaosflux Talk 03:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)".

As ArbCom has purview over all banned users (note that Wikipedia:Clean start excludes clean starts for blocked or banned users), that decision should apply to all lists of Banned Users. Other's maintaining live lists of banned users are too much of a privacy problem, and no random user should have good reason to maintain this negative list (cf WP:POLEMIC). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Or is it a WP:LTA matter? compare Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse The intent here is obviously to maintain, in some form, a list of banned users. The community said very clearly it did not want that in a series of MFDs. Normally userfying stuff that was in project space is fine, but this case is an obvious exception as we have a pre-existing consensus that this material should not be hosted on Wikipedia at all, and that discussion was clearly cited in the deletion log. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I think I may be missing something. I see 6 MfDs. I believe all but the last resulted in "keep". Was there some other discussion I missed? Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • You're not missing anything. It's kind of crazy that a single MFD can result in a deletion of an article and past decisions can be ignored. It's like retrying someone in a court of law until you get the result you want. I really disagree that there ever was consensus for it in the first place. But of course, if consensus is against me, I'll have no choice but to abide by it. I still think whether or not WP:LOBU should be recreated in the project namespace should be discussed somewhere where more eyes can see it, though. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:CCC. And it did. If you want to change it back, fine, but this is not the way to do so. If you look at those old discussions, you'll see me arguing to keep in one of them, but in the end the community decided it didn't want it. In retrospect I do now agree, but even if I didn't consensus is the primary means of decision making here and the current consensus is that we shouldn't have this. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't really think the consensus did change, as the margins were 33 keep 35 delete. However, that's all in the past, anyway, and consensus could of course change again. I'm not sure where to post if I want to change it back, other than the village pump, where I already posted it. Rockstonetalk to me! 00:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Cryptic, Beeblebrox, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users (6th nomination), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of banned users/Banned by the Arbitration Committee etc. -- Begoon 01:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - This seems to be a straightforwardly-valid G4 speedy deletion. The community legitimately decided to delete the log of banned users as harmful, so continuing to maintain it in one's userspace would seem to directly betray the community's intent, and is undoubtedly an improper use of the userspace anyway per WP:POLEMIC. So, the argument that it's "in my userspace" is not valid. Secondly, the argument that "it should be discussed" is not valid either. The whole point of CSD is that they're uncontentious "quick fail" criteria for pages, and do not require "discussion". If the CSD applies, which it does in this case, then there is nothing more to discuss. ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Banned users are people too, even if their editing puts them at odds with the creation of an encyclopedia. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse The close was a correct interpretation of the MfD and a correct reading of community norms. Maintaining lists of bad people provides no benefit for the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't endorse a speedy deletion enforcing a MfD that old. Also, I can't agree with the fallacy that deleting this stuff off the encyclopaedia is in any way helpful. The practical effect of deletions like this is to drive discussion about Wikipedia's governance and procedures off-wiki.—S Marshall T/C 14:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It has been 4.5 years since the MfD. That's long enough it seems reasonable to discuss again, especially considering it was kept 5 times before that deletion in 2014 and the discussion was close (close enough NC was the most obvious close). Does G4 apply? Maybe, I can't see either article. But after 6 tries to delete over the years, one successful one shouldn't end the discussion forever. overturn speedy Hobit (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Have you looked at the previous discussion pages? It requires more assumption of good faith than is healthy to call them six tries to delete. —Cryptic 02:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean. I'd not looked closely before, just at the bold !votes and the closes. But it *was* kept and #5 was a pretty darn strong keep. Hobit (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Honestly I think reversing the MfD should be discussed again, although I have a feeling that the discussion should not be done here in WP:Deletion Review, but rather somewhere that more people can see it. I really was disappointed when the list was deleted the first time, as now it's impossible to tell why someone was banned. It's always possible that someone could make the ban reasons more neutral (perhaps simply a link to the discussion that resulted in their ban, and nothing more). Rockstonetalk to me! 05:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • comment.
The contrast between MfD5 (20 July 2013) and MfD6 (2 October 2014) is startling. However, the last formal discussion was this (23 October 2014), which although addressing a slightly different scope, and involving far fewer people (including me), I believe should be considered decisive. If it was the wrong decision, that the community generally should not be maintaining this list, then I think it needs a serious discussion, not a unilateral recreation, from unknown sources.
A small number of people at Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse#Lists_of_Banned_Users seem to also be saying that such lists are not a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems like a reasonable thing to send back to MfD after 4.5 years, that's all I'm saying. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I second this notion Rockstonetalk to me! 06:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

18 March 2019[edit]

17 March 2019[edit]

15 March 2019[edit]

14 March 2019[edit]

13 March 2019[edit]

12 March 2019[edit]


Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec