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.

Purpose[edit]

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 user who 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.

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

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

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]

 
1.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

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

Copy this template skeleton for files:

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

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

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

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

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

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2019 July 18}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

5.

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

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 July 18}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 July 18|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]

18 July 2019[edit]

17 July 2019[edit]

Martin Concepcion[edit]

Martin Concepcion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD resulted in delete but the page has since been re-created. Speedy deletion was declined with the reason given that the original AfD was marginal -- there was a mix of opinions that didn't result in an entirely clear consensus. I am neutral on keep/delete, but would like clarity regarding the notability of this page. Paisarepa (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Second AfD. Paisarepa was correctly following policy to tag G4, but the original AfD was a bit sparse. In particular, the keep !vote from Michig, where he backed his rationale with multiple sources, against a handful of delete !votes of variations of "just not notable" led me to feel the AfD needed to run for a further week to cement a consensus against that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Concepcion (2nd nomination). –MJLTalk 18:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment on second AfD I can't tell since I can't access the history, but if this is a substantially similar article, than the WP:G4 should not have been declined. Perhaps it's moot with the new AfD, but is it possible to temp undelete history for a currently existing article? SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. DRV aside, the WP:G4 should have applied for the new edition of the article - it's not the same, but it's substantially similar, and most importantly it doesn't appear to have anything added to it. If I were Wikipedia dictator, I would delete the current article on WP:G4 grounds, void the current AfD, and endorse the original AfD as a correct close. SportingFlyer T·C 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse old AfD I might have voted differently had I participated, but a delete was a reasonable reading of the discussion, especially since the !votes broke delete after the sources presented by Michig were identified. SportingFlyer T·C 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse but/and Let the Second AFD Run and throw out any !votes from suckpoppets. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse and close this discussion. I think we should have an article on this subject, but the close of the first AfD as delete wasn't unreasonable. So there's no case for DRV. The speedy deletion tag shouldn't have been removed as this is a clear case for G4 deletion, and this shouldn't be at DRV unless someone comes up with a cogent argument that the original AfD closure was incorrect. --Michig (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy endorse, speedy delete, and salt- as the article was re-created by a sock of banned user User:Qualitee123, this qualifies for G5 speedy deletion. Reyk YO! 10:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

16 July 2019[edit]

Omnibussimulator[edit]

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

Just two delete votes are not enough to delete an article. More consensus needed Erkin Alp Güney 20:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Counting delete votes is never enough to delete an article. I'm curious where you get the idea that there were "just two", though. —Cryptic 21:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a valid judgment call by the closer, and because another call would really be reason to request Deletion Review. There are two Delete !votes and one Weak Delete !vote, plus the nomination is at least 3.5 and maybe 4, and one valid Keep !vote. A Relist would have been a valid judgment call, and Delete was a valid judgment call. No Consensus would ignored a rough consensus. Right call. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse not the best participation for an AfD I've ever seen, but a delete result certainly is within reason given the nature of the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse as within admin discretion per WP:NOQUORUM — specifically If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include [...] closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal; IMO a relist would be unlikely to be closed with a different result because of NOTINHERITED. Alpha3031 (tc) 06:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse I count that as four people supporting deletion, not two. The participation is over the threshold at which the discussion can be closed. Only one supported keeping it and their main argument was the existence of addons, which is irrelevant. Hut 8.5 06:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse- consensus to delete was clearly reached. Reyk YO! 10:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse a consensus had been appropriately established and was appropriately recognized. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Dream Pod 9 (closed)[edit]

15 July 2019[edit]

WorldFest-Houston_International_Film_Festival[edit]

WorldFest-Houston_International_Film_Festival (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The keepers do not list any report from reliable source. One of them is the creator who referred me to a PR release of the festival which suggested many famous people received the award, note that you just invent an award and give it to anyone. If it is really as famous as they suggested I should easily find usable media reports on this, however, there is nothing more than press release. Specifically, the creator keeps making ad hominem arguments and as much I'd like an article to remain, I failed to see any reason in this case. The other keeper simply suggested there is coverage from international media, while the google news search resulted in a different result. Notice this festival is still running, therefore it doesn't make sense for media like NYT WashingtonPost and many more not have article on it if it is truly as the keepers said a famous international film festival. Viztor (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Overturn to No Consensus at best it is here (as one of the Keep votes had no policy or guideline based reasoning at all). This is certainly not getting deleted now at least if that was your intention of raising a deletion review, as there was no consensus for that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Jovanmilic97, do you think it is possible to just relist as there is clearly a lack of discussion, not a long discussion with no consensus, with total three person participated other than the closing administrator or should I just propose it again myself? To be honest, had any of the keepers point me to any reliable source on this subject I would have not requested DRV. Viztor (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse firstly there's no way this is going to be deleted, nobody aside from the nominator supported deletion and two people opposed it. The debate was relisted twice, which is the usual limit before it gets closed unless there's a particular reason to relist it again, and I don't think there is. The idea that there is no independent media coverage of the festival is pretty ridiculous, simply by typing it into Google News I found numerous press reports about the festival and things that happened at it. Hut 8.5 07:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Hut 8.5, I am not saying I cannot find any report on this, I am saying I can not find sources that are usable, not to mention to credit it as a well-known international film festival. Most of the results are press release about the film festival and about the films or actors/actress who received an award at it. Xinhua and ChinaDaily have some reports on this, and these were interviews with persons who were closely related to the film festival, I am aware that this festival exist and it award people/films, but there is few that qualify as a independent coverage on the film festival besides some local Houston newspaper, in these cases they reads more like a guide in Houston than news report. Viztor (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The coverage doesn't need to "credit it as a well-known international film festival", the bar for notability is a lot lower than that. I'm struggling to see how [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and many others do not represent significant independent coverage of the festival. You didn't make any attempt to show this in the AfD debate either. The rationale in the nomination was that "no one recognize it", which clearly isn't true. Hut 8.5 06:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Based on my own searching, I'm not 100% convinced this is notable. I also don't think the AfD was perfect, but there's no way you can wrangle a delete consensus out of that, and haggling over keep vs no consensus is silly. If you still feel strongly that this should be deleted, my suggestion is to wait a while and bring it back for a new discussion per WP:RENOM. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
RoySmith Technically, keep vs no consensus matters if you are citing the WP:RENOM essay since it's main point is "After a “no consensus” close, wait at least two months. After a “keep” close, wait at least six months." Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that. I still don't think splitting hairs about keep vs NC close calls is useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I feel that I need to specifically disagree with that. So long as lots of people raise disputes and rebuttals in reference to past Keeps (quite possibly including myself), then editors aren't being unreasonable to seek a review to a NC rather than a Keep. That's not saying a shift to NC is appropriate here, but I do think that it can be. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Not unreasonable exactly, but not worth the trouble. There are always a great many more articles--andafd discussions that need attention DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Not sure you can have any other outcome here, especially given one of the keep !voters I know as a user who presents well-reasoned delete !votes most of the time. Give it a few months and try again, or even better, improve the article. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Flawed reasoning like "given one of the keep !voters I know as a user who presents well-reasoned delete !votes" must be objected, this is a specific case and impression of the voters hardly works, it is not hard to see that none of the keep voters present any reliable source in the discussion. Viztor (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Barbecue_in_Oklahoma (closed)[edit]


Recent discussions[edit]

10 July 2019[edit]

9 July 2019[edit]

6 July 2019[edit]

5 July 2019[edit]

4 July 2019[edit]

Archive[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