Wikipedia:Deletion review

Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.

This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "PROposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion

"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Deletion discussions
Deletion today Articles (today · all · closing) Templates (today · all · closing) Files (today · all · closing) Categories (today · all · closing) Redirects (today · all · closing) Miscellany (today · all · closing) Stub types (all) Undeletion Deletion review Speedy deletion (candidates) Proposed deletion (books, BLPs) Deletion log Policy · Process · Guide Administrator guidelines

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here (administrators may replace with {{TempUndelete}} where appropriate).

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the list of perennial requests.

What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions

Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.

1. Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions.
3. Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
4. In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Equally, this process should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where your page has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed.

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in the main part of the page—please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

The latter two may be requested here. Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

Contesting 'proposed deletions'

For these uncontroversially deleted articles, you can make a quick request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request:

1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for?.
2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• 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.

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.

Temporary undeletion

Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely 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

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 process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review

1.	Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.
2.	Copy this template skeleton for most pages: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |reason= }} ~~~~ Copy this template skeleton for files: {{subst:drv2 |page= |xfd_page= |article= |reason= }} ~~~~
3.	Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used. For example: {{subst:drv2 |page=File:Foo.png |xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png |article=Foo |reason= }} ~~~~
4.	Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page: {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.	Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a {{Delrev}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
6.	Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use the following template: <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2012 February 11}}</noinclude>

 

Active discussions

10 February 2012

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was opened once and closed within an hour-and-a-half per WP:SNOW. It was re-opened at my request by the closing admin, but an hour later right as I was composing my delete vote it was closed again. For the sake of convenience I will just put here what I was going to put there:

“

Delete as a violation of WP:CANVASS. Before laying out my reasons I want to provide some explanation for why I wanted this re-opened. This discussion was opened as a result of an ANI report I filed and after this was closed per WP:SNOW that ANI discussion was closed because of the MfD. When I raised a second ANI report regarding a specific instance of the editor who created the list using it for a WP:CANVASS violation many editors from the Article Rescue Squadron and a few non-members insisted the MfD close invalidated my concerns about the list being used for canvassing at all. Now, having said that I think first any admin should be sure to compare votes here to this list of ARS members. Four members on that list have already commented here. Two of the other votes say there was no "policy-based reason" for deletion, but this is not true. In fact a previous discussion just a few weeks ago on the rescue tag said plainly that WP:CANVASS is a legitimate cause for deletion. User:Ironholds did not use this as a basis for deletion saying there should be more clear evidence of canvassing provided. In that respect, I suggest a look here where I laid out the case for its use in canvassing more plainly. While this is just one instance, it should be noted the case involves the very same editor whose use of the rescue tag prompted the TfD on that ARS tool and who created this list within a day of the TfD resulting in delete.

”

To add on to that there was a vote by another editor without any real reason just the comment "you've got to be kidding" who also previously voted for keeping the rescue tag. Another editor who previously argued for keeping the rescue tag left a keep vote in the MfD that suggested alternative ways to use the list so it would be "harder to justify" accusations of canvassing, suggesting this was not an impartial vote. When the MfD got re-opened two additional comments were made with one being from yet another ARS member and one saying there was no valid policy reason for deletion, something I was going to address. Furthermore, I should note that while the MfD was clearly a result of and linked to from the first ANI report, the nominator did not make any mention of that ANI report that can be seen here, which would have provided another editor, specifically an admin, who clearly believed the list was inappropriate. Upon the relisting I was intending as can be seen above to link to the second ANI report that had several more editors concurring that the list was being used in at least one instance to canvass. Looking further into it, I realize that the most recent closing admin, User:Reaper Eternal, left a comment on the first ANI discussion suggesting support for the list and thus was clearly involved with regards to the deletion discussion. At the very least Reaper should have considered that if an editor wanted it re-opened there was good cause for doing so and let it stay up until that editor commented.

My preference here would be that we just get it relisted so there can be a new discussion, with some clear note to admins about the likelihood that this issue is liable to get a lot of votes and so there should be some reasonable time allowed for editors to comment, at least a day if not more in my opinion. An hour-and-a-half or an hour is clearly a bit faster than normal. Given that this DRV is liable to be subjected to the same flood of editors I will be listing it at the village pump. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• DA, you need a new hobby, seriously. If you don't withdraw, I will opine further during the discussion time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Concur with Milowent. There must be something else happening on the Wiki somewhere. I just hit 'random page' ten times and got eight different deletion discussions for the rescue list.(this totally did not happen) pablo 01:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• If it closed already, then don't start a new one just to try to drag things out. Its over. Please stop this nonsense already. Not even bothering to read any of that you wrote this time around. Dream Focus 01:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. Yes. DA, this is ridiculous. Drop the stick. Walk away from the carcass. Do something useful instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Yup. Still snowing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Someone must have been canvassing--all the usual ARS suspects are here, especially that well-known inclusionist Pablo X--no less than 4.4% of their recent AfD edits were keeps. Yes, DA, expect the usual suspects, since you've tried your hardest to piss all of us off, and I expect a couple of others as well. Oh, in case this is necessary: endorse whatever this editor seeks to overturn, at least in this case. And vice versa. Bah, humbug. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, and that accusation about Reaper's involvement, pshaw. You're involved with just about everything here, to the point that maybe you cannot objectively edit anything but maybe an article on grasshoppers. What is the proper place to bring up a topic ban of some sort? Drmies (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone is free to look at your responses to me on your talk page and at ANI to judge who may or may not be cool and objective about this question. Reaper was clearly involved in the ANI discussion about the list so closing the AfD was inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Relist. I have no doubt that this was a good faith WP:SNOW closure. With 12 editors recommending that it be kept, and nobody except the nominator supporting deletion, it seemed that there was indeed not even a snowball's snowball's chance in hell of a consensus for deletion. However, despite that judgement about the outcome I suggest that it was unwise to snow-close a discussion where a previous snow closure had been reversed; that looks rather like wheel-warring, and is almost guaranteed to create drama. That's why the snowball test warns

  If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause.

  I still believe that deletion is a highly unlikely outcome, but the DRV nominator wants to make a further case for deletion and there may be others who follow. Given the controversy around the ARS, I think it is important that we take this chance to let a consensus be formed. If (as seems likely) there is a consensus to keep the list, the discussion may have a further value in helping the ARS to identify and avoid problems in the use of the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse- there was enough snow for a blizzard. Repeatedly bringing this up is growing tiresome. Can someone take the nominator's stick away please? Umbralcorax (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse closure of the discussion. There has to be some way to address the accusations of canvassing towards the ARS that doesn't require deleting one by one the preferred tools of this wikiproject. If the canvassing was to be demonstrated, which I doubt it given the current dynamic, it should be done in a way that is binding to editors as a whole, not through deletion of one particular page in some remote corner of the wiki. Diego (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't even time allowed for discussion. A day after the rescue tag got deleted, North created this list. If there is to be a comprehensive discussion about the activities of the Article Rescue Squadron it is best to allow that discussion to proceed before creating tools like this one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What, so you could have preemptively forbidden them from making a simple list? Northamerica had every right to make this list, at any moment in time. Going to read that list is an act of volition on the part of the reader, so it's not canvassing in the ordinary sense anyway. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - There is significant precedent for Wikiprojects to maintain Cleanup lists. See This search for a search list of cleanup listings that numerous WikiProjects maintain. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse - closure as keep. The rescue list is intended to be transparent, and to avoid any misunderstandings, guidelines for posting there are very clear. It's a discussion and list of content for rescue consideration, not !voting. Importantly, when editors post to the list, they should not be accused of canvassing based upon the actions of others who may respond to the list. No editor has control over other editor actions. Also, if users who view the list then !vote in AfD discussions listed on it, that is their right regardless of the presence of any list. AfD is not a vote count, it's based upon rational analysis. The intention is to improve Wikipedia content, and Wikipedia itself. Hopefully people will work to actually improve the articles, rather than just "!vote and scoot." In some cases, articles may already have been improved, but an editor may feel like contributing to the AfD discussion, which again, is their right regardless of any type of list. The point is to improve Wikipedia for all, which seems to be a concept that most can agree upon. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  This is a deletion review, not a rerun of MFD. Your comments are irrelevant to DRV, because they completely ignore the merits or otherwise of the snow closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse and speedy close. I strongly recommend The Devil's Advocate knock it off before someone decides to file a RFC/U. This has clearly gotten into WP:IDHT / disruptive editing territory. ---Tothwolf (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I direct all readers to the ARS talk page for some of Toth's more choice comments about me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. There are also some diffs there which show a clear pattern of admin shopping. Your contribution history pretty much speaks for itself and shows a clear pattern of disruptive behaviour. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The only time I went to more than one admin over a specific closure it was with the first ANI report on this list and of the two admins I went to, one of them was the closing admin who was clearly not impartial on the issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse this is the fourth time The Devil's Advocate has tried to get rid of the ARS in less than three weeks. Enough is enough. He has been repeatedly told to drop the issue, yet he continues to start discussions on getting rid of the ARS. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse This is clear harassment of the ARS wikiproject. Yoenit (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse pointless leaving that MFD open for a week with no support at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What? It wasn't left open for a week. The first time it didn't even stay open two hours and the second time an admin who had previously expressed support for the list closed the discussion an hour after I asked it be re-opened right as I was preparing to leave a delete vote.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as keep. I am learning how procedures can be carried to an absurd extent, but also how many editors endorse the work of ARS as currently done.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse good faith closure which reflects consensus. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse good faith closure. Nominator is bordering on abuse of process and would be well advised to drop the whole thing, and get some advice so he doesn't eventually get himself banned. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

8 February 2012

Taiwanese archipelago

Taiwanese archipelago (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Votes and comments after the article was significant expanded (i.e. from 01:00, 27 January onwards) show a slight inclination towards keeping the article. Further, most of the votes and comments were cast/left before the article was renamed, and some supported the deletion only because the article was improperly titled. The AfD should be relisted/extended, with the article restored for the time being. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Relist I don't think the closer is at fault here, as that AFD is a total mess. Leaving out the IP votes as obvious wp:Meatpuppets there is a large numerical majority for delete/redirect. However, all of the delete votes rest on the basis that Taiwan island group is original research as it is not used in reliable sources. Searching for Taiwanese Archipelago I immediately found two reliable sources discussing the islands ( [1][2]) and a few more mentioning the term. It is still quite meagre, but it is clear that there are reliable sources making a distinction between the geographical Taiwan archipelago and List of islands of the Republic of China, so this needs more discussion. Yoenit (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess the talk page has to be temporarily restored too, since it contains the move request discussion. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse as nom. Of the 10 "votes" that did not support outright deletion, 6 were IP voters who did not provide a detailed rationale. Of the remaining 4:

• Two (Huayu-Huayu, Deryck C.) said that the archipelago / island group exists as a notable concept.
• One (Dmcq) suggested merger because they think it is an identifiable topic, just lacking in sources.
• One (Peterkingiron) suggested merger as he considers the scope of the article to be the same as that of List of islands of the Republic of China because recent discussions suggest that ROC's common name is Taiwan.

In the last case, the "vote" does not amount to an endorsement of the article—which makes a distinction between the islands controlled by the ROC, and the islands in the "Taiwanese archipelago". Aside from that one, the question of whether the keep votes were valid thus rests on whether reliable sources talk about a Taiwanese archipelago. The list of references in the deleted article and searching on Google both suggest that while there are a few, there is almost no direct discussion in sources dedicated to geography, and the number of sources is very low for what one would expect to be a more major concept. Therefore, my assertion is that there are not enough sources to support the existence of such a concept, and the deletion should be endorsed.

I should note that some editors may consider the dispute political in nature, and I would concede that had I not been Taiwanese, I might have stayed out of such a contentious issue. However, even disregarding my own political views, I still don't think the subject is recognised in reliable sources beyond unintentional mentions and fringe views, to the extent that Wikipedia should have an article about it. As the existence of the concept is not well supported by sources, we run the risk of creating or publicising a fringe geographical entity should the article be kept. wctaiwan (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The first source put forward by Yoenit clearly demonstrates that the term excludes Quemoy, Wuchiu and Matsu from Taiwanese archipelago. I suppose this fact has to be emphasised and observed in the AfD discussion. Taiwanese archipelago doesn't include all the landmasses of the contemporary ROC. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 22:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Procedural note: both the DRV nominator (218.250.159.25) and the article creater (Huayu-Huayu) are sock puppets of different sock masters. Neither has standing to start a DRV or have their thought counted in an AfD. There isn't any reason to continue this discussion unless Deryck wants it and I think that's unlikely. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Please provide the evidence for your claim. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand SchmuckyTheCat's concern that 218.250.159.25 may be a sockpuppet (and the corresponding sockpuppet request was declined by CU clerk), but calling Huayu-Huayu a sockpuppet without formal allegation of such is simply a personal attack which is outright unacceptable. Deryck C. 17:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Other than that, I respect Fram's judgement of the AfD. Deryck C. 17:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• What a mess. Its pretty clear that the AFD was severely tainted by meat and sockpuppetry. The outcome in such cases depends on how the closing admin chooses to weight votes and whether ip commentry is discarded - which the closing admin is entitled to do. Its impossible to decide whether the closing admin properly weighted the votes in such circumstances without a proper closing rationale but from my own reading of the discussion I wouldn't find fault with the closure based on ignoring the non-policy votes, discarding assertions and discounting ip votes. But worse, the article discussed was Taiwan Island Group but the page was moved to Taiwan Archipelego during the discussion, which is surely a different subject with different referencing possibilities so the discussion is such a mess I can't see that we can rely on the AFD as any assessment of consensus. I suggest we relist the discussion but semi-protect the new discussion to reduce the amount of abusive socking. It might also be worth asking a CU to review the discussion before closing... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I've read from the edit history of the article it was an IP editor (not me) who first expanded the article significantly to give it an unambiguous subject, and suggested a more proper and accurate title for it, and provided the sources to support the new title. Further, as exhibited by the AfD discussion, and as Wctaiwan had already pointed out above, many registered editors didn't actually understand the differences in territorial extent between the Taiwanese archipelago and islands of the ROC. If the relisted AfD is going to be semi-protected, IP editors will no longer be able to contribute to the discussion. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I said. wctaiwan (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have informed the closing admin of this discussion here. wctaiwan (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

TamoGraph Site Survey

TamoGraph Site Survey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

The article was deleted by Fastily; the reason was G11. The article text was factual and, in my understanding, contained no "unambiguous advertising". Adequate outside sources were quoted, including Lisa Phifer, a leading networking professional. The article described a software tool by a reputable software company, the products of which are featured in vendor-neutral WLAN books, study guides, training courses (see, for example http://books.google.com/books?id=CBPnytQp7q8C&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=cwna+tamosoft&source=bl&ots=&sig=u1hhN_JB5L3l45N6INmrwLFPBfE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mHcyT4O8LZTb4QT_yMmsBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) and magazines. I tried to resolve this issue on the Fastily's talk page, but Fastily simply restated the G11 reason without any explanations. WiFiEngineer (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse. G11 seems to have been appropriate here. WP:NOTADVERTISING states, "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." Half the article touted the survey's features without referencing a single reliable source, while the other half discussed functionality with support from two sources, only one of which is reliable (Blogger is user generated). If you think these issues can be addressed, request that an admin move the deleted text to your user space, so you can work on it before creating the article again. —Eustress ^talk 19:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse per Fastily. I also spent some time checking the deleted article and its sources, and support Fastily's description. If the nom takes up the suggestion of requesting a move to user space, then I suggest that the nom also takes some care to check that the resulting article clearly demonstrates notability per WP:NSOFT, and particularly per WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Restore (changing my !vote). I am persuaded by the comments below that there is a case to be made that a) this topic meets the notability criteria and b) the article to be fixed to be less promotional. I don't agree with that case, but restoration will allow the case to be properly considered at AFD (if somebody wants to open one). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Permit restoration Oddly , I was the one who marked it for speedy G11 in the first place, But looking it over, I was wrong. The sources are [3]. [4] [5], and I think they are reliable enough and sufficient to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG, that was unexpected and is much appreciated. If it is relisted, I will add more sources. BTW, just found another one that will probably be considered reliable and independent: TamoGraph Site Survey receives the PC Magazine/RE - Best Software 2010 Award. WiFiEngineer (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Restore Looking at the cached file I had thought the article was not excessively promotional and would have probably got a "keep" from me at AfD even if others had thought otherwise. However, I also saw DGG had originally flagged it and I know his knowledge of sources is better than mine (and, frankly, he is more thorough). So, I am here to make up numbers and say the speedy should be overturned. Thincat (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn as a reasonable contest of a G11. List at AfD to discuss if desired. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn per DGG. --He to Hecuba (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Abdolreza Razmjoo

Abdolreza Razmjoo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please re-check the sources new I think delete this is not right deleting admin Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farkoh (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 February 2012‎ (UTC)

• Endorse - The AFD looks like a straightforward close, and the discussion on the closer's talk page confirmed the decision. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 05:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse There was clear consensus to delete the article. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Question - Can you show us (or at least quote) some of the new material from Chelcheragh and Nezafati's book that you tried to cite?   — C M B J   13:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  You can look there, how the article looked before deletion. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  There appears to have been more added to the article since Google cached it; a live mirror can still be found here. I'm particularly interested in 'Weekly magazine Chelcheragh,iran(February 2002)' and 'Nezafati,Iraj. Kermanshah music, Taq Bostan Publications, Kermanshah, 1998, ISBN 964-5551-11.' -- these could substantially alter the discussion if they're meaningful enough.   — C M B J   13:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  Completely agree with you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comments on these new sources here.Farhikht (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment As part of the post-AFD discussion, User:Farhikht (a native speaker of Farsi) wrote:

I verified the new sources in the "Further reading" section. The first one is from Chelcheragh, a tabloid weakly which its primary target group is young higher educated people. I can't verify the depth of coverage but I think that Chelcheragh can't be considered a reliable source for music articles. The second is probably a history of music in Kermanshah, published by a local book publisher and written by a local journalist born in 1976 according to his bio here. The writer claimed in his biography that he is head of the "current event" service in Kayhan newspaper which do not make him an expert on the topic. So I think that the article still fails WP:MUSIC.
— User:Farhikht 03:48, 31 January 2012

Based on his statement, "Chelcheragh can't be considered a reliable source for music articles," I don't believe it should affect the close. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Chelcheragh is described as a "reformist periodical" that is "popular among youth for its articles on culture, art, and sports, and its cartoons and satire" by Payvand, and we're more or less relying on conjecture to evaluate "Kermanshah Music" because no one else has actually seen the book. Farhikht may very well be right on both counts, but I'm still willing to hear Farkoh out if he's able to produce that material for our viewing or otherwise substantiate it.   — C M B J   22:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Endorse as deleting admin. I have tempundeleted the article so that versions can be compared. The one deleted at AfD is here. The article author pointed out on my talk page that he had added references after the two delete !votes were cast; I therefore told the nominator and the two delete !voters about the new refs, and asked whether they would alter their opinions. The additional references they considered included 'Weekly magazine Chelcheragh,iran(February 2002)' and 'Nezafati,Iraj. Kermanshah music, Taq Bostan Publications, Kermanshah, 1998' and user Farhikht (talk), whose user page shows he speaks Farsi, explicitly commented on them here. The other two also said that their opinions were not altered: WikiDan61, Spada2.

The new version Farkoh has produced is here. It actually has fewer references than the one deleted at AfD. The only new one is this, given as a reference for "Yar" instead of this. I do not think any case has been made to overturn the result of the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

7 February 2012

File:Supermushroom.png

File:Supermushroom.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The file was deleted and the discussion was closed without giving any reason. When asked, the closing admin gave a reason that amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The photo is verifiable and notable, and was sourced as the most prominent example of its class, thus making it not replaceable with a free image with the same encyclopedic purpose; I want to take the image to an RfC to gather wider consensus for its intended use at Power-up, and also reuse it at Mario_(series)#Recurring_gameplay_elements where the Supermushroom is covered. For that I'd need to retrieve the fair use rationale that was in the deleted file page. Diego (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the process to close a FfD, and none of the criteria listed to build a rough consensus was met (no bad faith !votes, no sock puppets, no addressing of policy in the reason for deletion, no copyright violation since there was a fair use rationale). So, given that:

1. There was no consensus for deletion
2. The reason given for the discussion closure was one of personal opinion
3. The discussion was closed without attention to procedure. First the file was deleted without notice, then I asked at the deletion discussion why the file had been deleted (see my comment at the bottom) and asked the administrator to undelete it, and only after that would the administrator a bot close the discussion without giving a deletion summary; he couldn't be bothered to close the discussion himself.

Diego (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For these reasons I think the deletion process was invalid. The administrator has shown muchh less than the needed attention that a contested deletion requires. There's an open administrator noticeboard discussion showing that this behavior is usual for this administrator. Diego (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Update: the administrator has since agreed to abstain from closing this kind of discussions. Diego (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse – Being a longtime fan of Nintendo myself (full disclosure), the deletion was valid. Notability does not override the non-free content policy. --MuZemike 02:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability alone doesn't, but having a non-replaceable encyclopedic content does meet the non-free content policy, which was the case here.

In any way, that's irrelevant to this DRV since its purpose is not to reassess the arguments in the discussion but to examine the behavior of the closing admin. What's relevant is that the admin deleted the image without being aware of the discussion that was going on, and that he wouldn't provide a valid reason when asked for it, which is against the spirit if not the letter of the deletion process. Diego (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If he wasn't aware of the discussion, how did he manage to link to it in his deletion summary? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As of today he hasn't given proof that he has actually read it beyond the first sentence. And the link was likely created by the bot or automation tool he's using. Diego (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Relist - Notability may not override the non-free content policy, but there was insufficient participation in this discussion to substantiate its reading. The deleting administrator's rationale explicitly stated that the uploader failed to make a convincing case, which is tantamount to a supervote because that view was never expressed by anyone other than the nominator.   — C M B J   13:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! If it is relisted I will drop a note at WikiProject Video games to get wider feedback. Diego (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (as nominator)—I've noticed at FfD that there is a trend of administrators deleting images at the conclusion of a deletion discussion (with a log entry referencing the discussion)and leaving it to AnomieBOT to close the discussions. When the deletion is uncontroversial or the rationale is straightforward, this is understandable. However, with regards to this deletion discussion (where only two users participated), the administrator should have closed the debate manually with a specific analysis of the arguments brought forth. While this is moot now (because Fastily has now provided a rationale for deletion), I do agree with Diego that Fastily should have manually closed the discussion before deleting the file with the rationale provided. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Being the "most prominent example of its class" does not make an image non-replaceable. NFCC does not specify that a free replacement must be at the same quality of the non-free image. If the education value can be portrayed by another free equivalent, then this deletion is valid.--v/r - TP 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

First, that's not relevant to this deletion review, which is not about the arguments in the debate but about how it was closed. Second, "being notable" was not the argument for keep but "being used in a non-replaceable encyclopedic way". The article still shows "The Super Mario Bros. Super Mushroom has been described as the quintessential power-up (source)". Exactly which free image would you put to illustrate that sentence? You may want to think about it if this discussion is relisted. Diego (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Relist - The arguments as to whether the use of this file constitute fair use/dealing are complex, and I think more participation is needed to determine consensus. --He to Hecuba (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• relist in hopes of getting wider input (due to this DRV if nothing else). I suspect this will end up deleted, but as "He to Hecuba" says, it wasn't clear where consensus was and a new discussion might get us there.

5 February 2012

File:Popcorn deelites.jpg

File:Popcorn deelites.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|restore)

Speedy deleted under CSD F7 as replacable with a free image, which I disputed, as the subject's residence in not a public place, and therefore a free alternative cannot be obtained. — Edokter (talk) — 13:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unless I'm missing something the subject's residence claim to offer 2-5 tours daily, can't see that as a bar to getting a replacement image. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You missed something: "He now resides at the Linn Farm in Virginia." — Edokter (talk) — 16:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well I think you are misreading that, our article and the bio on Old Friends refers to "Rich In Dallas" residing at Linn Farm, not this horse. The full quote being "Another Seabiscuit star, 10-year-old Rich in Dallas, was also retired through the combined efforts of Old Friends, Robbi Meisel of Flashpoint Photography, and The Exceller Fund. He now resides at the Linn Farm in Virginia and still makes public appearances to raise money for The Exceller Fund.." - even if it's badly worded and really trying stating that Popcorn Deelites is at the Linn Farm it's very clear that "and still makes public appearances..." which would still mean replacement is quite possible. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • In that case, until someone actually does a picture, no alternative is available. — Edokter (talk) — 17:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
        • And the criteria is not that such a picture exists right now, it's that one can be created, which clearly it can. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
          • That part directly contradicts with the rest of NFC #1, which states that non-free content must be replaced "if one of acceptable quality is available". — Edokter (talk) — 17:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
            • The application of NFC#1 has been quite consistent for years. Your opening to this DRV was clearly meant to be based on the idea that a free alternative couldn't be created, now that's been pointed out to be false, you're trying to simply dispute something which as a long term contributor and admin, you will have encountered many times with the same application, that is disingenuous to say the least. To be clear NFC#1 is part of the EDP as required by the foundation the resolution on this is quite clear "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals.". If you want to make NFC#1 something else, DRV is not the place to do it. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ OK, tell you what... be a dear and drive over to the stables and shoot a picture, will you? Because I can't afford the 1000 bucks right now to fly over to the US and do it myself. The point is, "could" does carry a burden of reasonability. So as long as there is no free alternative, and no one is expected to actually go over and create one, fair use is fair game. — Edokter (talk) — 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah strawman arguments now, we're seeing it all here. This lot has been rehash 1000's and 1000's of times, again the policy is about "could be created", not has been created, nor that any particular editor could create. At this point I'll bow out of this, since it's quite clear you aren't interested in honest discussion. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing strawman about it; just pure practical interpretation of the policy. But yes... please go, because I am absolutely inlolerant about being called dishonest, so you are no longer welcome in this duscussion. — Edokter (talk) — 00:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an obvious strawman argument. You attack the "free alternative" by saying it highly impractical that you make the picture as it would cost a lot of money. The IP correctly stated that according to NFCC#1 someone has to be able to make a picture. You telling him that he is "no longer welcome in this discussion" is also way out of line. Yoenit (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in being part of a discussion where another editor acuses me of being dishonest; any such editor automatically loses the right to be part of that discussion. — Edokter (talk) — 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Calm down, get off your high horse, and take the time to read WP:NFCC#1. No one is accusing you of anything. Your unfounded accusations directed at others and immature behavior in this discussion is disgusting. Frankly, I am impressed you are still an admin. -FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"...since it's quite clear you aren't interested in honest discussion." If that isn't an acusation, I don't know what is. And no admin was ever desysopped for having an opinion. — Edokter (talk) — 01:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the IP meant "honest discussion" as if you've been dishonest. I think he meant it as "man-to-man" or as a mature discussion. I think you've made a huge mistake in your interpretation of NFCC and you're letting your pride stand in the way of seeing this error.--v/r - TP 03:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse per User:Fastily/E#F7. That's all I have to say. -FASTILY_s ^(TALK) 23:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse per the IP and Fastily. Yoenit (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. A simple way to replace this would be to ask the subject's owners nicely if they would provide a free image. I'm sure that they would respond positively, especially if the request was accompanied by a small donation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Image clearly doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse. The non-free content criteria are strict and narrow, and "could be created" does not mean that there has to be someone ready, willing, and able to do so. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse OP has a huge misunderstanding of NFCC. If it is possible that a free equivalent can be created or exists, then a non-free image cannot be used. Deletion was in accordance with policy.--v/r - TP 03:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse - A horse is a horse, of course, of course; but there's indication that this one can't (yet) be depicted without violating WP:NFCC#1. I'm of the same opinion as Phil Bridger and would suggest dropping the farm a line to ask if they're willing to provide OTRS permission, and perhaps even a higher resolution version of the file. That's the best course of action at this point.   — C M B J   12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive

2012
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2011
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2010
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2009
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2008
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2007
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December

2006
January	February	March	April
May	June	July	August
September	October	November	December