Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRV)
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

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 was a substantive procedural error(s) 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;
  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 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).

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



Before listing a review request, please:

  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 #Purpose.
  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[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion[edit]

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]


Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.


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 deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

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

Inform the administrator who deleted the page 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}}</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. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2014 September 16}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2014 September 16|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is different than the deletion review's section header:


Active discussions[edit]

16 September 2014[edit]

National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party[edit]

National Socialist Japanese Workers and Welfare Party (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was deleted for non-notability in 2009, citing a lack of coverage by secondary sources. The party has been mentioned in recent news articles, such as Neo-Nazi photos pose headache for Shinzo Abe, and the party has Japanese, Spanish, Finnish, Italian, Korean, Serbian and Swedish language Wikipedia articles. Andrew Grimm (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Endorse party is mentioned only briefly in the linked article, tangentally mentioned in relation to a photo controversy involving a notable person who is NOT a member of the party in question. Does not even come close to constituting substantial coverage in reliable sources with which to overturn the discussion or to base a new article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse notability is not mentions, it's significant coverage. Coverage by user contribution based sources (e.g. other wikis even if hosted by the wikimedia foundation) is not usable as a reliable source. Particularly between wikipedia projects that should be true, otherwise it would merely be a case of rush to dump something on a few wikis and they all suddenly become obliged to keep it since it's on the other projects, what a self sustaining pile of junk that could allow. -- (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

14 September 2014[edit]

Stephen Sama[edit]

Stephen Sama (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In 2012 the decision of MBisanz to delete this article was the right decision. But yesterday Stephen Sama made his debut for VfB Stuttgart II in the 3. Liga. [1] [2] [3] According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Men's leagues Sama now meets WP:NSOCCER. So I ask you to restore the article. Yesterday I left a message on the talk page of MBisanz but he seems to be away for some days. Yoda1893 (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore - the original deletion was valid, however circumstances have now changed. This player has now played in a fully-professional league and so is now considered notable as he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. One thing I will mention - the original article created in November 2010 was by a notorious sock account. In the spirit of WP:DENY it might be worth only restoring the history up to the 2nd version created in November 2012. GiantSnowman 10:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore or permit recreation, depending on the usefulness of the deleted article. Even ignoring WP:NSPORT's very low bar, there now seem to be a fair few sources (eg [4]). The previous AfD, some two years ago, should clearly not direct the article's present fate. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse original decision; allow new article. The concern noted during the deletion discussion was that he had not played a fully professional game. Since he has played a game now, there is a change in the situation, so a new article is in order. MBisanz' decision in 2012 was correct and should not prevent a new article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment Nobody doubts that the decision in 2012 was correct. But it saves time to restore (and update) the old article if the deleted article was useful. --Yoda1893 (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't see anything useful there myself, but I've tempundeleted it all the same. —Cryptic 14:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion (as the nominator has) but restore/allow recreation. If restoration is more useful then I can't see any technical reason why that shouldn't be done (allows for attribution anyway). In that regard, consideration should be given to GiantSnowman's comment. Stlwart111 00:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse but restore - per the comments above, now meets WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse but restore, situation has changed significantly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

11 September 2014[edit]

2000 A.D.D.[edit]

2000 A.D.D. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no discussion in the AFD, simply the comment by the nominator, "Does not meet WP:NALBUM." I would like to point out that this is one of Relient K's EPs in fact, after doing five seconds worth of research, its their debut EP. I can find several external sources about this album, including a short review by Jesus Freak Hideout that states "Relient K's first national release may not be a big one. But it helped showcase what kind of a quirky, fun-loving, Christian band they were right from the start." Smile Lee (talk) 23:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • No evidence of secondary source coverage to justify a spinout article from either Relient K or Relient K discography. (The redirect should probably go to Relient K discography). Negligible material on this EP in both articles. If you think a spinout is justified, add content to discography article, and then propose the spinout at Talk:Relient K discography. Reversing a poorly participated AfD resulting in a redirect should be done at the target's talk page. No objection to restoring the history deleted by the 04:11, 8 March 2014 deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn, thanks for responding SmokeyJoe, I completely agree with restoring the deleted information. I honestly don't know what the album's article contained, but I would like to also say that the discussion didn't result in redirect, the discussion resulted in deletion. Its one of the reasons I'm here, and not on the talk page for the discography. I would normally agree with merging with a discography article, but in this case I think it would break to flow of the discography article, and the album is notable on its own. This album is not claiming notability due to it being a Relient K album, its notable for being Relient K's first release with Gotee Records. There's even a brief mention of it in "Katy Perry: The Unofficial Biography", and on several other sources. Regardless of the negligible information on both the Relient K or Relient K discography articles, there's no call for a spinout, the article's information was never moved to the discography in the first place. The other reason I'm here is due to the fact that the discussion didn't take place, there was simply a nomination for deletion. I'm open to merging it with the discography, but there would need to be a more thorough discussion about the entire Relient K Discography before that should happen. I was leaning towards a "Relist", since I didn't know what to think about the situation. But, after you mentioned the Relient K and Relient K discography articles, I noticed that there wasn't really an effort to start a debate about the deleted article. There wasn't even an effort to clean links to 2000 A.D.D. from Relient K, Relient K discography, All Work & No Play, or Relient K (album). Smile Lee (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn - an unparticipated in discussion that results in a broken outcome can't be supported. An admin encountering a deletion request that no one has participated in where deletion is unambiguously the wrong outcome has a duty to do something other than just close as delete. Relist, perhaps. Participate, perhaps. But just honour a broken request? No. Probably the best outcome at the moment is redirect to Relient K discography with the history preserved for merging if warrented. The discography article is small enough, and the album article is currently unsourced, with pretty minimal content. WilyD 10:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn, without prejudice. Best practices in Wikipedia for dealing with discussions with no participants includes relisting them, closing them with "No consensus" as verdict or performing non-prejudicial deletion by treating the discussion like a proposed deletion (PROD). (A PROD can be overturned by contacting the deleting admin.) Of course, since I have no means of knowing whether there have been a PROD in advance of the AfD, I don't comment on the appropriateness of this vector. That aside, I see that slakr (the closing admin) is not contacted prior to this deletion review. Therefore, pursuing the latter is now pointless. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn. This is a strange one. It was open for about two weeks yet wasn't re-listed. It must have stayed on the 23 February 2014 log and just slipped off into the distance. That might, at least in part, explain why it had so few participants. In any case, I agree that we should treat this as an expired prod and just restore it, without prejudice to another AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment When an administrator encounters encounters an afd discussion like this with no participants but the nomonator, and thinks the article should be deleted, the best course is to make a !vote to that effect in the discussion, to help establish a consensus. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Relist, you can't close a blank AFD as delete, although I'll vote to redirect this one. That said, it appears that the nominator did not advise User:slakr of this discussion, it could very well have been a misclick that closed the discussion rather than relisting it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC).
  • Endorse soft deletion closure (with a reminder to clearly label such future closures as such) and Undelete as a contested PROD. If the closer's rationale had explained clearly that this was a soft deletion, this request could have been handled at WP:REFUND. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment — this was totally my bad; it should have had a "(soft)" on it to more clearly indicate it as a soft delete. On a related note, I figured it'd be a good idea to restore the rest of the history if someone's looking to build the article, so I went ahead and took the liberty. Cheers, and sorry for any delay =) --slakrtalk / 03:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Cornelius, Inc.[edit]

Cornelius, Inc. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I find that the deletion of my article was an unfair deletion with the reason of unambiguous advertising and promotion. After doing a little research on speedy deletion for this reason I found that in many times that this is not the way to handle an article such as the one that I posted as it is easy to have minor edits to adjust it from the look/feel of an advertisement. There was even some help detailed by an editor on the page by the name of JacobiJones who did not see the article as an advertisement and believed it should stay on the main page with updates and more citations. As the articles creator I added proper citations with several different citations. The company is clearly notable as it is global and part of Berkshire Hathaway. It also has been in business since the early 1930 (clearly a long history). The admin Secret unjustly speedy deleted the page on two occasions after I made even more adjustments when not even offering a discussion. In the speedy deletion criteria there was no call for this. As a third party writing my first article on Wikipedia this should not have happened. I am willing to do the work to make this article GREAT. I nominate this article to be undeleted and posted back on the main page where other editors can continue to help make it a great informing article about a company that has an intriguing history and strong global presence in the world today.Mcshanemichael90 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Undelete and list at AfD Cornelius, Inc. The G11 is contested. The appropriate place for the formal community discussion is at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow recreation if and only if Draft:Cornelius, Inc. is approved at AfC Remain salted in the meantime. A page's creator cannot remove a CSD tag and the fact they disagree with deletion doesn't mean that the article didn't unarguably met critria G11 (hint: it did). Also, the article suffers from barely reworded copyvio (source, amongst others), and I strongly object to recreation of the latest deleted revision in mainspace. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  04:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. While the claim that the article "unarguably met G11" is so silly I can't begin to imagine how to engage it, the copyvio concerns are legit. A new article must be started from scratch. So without endorsing a bad G11 deletion, undeletion can't be supported either. WilyD 10:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Some Agreement. I thank you all for participating and taking the time to take a look at my article. I do agree with WilyD as it does not meet G11 criteria as it is ignorant to say that(Salvidrim). (Take a look at any company page and you could end up deleting every one) I do not agree with having to start the article from scratch as the feedback that I am seeing from this is mostly about the "History" portion of the article. This is easily fixed as done so already, take another look and you will find it has been changed from the list format that seems to be the objection to undelete the page. Again I will state that this is a notable article that if it is on the main page it can be discussed, adjusted and added to as time passes I believe it deserves another look and to be "unsalted." And I agree with smokey that it should be undeleted! Mcshanemichael90 (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted; work on the AfC Looking at the current state of the AfC, I do not think that the article sufficiently shows notability to be acceptable in mainspace, and is still worded as an advertisement or company web page, complete with a list of minor officers down to the rank of Area manager. The references do not really show more than that it has been acquired by a notable company; everything else appears to be a press release. Deletion at AfD is inevitable, and we'd be doing the contributor no assistance by sending it there: There's no possibility of acceptance in mainspace at this time, but this is what afc is intended for. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

8 September 2014[edit]

List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies[edit]

List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The version of this article is substantially different from the one that was deleted in July (discussions here and here, previous versions of deleted article here and here). Given references were more readily available (~20), that the corresponding article for the previous World cup had fewer refs and was still left alone, then why was it redeleted? Asoccer maniac (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment using the 1998 article in a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is pretty disingenuous since AFAICT it's not been AFDd and was only put in mainspace a couple of weeks ago (by you with a note dismissive of deletion discussion). As it stands, and I'm about to edit it out it in at least one place (I haven't read them all), it shows why these can be a nightmare. It states "Ronaldo played in the final despite having suffered a seizure just hours earlier due to a painkiller overdose." and quotes a source. The source talks of a doctor finding him post seizure, the source goes on asking asking the doctor.. '"Could not the pain-killers have triggered the seizure? "No, no,.."' i.e. quite the opposite to what the wiki article says. The source goes on to talk about "In the Brazilian papers the conspiracy theorists...", generally the common term "conspiracy theorists" should tell us something about the quality of what's being discussed. So much for BLP? -- (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think it was disingenuous, as it's not the sole basis of my argument. As for the issue with Ronaldo, I read in the aftermath of that world Cup that he confesses to using painkillers and having a fit. He appears to have changed his mind, not that it's wrong. Neither does it undermine the argument. A major improved revision to a previously deleted article was related without mediation or discussion, or in the case of the 1998 [article] modification of the content. That leaves me only one channel. Asoccer maniac (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC) PS I don't think I was dismissive of anything (certainly not deletion discussions). It seems more to be refering to the fact that the AFC process is (was) very backlogged. Asoccer maniac (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
If you really don't see the problem with "I read in the aftermath of that world Cup that he confesses to uses painkillers and having a fit. He appears to have changed his mind, not that it's wrong.", rather than "I have a reliable source which I can cite it to" then I give up. Similarly the difference between "I use painkillers and have had a fit" and "I've had a fit as a result of overdose of painkillers" are not even close in meaning -- (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do get it; correlation does not imply causation. "I read" in a sports newspaper (forgotten the title, over 16 years ago) that the initial suspicion for the seizure was an overdose of painkillers he took for his knee (which turned out to be a major problem throughout his career) during France 98, and it was at this stage of the affair that my knowledge ended. Perhaps I was not clear. "Not that it's wrong", as in for Ronaldo to change his mind on what happened that day; on what he felt caused his seizure, especially as more (medical) information comes out. This detail, while important, did not undermine the whole article. If a fault in the information was indeed found, it should simply have been explained, then corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoccer maniac (talkcontribs) 01:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC) PS To rejoin the above to the relevant article, any contentious information could have been fact checked. The main issues that I can see are about Rivaldo and Fadiga. Nothing else, I think violates the BLP policy. What's really annoying is that the original deletion criteria were not reapplied as fully in the new form of the article. Asoccer maniac (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn - substantial additional sourcing merits a new discussion. That the first discussion was completely broken isn't helpful either. WilyD 09:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies (deleted, 11:45, 19 July 2014). Before considering this, improve 2002 FIFA World Cup. If it is desired to introduce material on the subtopic of "controversies", make the case at Talk:2002 FIFA World Cup for the inclusion of mention in the article, and consideration of a WP:SPINOUT. Beware NPOV issues inherent in "controversy" topics, especially WP:UNDUE. Endorse the deletions that prevent end-runs around WP:UNDUE by creating orphan subarticles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment It's important to separate the noteworthiness of the article from any discussion about its (erstwhile) form when it was first deleted. This is important because there has been a significant change in the content, and it would not be fair to jugde the article as it was on July 19. So that everyone (anyone?) can see this, I am relinking this page to to the deleted article's status in July (here, here and here) for comparison with the September article (copy of Yahoo cache here and HTML source here). Asoccer maniac (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Sunday_Publishing (closed)[edit]

7 September 2014[edit]

Warped Tour 2012 (closed)[edit]

4 September 2014[edit]

2 September 2014[edit]


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