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 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);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or

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=2015 March 6}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 March 6|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]

6 March 2015[edit]

5 March 2015[edit]

File:Screenshot illustrating formatting of block quotes on Wikipedia formatted for mobile phones.jpg[edit]

File:Screenshot illustrating formatting of block quotes on Wikipedia formatted for mobile phones.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This was speedy deleted under F5, unused non-free for 7 days. However, this image was a Wikipedia screenshot, and so is obviously free. The nominator and deleter are both apparently arguing that the fact that it's free is irrelevant because the editor mistakenly placed a fair use tag instead of a free content tag. After receiving the speedy deletion notice, the uploader responded on their talk page, and also on the image description page, explaining this, and both comments were apparently ignored. It seems blatantly obvious to me that fair use speedy deletion only applies to images that are actually fair use. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: Could you update your request above to include links to the various edits you cite? That would make it a lot easier to follow this. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot, already discussed in detail at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion of Wikipedia screenshots used in talk pages Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse WP:NFCCE §2 only requires that the file is marked as unfree. As this was the case, the deletion was correct. However, if the uploader agrees to clean up the file information page, he should be given assistance, should he choose to go to WP:REFUND. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
    • To summarize Stefan: At Wikipedia, we don't bite newcomers, and we'll delete your image if you put the wrong template on it. We are not a bureaucracy, but we'll delete your image if you put the wrong template on it. We assume good faith, but we'll ignore your good faith explanations and delete your image if you put the wrong template on it. I'm I seriously the only person who sees something wrong with this? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Deletion tags on pages created by new editors always means a bit biting, unfortunately, and the number of people who deal with file issues is too small. You might have noticed c:User:Krdbot and User:ImageTaggingBot which automatically tag files for deletion, mainly if uploaded by a new user who doesn't know how to properly upload files. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. Whether or not the initial speedy deletion was understandable, there's no reason to stand on ceremony and bureaucracy now that the unnecessary deletion has been pointed out. Wikipedia's image policies are very, very difficult for the average user to understand, much less follow to the letter. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment If the original uploader wishes to remove the FUR and non fee license tags, and reset it up with the correct license, then I don't see a problem (in reality there's nothing to actually stop him uploading it again). If he had just asked me to that I would have done it for him, rather than going for discussions all over the place. Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Deleting files because of obviously technical violations like this strikes me as a contradiction to the policy NOT BUREAUCRACY. It's not as if that policy applied to everything except images. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I noticed this image while deleting orphans that day, and—when my first try at remembering {{wikipedia-screenshot}}'s title was a redlink—skipped it, with the intent to look harder for the right template when the rest of the images were dealt with. I hadn't thought there was any possibility of another admin deleting it before then. Turns out I was wrong. @Ronhjones: will you please just undelete the image so we can retag it and put this kerfuffle behind us? —Cryptic 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC) edited for clarity; original versionCryptic 05:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As the uploader, I would just like to say that I don't overly care about reinstating this particular image (the conversation it was used in has since been archived). I was more concerned about the principle. I mistakenly clicked the wrong options on the Upload Wizard and thought that the image was deleted because Wikipedia policy does not allow for using Wikipedia screenshots on talk pages, which I thought was bizarre, because no one had explained that the real problem was that the image was incorrectly tagged. I didn't bother appealing the deletion because I assumed it was the policy that was lacking as I didn't see where Wikipedia screenshots would fit in the classes of allowable images. Although I'm not exactly a newcomer to Wikipedia, I don't upload images often. I am disappointed in Stefan2's attitude in ignoring my responses to the proposed deletion (and defending this position in doing so) and Ronhjones in summarily deleting the image without regard for my explanation. I would hope that admins would take greater care when hapless users try to do the right thing even when they aren't sure of the "right" way. sroc 💬 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn the deleting admin has clearly not checked what was being deleted. I was considering just restoring this and fixing the incorrect licensing, but it is better to have a clear outcome of the deletion review. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll !vote Overturn just on the principal of the thing, but I'm surprised at the obvious violations of WP:BURO. It doesn't really matter at this point if the image is restored as the uploader has commented that it served it's purpose. I'm more appalled at the behavior of Stefan and the deleting admin, and their continued denial that this was problematic. I can understand that maybe it was deleted quickly without looking into it much, but after it was pointed out how ridiculous this delete was and it still wasn't reinstated is kind of sad. I think some apologies to the uploader may be in order here. I don't upload images often either, and when I have it's been confusing, this is without a doubt a violation of WP:BITE. Can we please use common sense here? -War wizard90 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn with a side of trout. We expect sysops to look at what they're deleting before they press the button.—S Marshall T/C 11:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sean Fagan[edit]

Sean Fagan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted after a very small discussion that didn't attract many opinions. However, the deletion discussion seemed to focus solely on his role as an author of Rugby history and completely ignored the fact that he was a former player and journalist in the field. Even though he isn't oft cited at Google Scholar (as pointed out in the AfD), he has been cited, and a quick google search seems to turn up plenty of independent sources such as: The official NRL page uses Sean Fagan's history of the league., his listing at bruce kennedy management an Australian Publisher, His listing at Australian Broadcasting Corp along with some of his columns, A listing of his books available from the National Australian Library, Fox Sports referring to him as Rugby historian, which gives credence to him being a "recognize authority" in the field (an argument in the AfD), Referenced in the Sydney Morning Herald. Not to mention the 70 mainspace articles that link to the page Sean Fagan, many of which use Fagan's books as references. If those references are good enough for those articles, couldn't they be somewhat useable even as primary sources in an article about the author? Or should we be deleting all those references from those articles as well? One of the biggest reason's it's difficult to find scholarly cites is because so few other people have or write about the history of Australian Rugby as in-depth as Fagan does. Really think the community should reconsider the deletion of this article. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment by closing admin. Reviewing the close it still appears valid to me as those favouring delete made pertinent policy based comments which I summarised in my close. The best approach to this DR is to take it as point 3, and to examine the new evidence War wizard90 has brought forward to show notability. On looking at the links given above, I'm seeing clear evidence that Sean Fagan exists and is a sports historian, but the links do not provide evidence of notability. One is a link to an article he wrote. Another is to his publisher's website. Some are mere listings and catalogues. And the remaining are where he is mentioned talking about sports history. None of the links provided show that he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:GNG requires that an independent reliable source (not Fagan himself or his publisher or a blog) talks directly about Fagan; not that Fagan wrote an article for that source, or provided information for that source. That there are reliable sources which publish Fagan's work, and which quote him, are strong indicators that he may be notable, or about to become notable (in Wikipedia terms), but are not in themselves evidence that he is notable - for that we would need (other than a publisher's blurb) a reliable source writing about Fagan and what he has done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. SilkTork's analysis above is pretty much impregnable, supplementing an accurate closing statement. In very crude terms: writing books doesn't make you notable; nor does merely being cited in other works, unless the citations are very extensive. What makes you notable is when reliable sources start writing about you or your body of work. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse but I'll remark on a sad deficiency in the notability guidelines. If someone is mentioned a large number of times in passing it would help readers to at least have a stub to say who is being referred to. There may not be adequate material to create anything like a biography. In this case it might help sort out that it isn't the boxer or the film star (or the association footballer Shaun Fagan) that is being mentioned. Thincat (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I've now seen we do indeed have something at Fagan[1] and I don't doubt someone will come along and remove that scrap of information.

Thincat (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Fagan is a redirection/disambiguation page. Entries there have no independent existence. If Sean Fagan comes out of this DRV alive, then the link to it from Fagan should too. And vice-versa. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Would the nominator please comment on (1) why he chose not to observe the pre-listing protocol of consulting with the closing admin (or link me to that discussion, if I have missed it) and (2) which part of WP:BIO, the relevant criterion here, he says Mr. Fagan meets? Stifle (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry I missed the bit that it should've been discussed with the closing administrator first, my apologies, I don't initiate many deletion reviews and thought that all I needed to do was notify them of the deletion review. I believe he is referenced in enough credible sources to pass WP:GNG, like I said his books are used as sources in a multitude of our Rugby articles, and he easily passes WP:V. So I guess the main question is: "Is Sean Fagan notable enough?" While there tends to be some disagreement as to whether or not he meets notability guidelines, this may be a case where we ignore all rules and ask ourselves is Wikipedia better of with or without an article about him? In my opinion the fact that he is referenced in so many articles on Wikipedia, and due to the fact that the deletion of this page caused a massive 70 redlinks that the encyclopedia is better off WITH an article about him. I completely agree with Thincat that there is a deficiency in the notability guidelines if someone who has been referenced so many times by multiple editors and is one of our main sources regarding Australian Rugby can't even have a stub article to help readers of those articles understand who he is. This is no time to have a deletionist mentality, because in my opinion it makes the project worse, and we are here to improve it. Hope that helps clear up the questions as to why I started this review. And again I apologize for missing some protocol it wasn't done with any negative intentions. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

4 March 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#South_Park_infobox_images (closed)[edit]

Science and technology (closed)[edit]

3 March 2015[edit]

J. Devn Cornish[edit]

J. Devn Cornish (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Should not have been kept. Three people “voted” keep, but none based his argument in GNG, only some claim that his office automatically makes him notable, which is not based in policy. Eight months later, and there are still no reliable, in-depth, third-party sources. Time to delete this pbp 17:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I do close on 3/4 keeps and everyone's fine with it (I only close on 3/4 Providing there's strong arguments, If they're not all that strong I don't touch)- This had been up for 2 weeks with only 3 keeps so personally believed this was a Keep - Admittingly on this occasion I should've left it open longer but meh we're all human and all make mistakes, Anyway I have no objects to this being relisted or deleted. –Davey2010Talk 17:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse I find it very refreshing when people, after considering the notability guidelines and accepting that the criteria have not been met, put forward arguments that say they nevertheless consider that a topic is notable. It is an "occasional exception" and they have reached that conclusion by applying "common sense", according to WP:N. I think their opinions should be respected. Of course other people may decide they will treat the criteria as rules to be obeyed, and they are entitled to do that, but the notability guidelines and our other policies do not require it. I am concerned that there may not be verifiability of some content but the AFD did not address that sufficiently to conclude that existence of the article was a breach of policy. Thincat (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Thincat: So you're basically saying that the article doesn't meet GNG and it may contain unsourced statements, but keep it anyway? pbp 18:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think my statement was clear regarding GNG. If there are unsourced statements they can be removed after a reasonable challenge. If, after that, the article lacks adequate content or becomes unbalanced, or fails BLP, those would be good reasons to raise in an AFD nomination. Thincat (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - In the AFD discussion, only the nominator was in favor of deletion. Deletion at AFD requires a consensus. In my opinion, an article should never be deleted at AFD when only the nominator supports deletion (barring meeting speedy deletion criteria, in which case it isn't really being deleted because of the AFD), because one person's opinion simply isn't a consensus. Even if we were to discount the three keep votes, the article should still be retained as a no consensus close. However, WP:N makes it clear that people can advance other arguments for keeping an article besides meeting the listed notability guidelines, and that occasional exceptions are allowed. In this case, a participant advanced an argument that the article should be kept despite not meeting the normal notability guidelines, and the other participants (besides the nominator) were convinced by that argument, so this seems like a clear keep. I don't think there would be anything wrong with nominating the article at AFD again in the future if you think the consensus might be different, but I don't see any way the AFD that took place could have been closed as delete. Calathan (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse, but why bother? Given the arguments put forth in the AfD, keep was the only plausible close. But, why does it matter? That was 7 months ago. Rather than come here, if you think it's delete-worthy, just renominate it for AfD. Simpler, faster, less wiki-lawyering-er. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, close is probably reasonable given the local consensus (even if I would had preferred a relisting), but the AfD is old enough to consider to have another AfD in the next months, given that the subject is IMO clearly non-notable and all the three keep votes came from well-known biased mormon editors. Cavarrone 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - WP:N is almost always the place to start discussions, but it doesn't have to always be where it ends - as with everything, common sense exception applies, as would seem to be the case here. WilyD 07:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete. The article does not cite any third-party reliable sources, only LDS publications. This was still the case at the time of the AfD and no sources were mentioned during the course of the discussion. That part of the GNG is written into Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability, which as core policy overrides any consideration based on notability guidelines or local consensus. Hut 8.5 07:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse by default due to elapsed time. The appropriate venue would be a new AFD. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse simply due to the passage of time and because a new AfD would be better than an overturn here. If this had been closed yesterday, I'd be of a similar mind to Hut 8.5. It is all very well to argue for exceptions for notability guidelines, as Thincat says above. But it is another thing entirely to depart from core verifiability policies and argue to keep an article with zero independent sources. A reasonable closing administrator would have recognised that we were in the territory of the latter case here. Let's re-nominate this straight away and reach the correct outcome this time. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - just nominate it again. Stlwart111 05:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Douglas Quijano[edit]

Douglas Quijano (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is mostly a technical nomination. Basically, I feel that the consensus in the original AfD was not strong enough to result in a delete outcome; rather, the AfD should have at the least been relisted for one more week. The outcome wasn't even a soft delete either. Also, as I mentioned in the AfD, there had been some magazine coverage (albeit mostly offline and thus difficult to find) from YES! about the person even before his death, so WP:ONEEVENT doesn't count. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Overturn- I'm not seeing consensus to delete in the discussion. Reyk YO! 07:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Meh. It's a pretty marginal consensus. I agree that either relisting for another week or a soft delete would have been a better close, but not so much that I'm willing to say this was beyond discretion. I suspect the better path this could have taken was if Narutolovehinata5 asked, on the closing admin's talk page, Would you mind reclosing this as WP:SOFTDELETE instead of Would you mind if I took this to DRV?, Nakon would have probably agreed, and then we'd get to the right result without a week of bureaucracy. Hint, hint. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Two things though. For one, I did mention in the original AfD that I was leaning towards a weak keep, so asking for the article to be deleted would be counter-intuitive. Second, DELREV also mentions that one can take an article to deletion review if "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I guess the links provided below count. I wouldn't mind though if the article is briefly recreated and a new AfD is made to determine a stronger consensus. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The dead link on the talk page referred to in the AFD nomination has been archived here. I can't help but think he is very famous in his own country[5] but I also suppose process was followed at the AFD. Thincat (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
He wasn't very famous over here, but he was quite well-known among the showbiz industry. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the close is fine, though if Narulovehinta wants it re-opened to comment further, that should be done. I would not support re-opening to merely attract more disinterested editors - relistings - especially multiple relistings, show that they're pretty disinterested. Similar to the SOFTDELETE would've been wise comment by RoySmith above. WilyD 07:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The discussion had already been listed for 23 days with no comments in the 12 before it was closed. How much more do you want? Stifle (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Stifle: @WilyD: At the very least, for the article to be temporarily undeleted and renominated for deletion, to get some clearer consensus. Then follow whatever consensus that AfD decides. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I'm trying to ask is that given nobody contributed in 12 days, "get some clearer consensus" doesn't seem like something that listing again will accomplish. There has to come a time when we accept that nobody else cares and close the discussion on what we have. Stifle (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. In a low-participation AfD that has been listed for three weeks, you have to give the closing admin a little bit of latitude. This close was well within that latitude. All of the comments in the AfD were well-researched and well-argued. It was just a judgement call about whether the sources met the significant coverage bar. Nakon was entitled to take the view that the angle at possible offline sources was a bit speculative (would YES! have been significant coverage?) and that the two delete !votes amounted to a consensus. I doubt that those delete !voters ignored Naturolovehinata's comments; it should be assumed that their delete views continued to be held after they were made. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I'm with Reyk in that I can't see a consensus to delete. Like Stifle and Mkativerata, I do think "delete" could potentially have been within discretion based on that discussion. However, I differ from them because I think that when a sysop closes against the apparent consensus, their closing statement needs to contain their reasoning. So "delete" would have been okay but to my mind, "unexplained delete" is not.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

2 March 2015[edit]

1 March 2015[edit]

27 February 2015[edit]

Marissa Roberto[edit]

Marissa Roberto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was told that it does not meet guidelines of WP:N. She is the main host, so why when other hosts on the show have their own Wiki page, should this one be removed. I was also told I was stealing from when the writings they were using were already being referenced on the Electric Playground websites. It was verbatim the same thing. This is unfair, I'd at least like my page back I put a lot of effort into it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRee333 (talkcontribs) 18:50, 27 February 2015

The problem was that the article was completely unsourced — and under Wikipedia's copyright policy, you're never allowed to copy and paste text from any other website into Wikipedia regardless of how many other websites are using it, so the fact that "the writings they were using were already being referenced on the Electric Playground websites" doesn't matter. As for the other hosts, what you need to understand is that the rules for biographies of living people have changed over time — as of 2010, you're not allowed to create an article about a living person that's as poorly sourced as either Victor Lucas' or Scott Jones' articles are. Both of those articles, in fact, are actually deletable in their present form — they're just not eligible for speedy deletion, since they were originally created under the old rules rather than the current ones, but they can still be put through the WP:AFD process for being as badly sourced as they are. Even though I wasn't the deleter, I'd be willing to restore this page to your own userspace so that you can work on getting it up to snuff if possible — but the deleter was correct that article is not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia's main articlespace in its existing form. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Whilst reserving the point that the deletion review listing is out of scope as no attempt was made to discuss the decision with the deleting admin before opening the listing, I would in any event endorse the deletion (having referred to User:MrRee333/Marissa Roberto) as the article does not in its current form make any reference to how Ms. Roberto might be notable. The nominator is also counselled that each article stands or falls on its own merits and we do not entertain comparisons about such-and-such an article existing and yours being deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete (even from user space). According to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Applicability_of_the_policy, BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

25 February 2015[edit]

24 February 2015[edit]

23 February 2015[edit]

22 February 2015[edit]

21 February 2015[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
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December