Wikipedia:Deletion review

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

Purpose[edit]

Shortcut:

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.

Shortcut:

Instructions[edit]

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]

 
1.

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.

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 (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:

{{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.

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.

6.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2014 July 12}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2014 July 12|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]

12 July 2014[edit]

List of chess-related deaths[edit]

List of chess-related deaths (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Endorse by default, nominator expresses disagreement with the close but gives no further reasoning. (See "Deletion Review should not be used..." section above.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn - OK first of all I thought the admin who closed the discussion did so much too abruptly - within a couple of days in relation to an article that had been there some time.
Secondly there was no consensus and clearly quite a number of editors arguing to keep - to dismiss the keep arguments as not policy based was an oversimplification.
Thirdly the grounds given for closure and deletion were original research and lack of verifiable sources. However these grounds were inadequate - there was no original research, all significant material was sourced and much of this was sourced very solidly. As I said before the USSR banning chess in space after one of their Antarctic workers killed a colleague with an ice pick over a chess game says something very clear about chess-related violence that simply does not arise with say checkers-related violence or ludo-related violence.
If there was a real concern re lack of verifiable sources /original research a better opportunity could have been given to allow time for the article to be improved.
Finally, even if all of the above were not accepted, deletion of the whole article is too drastic. If it can't be kept it should have been merged into Chess as one of the editors commenting suggested. --Zymurgy (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn. It's not a satisfactory debate. There's no consensus on how to evaluate the notability of a cross-sectional list (see WP:LISTN). If you discount the "keep" editors who didn't provide any rationale and the "delete" editors who dismissed the topic out of hand (I hope "a nonsensical article on an rather pointless topic" didn't carry much weight with the closer) you're left with the basic disagreement about evaluating the topic's notability. The closer seems to have given the debate short shrift; he refers to a "policy-based consensus" but doesn't indicate what that policy is. Many lists are by their nature a synthesis and that's perfectly all right so long as sound criteria are used in creating them. Looking at the article itself (one of our older articles, it dates to 2002), most of the anecdotes are sourced and as I said, it's not at all clear that our official policies require that the concept a cross-sectional list be notable in itself. The existence of many other articles of a similar nature (raised in the debate) is important; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS itself notes the possibility of unofficial consensus. The close doesn't grapple with any of this and proceeds from the assumption that we're on settled policy ground. We're not. The "keep" editors shouldn't have been ignored and this should be closed as "no consensus", with the understanding that cleanup on the article continue. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Correct reading of the discussion. I see the sourcing was strongly criticised. Any new attempt to recreate should involved a draft incorporating better sourcing. Including anything related at Chess should be proposed at Talk:Chess; where I doubt it will get much respect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There was no evidence presented in that debate: it was nothing but a clash of opinion statements. In such cases, the numerical consensus should normally prevail, and I'm pleased to see that on that occasion, it did. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
    At the risk of being difficult, I am personally unfamiliar with the principle that in the absence of policies we fall back on a headcount and I have no idea what a "numerical consensus" would be. Furthermore, that's not the closer's rationale, and that's what we're reviewing here. If it's a policy-based close then the numbers don't matter. If it's a strict headcount the closer should have said so. Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

11 July 2014[edit]

10 July 2014[edit]

2016 NHL Entry Draft[edit]

2016 NHL Entry Draft (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

At the time this article was closed as redirect in December of 2013 there was just one transaction and a story covering a potential location for this draft. At the time of closing I do believe the correct decision was made. However seven months later this article should be allowed to be re-started as there have been an additional six transactions that have taken place since that time. In addition leaving this article as redirect any longer does go against the previous consensus of the community. The nine previous articles covering this topic (2007-2015) have been allowed to exist unchallenged between 24-27 months before the event was scheduled to take place.

The protection that was applied to this article on May 8, 2014 should also be removed, while I do believe the admin that applied this was acting in good faith. Preventing editing of this article until May of 2015 will cause a significant amount of information about this article to be missed (there are usually anywhere from 15-30 transactions involving draft picks during this time). These articles at worst usually only suffer from some persistent vandalism that is usually limited to the first round of the draft.

Please note that I have tried to contact the closing admin (on July 1, 2014) at this time there has been no response. I am also aware that this article has been listed here once before on May 8, 2014 with the result being no consensus. Deadman137 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Remove the protection, restore article. There have already been a number of trades involving this draft. For example, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The start dates for the previous drafts are:
    • 1) 2014 Draft (June 2012)
    • 2) 2013 Draft (June 2011)
    • 3) 2012 Draft (June 2010)
  • So, as Deadman137 notes, 2 years before the draft is usually about the time we start these articles, as many GMs begin to make trades involving said drafts. I believe keeping the full protection for another year is unnecessary (and will just make us miss many more trades involving 2016), and we can create the article again as we actually have content for it. Canuck89 (what's up?) 03:26, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove the protection, restore article: Honestly, I find the efforts of WilliamJE and Ged UK to keep this shut down and force it to DRV to be obnoxiously over-officious; this is exactly the sort of stunt the naysayers cite when they claim that Wikipedia's been taken over by rules lawyers. While I completely deplore Dolovis' eternal whoring after edit and first article counts, that's not a valid reason to keep this article shut down while the transactions pile up concerning a draft that's less than two years away now. In any event, the original AfD had no consensus to salt the article, so it should be available for recreation. Ravenswing 09:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove the protection, restore article, as it's less then 2 years now & as mentioned, many 2016 draft picks-to-be have already been involved in trades. GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Uphold the AFD. This second DRV comes shortly after the first DRV where the AFD was upheld and the lock on the article is to keep any single editor from deciding for themselves that the AFD doesn't apply. Ravenswing you personally attacked me its not appreciated and totally uncalled for....William 18:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply: No, I rather think it is called for. Locking down the article back in December was justifiable. Locking down the article after facts and reliable sources pertaining to the subject started to appear is, in fact, over-officious, especially since there has never been any consensus to salt the article. Any article removed at AfD, unless salted, is removed without prejudice and is liable to be recreated should sufficient sources turn up to support the subject's notability. To quote from WP:Deletion policy, "If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content ... and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review ... when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available." Your edit summary of "Result still applies" demonstrates a lack of understanding of deletion policy. In your shoes, I'd correct that before getting upset that I was being called on it ... or before advocating that the article stay deleted without proffering any reason beyond that some people thought it ought to be eight months ago. Ravenswing 04:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Remove the protection, restore article, this article was useful and informative, and should never have been locked down in the first place. Verifiable transactions concerning this draft had already been made, and the original AfD reads like "no concensus" to me (if not to the closing admin). Now a back-logged of transactions exist which increases the work-load for those editors who volunteer their time to update and maintain this article. Dolovis (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

9 July 2014[edit]

Rin Nakai[edit]

Rin Nakai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I believe the initial deletion review had problems and should be reviewed.

The subject of this article is notable, and was unfairly deleted without a thorough and accurate review of its notability. The person who brought this article up for deletion grossly misrepresented the fighting history of the fighter. "Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and nothing shows that her 4 wrestling matches give her notability. Mdtemp" This is completely made up and untrue: if you examine her fight history, she had already participated in 16 fights by Dec 2013, when the article was nominated for deletion. Her fight history by that time included a win against Tara LaRosa[8], a fighter who was notable enough to have a rather extensive article on Wikipedia.

Since then, she has defeated Sarah D'Alelio[9], another fighter with an extensive article on Wikipedia. She is also now scheduled to fight Miesha Tate[10], another fighter with an extensive article on Wikipedia.

This fighter is undefeated, extremely popular in Japan[11], the #1 fighter in her weight class in Japan, the current title holder in her weight class in Japan (per a Wikipedia article) [12], having held the title since Dec '12 (per another Wikipedia article) [13], and the #10 fighter overall internationally in her weight class [14][15] (All of the other fighters in her weight class in the top 10 have their own article).

This fighter is notable enough to have articles on her in 5 different editions of Wikipedia, the most extensive of which, unsurprisingly, comes from the JPN Wikipedia [16] - there's been an article on her since 2009 in the JPN Wikipedia.

If you check the article views, it jumped to 444 recently, which is unsurprising since readers probably came here to search for information on this fighter due to her upcoming fight against Miesha Tate[17]. This notability has crossed international boundaries: there are articles in Greek[18] and Portuguese[19] making references to this fighter. Unfortunately, the article appears to have been re-deleted on that same day by an admin who didn't bother to check or investigate whether the fighter had become more notable since the last deletion of this article, which, of course she has.

I believe there's more than sufficient evidence to show that this fighter is notable, so the article on this person should be restored. 123.193.40.25 (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Endorse the AfD, obviously. Advise the IP to register, declare any WP:COIs, and write a userspace draft before coming here again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I believe that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia[20]. I did not come here with a hidden agenda. I searched for info on this fighter due to the recent publicity, and was genuinely surprised to find that this article was deleted for non-notability and wished to bring this issue up in front of a larger audience to review the merits of this article, especially since the article was condemned with minimal participation in its original deletion discussion. Although I've made many bureaucratic filing errors in pursuit of trying to bring wider recognition to this issue (errors which were not helped by the bureaucratic complexity of Wikipedia), that shouldn't invalidate the merit of the argument and evidence that I've brought forth to support the notability of this article. I've brought forth what I consider valid arguments in support for the validity of this article - the only argument that you've used to support your position is, essentially, an ad hominem attack on my credibility.123.193.40.25 (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Where there is a clear deletion decision, and someone brings new sources, it is usual for that person to create a draft to show what the article looks like. It makes it much easier for you, and for us. You can use AfC, but it is much easier, for you, if you register and use your own userspace. There is nothing "wrong" with having a COI, only with not declaring it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a bit odd to ask someone who's suspected of having a COI to re-write the article and re-submit it for approval. I would think that it would be more appropriate for me to end my involvement at that point and allow more neutral parties to re-write the article. As I mentioned earlier, I have no particular interest in this article. It appeared to my un-trained eyes that this article was obviously notable, and that other people would probably run into the same scenario when searching for info on this article, so I wanted to post a notice somewhere to alert someone on a possible mistake in judgement in this case. Apparently, I'm mistaken, since it appears that the consensus is in support of the original deletion. I have no interest in forcing my own opinions on others. If you guys are happy with the situation here, then I'll just accept that reality and move on as there are much more interesting things to do with my time. I have no further interest in this article, so I withdraw my original petition and you guys can just go ahead and close this case123.193.40.25 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Having a COI (depending on the degree) doesn't mean you can't write the article. Are you the subject, her manager, or her promoter?
This nomination was a little confusing. Firstly, it referenced a "deleteion review" which I couldn't find. Secondly, it was unclear as to whether you wanted to protest/overturn the AfD. Thirdly, you appear to want permission to recreate the article on the basis of newly found sources. Shall we agree to ignore the first two, and just discuss the third.
You had a brief discussion with the AfD closer, received advice, and ignored it to come here. The advice you already received was good. I have essentially given the same advice, though with stronger encouragement to register.
I agree, on the basis of some of your sources, and on a translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article, that this person looks notable, and that the AfD was perfunctory.
Your interest in this subject is to be assumed on the basis of you bringing it to DRV. I would like to encourage you to register, and to write and improve the article, but if you have no further interest, I'm sorry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to support undeletion/recreation per nom, noting the low level participation and discussion at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Comment Previous DRV was not completed fully, so it looks like the robot automatically removed the "empty" page from the active list. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • temporarily restored or discussion DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse the AFD as decisive and correctly closed, but permit recreation if a draft which makes her notability clear can be presented. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC).

8 July 2014[edit]

Megan Nicole[edit]

Megan Nicole (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Source: [21][22] GZWDer (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment One of those is transparently a press release, the other is, I believe, less transparently a press release. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment, I'm assuming here that you wish the article restored on the basis that these two links constitute reliable sources that would push Nicole past the WP:GNG. If that's the case, I'm forced to concur that both of them look like publicity rather than genuinely independent coverage. If your intention was not as I assume, can you please clarify what you are asking for? Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Endorse by default, no new info presented, and the linked sources aren't even close to enough to change consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • temp restored for discussion not that I think we'll change our mind, but so people can see it and realize why. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Sad to say that even with the number of YouTube subscribers Megan currently has, 2.5 million+, more than the subscriber tally for some of the fellow YTers she's worked with, Tiffany Alvord, Jason Chen, Dave Days and Alex Goot, to name a few, all of whom have Wikipedia articles with their respective notabilities established somehow, Megan has yet to meet the guidelines under WP:MUSICBIO. Unfortunately, YT subscriber counts are not a true measure of notabiity, and lack of substantial coverage in independent, third-party sources is keeping her out of Wikipedia. Not to mention, she has yet to have an album release from Bad Boy Records, and no word whether it will ever happen. I have read an AfD nomination discussion for one of the names I mentioned, Alvord, and how her coverage in third-party sources have allowed her to "have scraped past WP:GNG via interviews and mentions." My thought is Alvord still is struggling with the notability test (also noting her article in Wikipedia is relying heavily on primary sources), but not quite as much as Megan. I will say that I am a fan of Megan Nicole, and am even subscribed to her YT channel, but she will need greater exposure away from YT, and perhaps an album of original work, or other original work, which further defines who she is. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

7 July 2014[edit]

5 July 2014[edit]


Recent discussions[edit]

4 July 2014[edit]

3 July 2014[edit]

2 July 2014[edit]

30 June 2014[edit]

29 June 2014[edit]

Archive[edit]

2014
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2013
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
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