Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Deletion Review)
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 July 31}}</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 31|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]

31 July 2014[edit]

Eyetrust vision[edit]

Eyetrust vision (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Let me apologize in advance for sounding like a kid in junior high, but I'd like to ask for your help with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyetrust vision. I nominated the article for deletion, but really should have listed it as a speedy delete, as I believe it meets criteria for unambiguous advertising or promotion. Today, User:Davey2010 re-listed the deletion discussion (which I understand). My concern is that this non-admin may not be the best person to be closing deletions I have nominated. Just 3 days ago, when I dared question this editor's judgement in a different deletion discussion, User:Davey2010 left a message on my talk page here threatening: "pull a stunt like that again and I promise you I'll have your arse blocked quicker than you can blink!". Would an admin have a moment to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyetrust vision? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Hmm. This isn't quite what DRV normally does (one could quibble whether a relisting is a discussion close that would be within our puview), but I would suggest that we address it because (1) it fits in our broader capacity of overseeing the deletion process and (2) this user has been referred to deletion review by AN/I so it behooves us to be helpful.

    I've noticed on a couple of occasions that Davey2010 sometimes relists debates that could have been closed. He's not the only one who does this, but multiple relistings are covered under WP:RELIST. The two AN/I discussions which are now archived seem quite courteous and as far as I could see, the sudden threatening language on Magnolia677's talk page seemed to come out of nowhere.

    Procedurally speaking I think that when someone starts a DRV, that DRV should not be removed. There are times when a DRV is speedily closed and archived--always by an uninvolved person--but to remove it completely is not correct behaviour unless it's obvious vandalism. We might start a discussion on WT:DRV about whether to add this point to our rules at WP:DELREVD.

    But relisting that particular debate was perfectly reasonable and I propose that we allow the relisting to stand.—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • @Magnolia677: - I saw no reason that it needed speedy deletion - It simply needed community input...... As for the TP message - You took me to ANI twice for basically me assuming good faith which IMHO was out of order, I stand by what I said, You can't just go around reporting everyone who assumes good faith with you!.
  • @S Marshall: - I understand your concern but surely If I remove the discussion and instantly relist there shouldn't be a problem?, I can completely understand If I removed the discussion WITHOUT relisting but I done what I thought was the correct procedure,
As I'm new to this this is a learning curve and I can only learn from the mistakes so thanks for the message - Much appreciated, –Davey2010(talk) 11:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please don't get me wrong, I fully accept that you acted with the best of intentions. Even very senior community members would pause before removing a DRV, but there's nothing that actually says that anywhere, so an honest mistake is very understandable. I've proposed above that we should amend our rules for increased clarity.—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah okay, I suppose something should be done really, Thanks –Davey2010(talk) 12:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

30 July 2014[edit]


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

Nitin Gupta is the founder of Relcy which recently got funding worth $9m from Sequoia Cap and Khosla Ventures. He previously had many publications in academia; and has opened and sold a company in India. This was highlighted in the top newspapers and articles are available online. With his latest stint at Relcy, I believe that we should have an article on him. There seems to be no other notable Nitin Gupta at this time. Rahul6301 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Relcy doesn't look notable to me either, let alone Gupta, I think this is an attempt to build a walled garden. (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

29 July 2014[edit]

Columbia Mall (Missouri)[edit]

Columbia Mall (Missouri) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I attempted to discuss this with the closing admin on July 25, he never answered and has since made edits including answering other people on his talk page. He closed the discussion as no consensus and I think there was a clear consensus to delete. Two out of the three keeps were impeached at the discussion as they simply cited WP:OUTCOMES which is not a reason for keeping. That leaves one keep that thought there was enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG to three deletes that did not think there was enough to meet WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Overturn and have it re-closed by an admin who does not comment at the DRV. If I still had the tools, I'd definitely have closed this as delete. But that's not the main reason why I'm !voting to overturn. The admin's contribution log says that they closed this AfD less than a minute after their previous one. They left no explanation for a 4-3 close. And then no explanation to the complainant here. That's not smoking gun evidence of course and I'm not trying to trout the admin; there can be all kinds of perfectly innocent explanations for each of those three occurrences. But it does lead me to doubt that a full reasoning process was applied to the closure, especially when I suspect a great many admins, if forced to write out reasons for the close, would have found a consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)When I review that discussion, "impeached" certainly isn't a word that springs to mind. There was a lot of discussion about the WP:OUTCOMES-based !votes in that AfD, and a number of editors expressed the view that such !votes were invalid. LFaraone presumably differs, as he's entitled to do; like so many notability debates, that whole discussion boils down to how you define "significant coverage". It was said, a number of times, that WP:OUTCOMES is just an essay. That's true, but I don't see a chain of reasoning connecting that statement to a "delete" outcome. I would think that "no consensus" was within the closer's discretion given the debate we're considering.

    However, personally I would very much have preferred "delete" as a close in that case. Epeefleche doesn't say "delete" in the discussion but his commentary really does lead in that direction. Unscintillating's "keep" !vote is supported by a number of remarks that reflect Unscintillating's unique conception of our normal conventions (e.g. "notability is not conferred", "Significant material is that which is not trivial, where trivial is things like a listing in a phone book"); I see these as non sequiturs that the closer should probably have discounted. The nomination was well-put and supported by good reasoning. I think that discussion strongly tended towards delete.

    Therefore, although I think the no consensus close was within discretion, perhaps the closer of this DRV would use their own discretion to relist the debate at once, so that after another week's discussion we can delete the article in an orderly fashion.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Endorse Consensus can change: I have over the past five or so years argued for great selectivity in our coverage of local subjects (malls included), and a year ago I would have said that to a very considerable extent the general felling agreed on that. However, over the last year, it has been increasingly evident that the previous degree of agreement is no longer the case: the current trend is for greater inclusiveness here. I cannot ignore that many of the people whose views on notability I most respect no longer agree with me here--whether I have been carrying this too far might be one explanation, but that the prevailing sentiment does seem to have changed. I am unwilling to argue that the rule I want is the rule that everyone does in fact agree with. Quite the opposite--if the general mood here is in a particular direction, I will eventually accept the change, not try endlessly to fight against it--its the only way to do effective work here.
There's no point in trying to appeal to principles on such matters: the guidelines are whatever we collectively want them to be, and we will collectively interpret policy to accommodate what we want to accomplish. For a project organized as we are, there's no alternative--anything else requires a formal body to oversee and enforce fixed rules, and as far as content goes, we do not have that.
The closer read the consensus correctly--there just isn't any. I can only suggest that in trying to remove excessive articles on malls or other local subjects, we concentrate on the smallest and least important, not the borderline. They;re the only ones where we're likely to achieve consensus. I don't think relisting will help--it would be better to concentrate on the less defensible articles of this nature. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse Unless you discount some !votes, as the nomination suggests, there was no consensus. If you think OUTCOMES deals with the topic in question and it reflects your understanding of the community's view on notability, you are fully entitled to support its conclusions without providing further analysis of our notability guidelines and essays. To give a sufficient reason is quite suitable. I note the delete advocates did not give reasons against redirection or merging but nonetheless I think their opinions were also entirely suitable to be given full weight. I agree Epeefleche's contribution could reasonably be taken as delete. Thincat (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse clearly no consensus, though it did lean heavily towards the keep side. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment  Due to the sourcing I added from the first AfD, I may now be the primary content contributor to this article.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment  As I stated at the first AfD, following [1], and based on Typical GLA Range (Sq. Ft.), # of Anchors, Typical Number of Tenants, and Trade Area Size; it is my opinion that this topic is either a large "regional mall", or a "super-regional mall". 
According to [2], this topic is a "super-regional center".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The closing admin invited all relevant parties, including Me5000, to discuss the dispute on the article's talk page where the admin started a discussion concerning Me5000's inappropriate repeated attempts to redirect the article after his AfD failed (his second one to fail). As the lack of consensus above in regard to this review shows, I suggest it may be time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

27 July 2014[edit]

Match World Cup[edit]

Match World Cup (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

International club football tournament in UAE with many well-known teams. However, on the AfD page it was consensus to delete the season-articles only per WP:NSEASONS, but main article was deleted too. I will show the notability per WP:GNG. Some links: RSSSF, Official site, report in local media, in Russian top-media, in Ukrainian top-media etc. Please restore main article into mainspace: Match World Cup. Also please restore season articles (2011, 2012, 2013) into my namespace for further working/merging into main article (as was made with ru:Match World Cup). If no, please send main article to WP:AfD again for new discussion. NickSt (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy Close this listed this back in December with the exact same list of references. As nothing has apparently changed, we shouldn't entertain merely listing again and again hoping for a different result. -- (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That request was about season articles. Now about main article only. NickSt (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to remind you, this is the string of edits where you list that review. Where you list it under the name of the top level article, where you list out the top level article as well as the "season" articles. The logs for the top level article (as well as the DRV) show it was restored for the benefit of the DRV and then deleted again once the DRV was completed. The idea that this is somehow new and different does not pass even cursory scrutiny. -- (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • And what? I think this tournament deserves own article. Read Afd again. First vote against: "Season articles in contravention of WP:NSEASONS". Second vote against: "Keep the parent article, but Redirect or Delete the season-articles". Third: "Neutral leaning to delete on main article. Delete the season pages". Fourth: "Delete the season articles as a starting point". All votes against were about season articles. Clearly, it was no consensus about deletion of the main article. Also it was 5 votes for keep. Unfortunately the closer decided to delete main article also without consensus. My first DRV proposition was about all season articles. I see enough press coverage in different media for existing of page. Now I propose restore (and relist on AfD) main article only without seasons. NickSt (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I understand you think it deserves it's own article, but you listed it here before and the outcome was to endorse. You've come back and presented exactly the same sources which were rejected last time. You know repeating your view doesn't make it anymore persuasive. So that does appear you want to just relist until you get the result you want. -- (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Repeatedly, now my request about main article only (with merging of the season articles into main, as was proposed by majority on Afd). No analyzes of sources were given on AfD or DRV. It was no consensus for deletion of the main article. I will show notability for the tournament in the article when I will receive the sources of the main and season articles. Club champions of Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia took part in the competition, thats why we cannot say about "weak tournament". Definitely main article must exist. NickSt (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Trying to argue that there is something materially different to the last DRV because you are not asking about the season articles is frankly an insult to everyone's intelligence, the topic has been covered. The AFD resulted in a consensus to delete - the AFD closing admins comment "the people arguing keep had three weeks on bringing significant coverage in either this debate or the article that makes the parent article meet WP:GNG, but didn't bother." (emphasis mine), the parent article was specifically covered in the decision, so your attempt to paint it as something different, which you tried in the last DRV and had rejected then too, is transparently false. You don't need to receive those sources to demonstrate notability, since they've already been found lacking, so repeating them here will be pointless. I'll look at the sources you've listed below separately. -- (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can I edit the article now, removing {{tempundelete}}? Or only after relisting on AfD? NickSt (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't edit it now – but it is very frustrating to have to wait. Anyway, in principle DRV is assessing the AFD and so changes to the article now shouldn't make any difference to the result here. You could obviously do something in userspace with a view to merging it in during an AFD or in preparation for an acceptable new article. Thincat (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Allow re-creation. This user is presenting new sources that the AfD didn't consider, and the discussion we're considering is more than six months old, so it's reasonable to allow a new article to be created. As normal, this should be without prejudice to a new AfD.—S Marshall T/C 10:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

26 July 2014[edit]

The Bone Clocks[edit]

The Bone Clocks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was deleted last month but this month it has just been included in the 2014 Man Booker Prize list. The new rules make it an award given to any nationality. (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Not sure it adds much right now, since the book still isn't available, and it's only on the longlist as the moment (presumably submitted by the publisher for listing, which would not be a sign of independent interest), as it's due for release in September, I'm not sure the harm in waiting for more coverage which you'd expect to materialise pretty soon. -- (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


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

Deleted under the speedy criteria of being an implausible typo for Tomato. Yet it appeared on a restaurant menu in China and the typo is a single letter. It's clearly plausible. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Since there's a good faith challenge, perhaps it should be discussed at RfD. Personally, I don't think we should add a redirect for all of the multitude of mis-spellings by those who have only very sketchy English. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn. F is next to T on the keyboard so not implausible at all. Per DGG, should be sent to RfD if there is any disagreement on this. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Relist at RFD. This was actually taken to RFD but that was procedurally closed. I agree that RFD is the best forum to appeal WP:CSD R3 deletions so a relisitng there is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse: recently created (as I gather from stats) and implausible: more plausible Gomato and Romato don't exist, so why should this one? I strongly oppose sending this to RfD unless for some reason WP:CSD#R3 was not applicable here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment that some possibly similar redirects don't exist is no reason why this one should or shouldn't. Adjacency i=on the keyboard is not a useful argument--it would make 6 redirects for every word, 6**n if we considered every letter of a n-letter word. And even if we used the argument, it would normally apply only to left and right , not diagonal--left and right are much more likely--at least the way I tend to make my typos. But the place to discuss this is RfD, not here. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No, RfD is for redirects. There is no redirect at Fomato. This is a straight-forward deletion review question – whether speedy criterion was applied properly or not. It is not the business of RfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 08:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
right, my meaning is, it isn't clear enough for speedy since its been challenged in good faith, it should therefore be restored and discussed at RfD. (where I expect to argue for deletion).
That is just not needed. This is already a discussion about this deletion, and it may be endorsed here. FWIW, it was challanged in the lack of valid argument against deletion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 15:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


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

Deleted under the speedy criteria of being an implausible typo for Oven. Yet it appeared on a restaurant menu in China and the typo is a single letter. It is also an expected misspelling considdering the spelling and the schwa sound. So it's clearly plausible. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Overturn. A plausible misspelling, as the nominator explains. Should be sent to RfD if there is any disagreement on this. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Relist at RFD. This was actually taken to RFD but that was procedurally closed. I agree that RFD is the best forum to appeal R3 deletions so a relisitng there is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn: as I gather from stats, this redirect was not very recent, thus WP:CSD#R3 does not apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 07:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

23 July 2014[edit]

22 July 2014[edit]

20 July 2014[edit]

19 July 2014[edit]

18 July 2014[edit]

17 July 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