Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
For simple image undeletions, try {{ImageUndeleteRequest}}
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Administrator instructions

Shortcuts:
WP:DRV
WP:DELREV
Skip to current nominations Skip to: Active discussions · Recent discussions · Archive
Deletion discussions
Wikipedia deletion policy
Tools

Process – Log – Guide
– Images – Admins

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

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

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

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

Contents

[edit] What is this page for?

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

[edit] Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions

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

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

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

Deletion review is explicitly a drama-free zone. Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed.

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

[edit] Temporary review

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

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

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

[edit] How do I do all this?

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

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


[edit] Instructions

Before listing a review request:

  1. discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #What is this page for? (above).
  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.

[edit] Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

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

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

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

[edit] Temporary undeletion

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

[edit] Closing reviews

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

[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. 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.
 
1.

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=
}} ~~~~
2.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the deleted page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a {{subst:Delrev}} tag to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.
 

Click to create a log page for tomorrow (27 December 2009)


[edit] Active discussions

[edit] 26 December 2009

[edit] 25 December 2009

[edit] Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This article, I feel, was wrongly closed by User:Spartaz. The discussion on the AFD was clearly a no consensus, so the close should have been, by wiki standards, a no consensus closure with encouragement to discuss and improve the article (which has been vastly improved during the AFD, largely ridding it of the concerns that caused the nomination in the first place). Instead, the article was blanked, protected, and moved to a new "article" Comparison between Roman and Han Empires/Draft. This arrangement is a de facto delete/userification, and will only inconvenience the reader, so I propose an overturn to No consensus. I previously contacted the user to explain my concerns, but as they have not been addressed I feel DRV is the only proper course. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment from closing admin Technically I can't see that DRV has any scope here as I haven't deleted the article and the content remains in the article history so this was a technical keep close. Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • comment I suppose I could agree with Spartaz that this isn't strictly speaking a matter for DRV. But I think it would be reasonable to say something about what the right forum is in which this use of admin discretion could be assessed. The nom here clearly has a concern, and if this isn't the right place for it, fine -- but Spartaz perhaps you could start your own thread on AN or AN/I to get feedback on whether this method of closing an AfD and dealing with a content dispute is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Xfd. Do not relist for two months. But what the hell has been done with the mainspace page. A hat noted mainspace blank page? That is not OK. We don't do blank pages. Restore a reasonable version. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe and User:Nomoskedasticity, you have stated exactly what I thought; the way this AFD is closed is absurd. I believe that is the consensus here. The dispute here is not whether the article should be kept or deleted (it is clearly keep), but whether a reasonable version should be restored or the current arrangement should continue. I thought DRV was the best place to put this as DRV says it is the place to discuss all disputed "Deletion-related" discussions. (Quote from DRV "Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.") If not appropriate, I will put my concerns elsewhere.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 24 December 2009

[edit] 23 December 2009

[edit] 22 December 2009

[edit] File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG

File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing Admin acknowledgedly counted raw votes instead of considering the strength of the arguments in the face of our police. The votes to keep didn't really addressed the problems raised in the nomination. --Damiens.rf 09:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

  • There were 3 votes to keep the image:
    1. The first (by the uploader) just stated the nomination was wrong.
    2. The second completely ignored the nomination's concerns and mentioned unrelated policy criteria.
    3. The third argued without evidence the image was PD.
  • There was one vote to delete, that reaffirmed the nomination's concerns, and explained why we can't affirm the image is PD. --Damiens.rf 10:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus to delete in that discussion. I endorse the close, because if there's no consensus to delete, then the closer shouldn't have to take any shit from DRV for not deleting. But I do think the discussion itself was unsatisfactory. Damians.rf's concerns were not properly addressed at all. I suggest that DRV should refer this to the copyright noticeboard, in the hope of getting a view from people who understand the issues more clearly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I also endorse the close per S Marshall's reasoning and believe that an opinion of the copyright noticeboard would be most helpful in this situation. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you suggest we ignore the fact we have no source information other than a home made website that copied the image from somewhere and posted it? --Damiens.rf 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn to delete FfD is a debate, not a vote. Yes, there were more "keep" voters than "delete" voters, but the nominator and the other "delete" voter had the stronger reasoning by far. One "keep" voter did not address the policy issues in detail. The second "keep" voter failed to explain how the image could meet WP:NFCC#2 when the copyright holder is unknown. And a third "keep" voter asserted that the image was in the public domain because it was published without a copyright notice – but provided no evidence that that was the case. On the other hand, the arguments for deletion were strong. The nominator and the other "delete" voter both raised valid concerns about the unknown copyright status, copyright holder, and source of the image. The burden was on the keep voters here to show either that the image was in the public domain or that the image met all the nonfree content criteria; they did not, their arguments were weaker, and because the headcount was 3-2, it's not fair at all to say there was a consensus to keep the image. However, while I disagree with Od Mishehu's closure, I commend him for taking on the unsavory task of interpreting consensus at such a challenging debate. Someone's gotta do it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse outcome as accurate reflection of the deletion debate, more or less in line with SMarshall. The debate wasn't very helpful, but I think this falls on the acceptable nonfree use side because the image quality is so low and because much better images are available through Getty Images, indicating market value is essentially nil. Also agree that discussion elsewhere would be more helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse close was within admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • XfD, and especially FfD, is not a votecount. The reasons supporting keep were not based in what our policies require, while those supporting delete were. So the result should have been delete. ÷seresin 22:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Theoretical, qualified overturn and comment. This is a major hole in our policy. Theoretically we require the original source--i.e., the copyright holder--while practically we have generally accepted the most immediate source--the place where the uploader got the image--even when that source is pretty clearly violating copyright itself. We are actually violating two policies when we do this: we are linking to a copyright-violator, which is specifically banned at WP:External links, and we are also not attributing the image to its proper owner, which is both ethically and legally what we should do. We should do this also because it is in keeping with our general respect for attribution; one of the great ironies of this site is that we are much more careful about attribution for free content then we are for non-free content! However, I recognize that the problem goes way beyond this one image, and I'm not certain that a single debate over a single image is the way to get us to shape up, when there are surely thousands of images affected in exactly the same way (but the kicking and screaming if those images are deleted en masse will be huge, I'm sure). I don't know the way forward here, I confess, only that the status quo is untenable. Chick Bowen 01:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that Chick Bowen has largely covered my point of view. I think the correct close was to delete the image , though I am aware that there is not unanimity in the interpretation of how to close such debates. Most, if not all, of the sources I have seen this image at are rather dodgy on copyright—sourcing from them is somewhat dubious. In the case of this image, I believe that it can be sourced (libraries are the key), and is probably (but not definitely) free due to lack of copyright renewal. If sourced then perhaps the new (free) version will be not such poor quality ?. The largest problem here, and with many images, is that the standards have changed. On this point I note that my first upload here File:1829.jpg was dodgy on many counts and yet was uploaded in the belief that it met the criteria of the time - Peripitus (Talk) 10:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, could have gone either way; the close seems reasonable given the arguments that have been raised though. Also, DRV is not FFD part two. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
    • Actually, if we interpret image policies strictly this is deletable as WP:CSD#F4, no source, and the FFD is moot. The debate here is necessary; it is not FFD round 2. Chick Bowen 15:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I am not seeing the issue with the admin's closure. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse per S Marshall, mostly. There is, at best, no consensus in the discussion. Tim Song (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you understand policy-ignorant statements should be ignored while pondering consensus? --Damiens.rf 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
      • "policy-ignorant" and "different from nominator (or closer)'s understanding of policy" are quite different things. Tim Song (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
        • No "different understanding" was ever stated on the discussion. They don't even tried to argue against what was raised on the ffd. That's why they were police-ignorant. --Damiens.rf 01:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I have raised what I see as the principal issue here at WP:AN. As I say there, I don't think it is appropriate to determine it just in relation to this image, and I am not trying to canvas this debate--in fact I think this close should probably be endorsed for now, even though I am hoping we come to our senses and delete all such images in the future (after, of course, giving adequate time to determine authorship). Chick Bowen 23:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • . . . and just remembered it's some sort of holiday in the goyishe world. So perhaps this discussion will be better held a bit later. Chick Bowen 01:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 21 December 2009

[edit] 20 December 2009

[edit] Hajime Sorayama v. Robert Bane and Tamara Bane Gallery (closed)

[edit] Romania – Sri Lanka relations

Romania – Sri Lanka relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

First, this discussion was previously wrongly closed early (it was closed before 7 days had passed by User:Sandstein) so this discussion didn't get a full seven days to be discussed before it was closed. Second, there was clearly a disagreement about whether it should have been kept. (There was 1 Strong Keep vote, 2 Keep votes, 5 Delete votes in addition to the nomination, and 1 Week Delete vote). Of course, deletion of an article is not just a vote, and in the event that there is a doubt about consensus, the article should be kept. (See number 4 at Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deciding_whether_to_delete.) Third, it was clear that 3 of the delete votes based their opinion on the idea that no 3rd party independent sources existed, something that was clearly not true at the time. (See also further improvements I have made to the article since deletion at User:Cdogsimmons/Romania – Sri Lanka relations.) Fourth, the nominator, User:LibStar, as much as admitted that he had not done a thorough search for sources, despite the fact that the absence of sources was the reason he nominated the article for deletion. He disputed that he needed to do so, despite the fact that WP:GNG clearly says a good faith search for sources is necessary before nomination. Finally, as a matter of policy, the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge. Notability in this situation should really be secondary to the fact that this information is clearly encyclopedic. The deleting administrator, User:X!, did not address the failure to find consensus regarding the "significance" of third party coverage when given a chance to reevaluate the delete .[2] All in all, the result should have been no consensus at the very least. Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Overturn to no-consensus which seems the best I can make from the discussion. It would have helped if the closing admin had given a reason for the verdict. On his talk page he says that he personally doesn't think the subject was notable, which is irrelevant, as he is supposed to be judging consensus. If he judged the topic so, he would have done better towards deleting the article to give a reasoned argument to that effect in the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist. Most of the "delete" votes came in at a time when the sources were not provided, so it is best to allow them an opportunity to re-evaluate those sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse By simple vote counting, with 7 deletes (including the nom) and 3 keeps, there's consensus for deletion. Taking into account the weakness of the !keeps, that consensus is only clearer: two of the three keep votes don't address notability at all, they simply state that the relations exist; these should be ignored. The idea that early votes should be discounted is, IMHO, ridiculous, as it assumes that those voters weren't following subsequent developments. Maybe they weren't, or maybe we were, but WP:AGF requires that we assume the later. Finally, despite Cdog's good intentions and thorough efforts, none of the sources he dug up at the 11th hour actually qualify as "direct detailed" coverage of the topic of these county's bilateral relations. Notability remains unproven, as argued by a supermajority of the debate's participants.Yilloslime TC 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Supposed early final close was, at worst, a trifling 12 minutes early. Closer's determination appears to be withn administrative discretion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse (as closing admin) - I stand by my decision. I would also like to dispute the comments that I brought my personal opinion into this debate &emdash; I have not. If I made it sound that way, I did not mean it. I deleted it because the sources that were brought up did not satisfy a claim of notability. The notability outlines for foreign relations wikiproject give these 6 guidelines as to notability:
  1. They have been engaged in a war.
  2. They engage in significant trade.
  3. They have been/are in an alliance.
  4. They share a border.
  5. They have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict.
  6. They have been engaged in a significant trade dispute.
  • Romania and Sri Lanka are clearly not in a war, and they clearly do not share a border. There is no significant conflict or trade dispute between them. There has been no formal declaration of an alliance, or at least, none that is covered by sources. This brings us to the last point, which is that they are engaged in significant trade. From what has been presented, there does not appear to be enough significant trade between the two countries to make this article notable. Yes, it's a wikiproject, it's non-binding, and exceptions do exist. However, there did not, and still does not appear to be enough to make this article noteworthy. I am asserting that this close was well within my discretion. (X! · talk)  · @140  ·  02:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I'm not seeing a problem with the admin's closure. This decision was well within his discretion. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 02:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse for two reasons. First, because by the number of votes and strength of the arguments, the "delete" side clearly won the argument. Second, because Cdogsimmons' additions to the article in no way demonstrate notability. For those who aren't familiar with this user, he is one of those people who crams articles of this sort with every conceivable form of trivia in order to "rescue" them at AfD. It's odd that, 1506 days into his Wikipedia career, he still understands so little about our notability policy. These comments are a perfect illustration of what I mean. If he truly believes that a direct link to the "PAYMENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CEYLON AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUMANIAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC", which (obviously) isn't discussed in any secondary source (given that no one outside Wikipedia has even noticed this "topic" exists) constitutes the "significant coverage" demanded by WP:GNG (to say nothing of the inherent WP:PSTS problem there) — well, then I don't know what to say. What I do know is that our articles should revolve around topics the notability of which is immediately apparent through multiple substantial mentions in independent sources, not pieces of yellowing paper sitting in UN archives that haven't seen the light of day in a half century. He may wish to ponder that before he goes on his next expansion spree. - Biruitorul Talk 03:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse clear and accurate reading of the discussion, in which the policy arguments for delete were stronger.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Well within the closing admins discretion. It is difficult to see how this could have been closed any other way. Kevin (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I'm not seeing clear error here; I think a relist along the lines proposed by King of Hearts is perfectly reasonable, but I do not see how the closer exceeded their discretion by not relisting. Tim Song (talk) 06:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Permit recreation at least. The weighting of arguments by closing admin is questionable, given that the keep !votes correctly pointed at the existence of sources, but is indeed within discretion. The article as it is now in userspace however presents plenty of sources and worthwile information, and deserves to come back. --Cyclopiatalk 11:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Trout slap the closing admin for not giving a closing rationale, which could have averted the need for DRV. Endorse closure, as the keep !voters didn't adequately demonstrate the existence of significant coverage, and none of the guidelines for notability of relations were met. Scraping together an article from one press article, single sentences in books and some government websites isn't the way to go. Fences&Windows 14:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I see nothing that necessitates a closing statement. I guess he could have rehashed the standard "Consensus is that the topic is not notable enough for inclusion" etc., but the AfD is clear enough that it should be obvious. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There's no such thing as obvious when there's a contested AfD, especially for these bilateral deletion discussions. Not giving a rationale is practically inviting a deletion review in this kind of case, and to not give one when there are non-SPAs hotly contesting your close just seems bloody minded and high handed. What's wrong or so difficult with explaining your actions as an admin? My trout remains. Fences&Windows 00:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It might be easy to leave one, but it's never been required, and consensus is that it isn't required. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • As I read it, it was consensus that an admin should leave a closing statement in a disputed AfD, but that they need not. Violations of should can result in people calling for the fish. As well they should (or something like that...). In this case it would have been helpful. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No it was never found to be consensus that we "should", only that it's nice. Frankly, I'm not to much into "nice" getting in the way of simply closing a discussion. As I see it, a lot of the time a huge drama war can be avoided, by not leaving a closing statement. Because people love to read into admin's closures, and find a way to take it to DRV. So there should, IMO, never even be a should clause to adding a statement, as it's decided on a case by case basis. And I'm pretty sure we can handle that ourselves quite fine, thank you. Regards, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Endorse the so called "faulty" source finding of my nomination is no reason to overturn. the WP community has 7 days in any AfD to find evidence of notability (ie significant third party coverage). At best, Cdogsimmons found verification of a few agreements not treaties. there is no evidence in the AfD discussion of typical things we have seen in bilateral AfDs that makes things notable such as many state visits, military or economic assistance, significant migration, diplomatic incidents and so on. The article's information better sits in a Foreign relations article in anyway. "the deletion of the information in this article does not serve Wikipedia's general goal of being a summary of all human knowledge" is not a reason for an overturn in deletion review. secondly WP clearly does not cover all human knowledge, see WP:NOT and only entities that are notable. It should also be noted that besides Cdogsimmons the other keep votes had pretty weak arguments with no evidence. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I do think that before we can endorse an AfD's decision, we need to be satisfied that the AfD properly considered all the sources. If not all the sources were considered, then there's reasonable doubt about the outcome. I agree with King of Hearts that we cannot be sure in this case, so I see "relist" as the appropriate outcome.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • weak endorse I think it's not unreasonable to say that the sources were addressed and found wanting in the AfD. That said, I really can't tell what the closer was thinking and wish there had been a meaningful closing statement as it might have saved us from this DrV. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse There was no showing that the relations are significant enough to meet the GNG's threshold of multiple reliable sources. Reading this AfD, I'd have been fine with either a 'Delete' or a 'No Consensus' closure within admin discretion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse, "Keep" arguments were weak. I'd echo the calls to the closing administrator to pre-emptively explain the reasoning applied when closing any XFD that is likely to be even remotely controversial. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Odette Krempin (closed)

[edit] 19 December 2009


[edit] Recent discussions

[edit] 18 December 2009

[edit] Tony Wang (closed)

[edit] Masis Voskanian (closed)

[edit] Yu-Gi-Oh!_The_Abridged_Series (closed)

[edit] 17 December 2009

[edit] 16 December 2009

[edit] 15 December 2009

[edit] 14 December 2009

[edit] 13 December 2009

[edit] 12 December 2009

[edit] Archive

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
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review"