Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 26}}</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 26|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]

26 July 2014[edit]

23 July 2014[edit]

William Tomicki[edit]

William Tomicki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Keep votes, based on WP:CREATIVE, were discounted by the closer because "you can't use reviews of the magazine as proof HE is notable, via WP:INHERITED". INHERITED is an essay without consensus outside policy and guideline framework. The point of the Keep vote rationales was to show that the magazine (solely written by William Tomicki) is notable, which then confers notability on the creator of the work, per CREATIVE. This is done all the time, for example book reviews confer notability on the author. Notability of a creative profession is based on their works. Both Keeps and Deletes provided reasonable rationales in this case -- except for the Delete vote by MiracleMat should be given less weight since there is no rule that a person can't create an article about themselves (and notably William Tomicki ID'd himself and refrained from participating in the AfD). That leaves three good reasons to delete, and three good reasons to Keep. Both sides correctly invoked the guidelines. GreenC 14:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Notify participants: @DGG:@MiracleMat:@Dream Focus:@Clarityfiend:@Greglocock:@JTdale:@Trackinfo: -- GreenC 14:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • My opining about the close afterwards isn't the same as my official close, so you seem to be misrepresenting the close, which consisted of "The result was delete. Looking at the keep votes, I'm not moved my numbers of subscribers nor number of casual mentions nor comparisons to other similar articles. WP:GNG is about sourcing and significant coverage and there is no indication this criteria has been met. As for salting, I don't see sufficient cause at this time." Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We get random outcomes in AFD depending on the personal opinions of the closer. Sometimes people saying something passes a subject specific guideline is enough to keep the article, and sometimes they ignore the subject specific guidelines entirely as though they didn't exist or matter, and only focus on the general notability guideline. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states A topic is presumed to merit an article if It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. You can pass either one, you don't have to pass both. Dream Focus 14:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • He does get coverage such as this [1] and this [2], among others, listed in the AFD. The article needs to be restored in its final version so people can see what it is we are arguing about. Dream Focus 05:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Presumed" means "presumed" -- it does not imply that we necessarily will have an article. The presumption can be rebutted by showing that the purported material does not meet other requirements, including that the article basically not be used for promotional purposes. Many autobiographies are indeed used for promotional purposes--I do not presume that every one of them is, but I take it as grounds for reasonable suspicion. If the involvement of the subject continues to the extent that we cannot have a NPOV article, then unless there is actually public significance, there should be no article. NOT WHO'S WHO. I and most of the other people there reached this conclusion. Basically, excluding promotion from the encyclopedia is more important than borderline questions of notability: unless we exclude promotionalism, we're not an encyclopedia but a vanity publication or a medium for advertisements. No one comes to an en enccylopedia to see what people have to say about themselves--they go to their web pages, which is where such material belongs. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • All of DGG (the NOM)'s complaints continue to take the giant hammer of deletion to solve the fly of editing portions of the content. As I said at the time the subject of the article was "giving up" in frustration during the debate, I said the article itself should stand on its merits whether or not the subject agrees to its content. Any article should consist of what we know about the subject, not what they wish to say about themselves. OK I tend to look at the slippery slope. What if Adolph Hitler didn't like the story we told about him and said to delete his article? Would we listen to him at all? Would we manipulate our content to fit his view of events? Of course not. And so far in current events we are trying to expel the Russian propaganda view of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17‎. This process is called editing. We are called editors. So use your editing skills to remove those things that you think are self-sourced and self-promotional and give other editors the chance to verify or work around what you have done. That is the collegial nature of wikipedia. And all of that gets completely wiped out by deletion. Now, no other editors will have the chance to come by and make the article better. My point is, this article might be borderline as it existed. It was in need of further editing. It certainly was not fraud, not purely self-promotional and shouldn't have been a candidate for deletion. Trackinfo (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Are you really so crass that you are going to break Godwin's law and throw it onto DGG? Are you really that ignorant? And you want to compare this fluffy biography to the death of almost 300 people in a horrific military blunder? Do you simply lack any sense of proportion or common decency? Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Without having seen the article, it sounds like it was bloated with unsuitably promotional content, overly influenced by non-independent sources. Anything financially connected to the person or his company, publications or promoters is non-independent. Such sourced may be used to source primary source content, but should not form the basis of an article. If there is independent coverage of this person or his company, then I suspect it is best that a fresh article be drafted, based on the independent sources. Leaning "Endorse, encourage userspace drafting of a better attempt using independent sourcing". Would appreciate temporary undeletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Since no one has done so yet I put a copy online here.[3] It may be slightly different from the last version deleted but mostly the same. Sources include The New York Times, Sun Sentinel, SF Gate, SBEntrepreneur, Santa Barbara Independent, Chicago Tribune, and others. -- GreenC 02:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
In an article of contested notability, the opening sentence or two should assert the reason for notability (it does), with references to independent secondary sources that cover the subject directly. The first two sentences have six references. Good, but:
  • References 1-3 are just name-drops. The referenced articles are not about this person.
  • Reference 4 is promotional, and for that reason is excluded as evidence of notability
  • Reference 5 is OK, but as it is about a single isolated event, is not much on its own.
  • Reference 6 is like 1-3.
Padding the reference list at the bottom, sourcing specific facts, doesn't help in establishing notability. Lead with the strongest, independent, secondary source references that cover the subject directly.
Are these references new since the AfD. If not, then you need more. If yes, while I am not so impressed as explained above, the article may be entitle to another pass through AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The reason he is notable is because of WP:CREATIVE #3 ("The person has created a work.. that has been the subject of .. multiple independent periodical reviews or articles") - for the newsletter not the person. This per the Keep !votes in the AfD. It is the crux of this DRV, the closing admin confuses the work with the person, as you said "The referenced articles are not about this person" - correct, they need to be about the work. That's how CREATIVE works. Also arguably refs #1-3 are forms of reviews or articles about the work, it doesn't have to be a devoted article or a lengthy article. -- GreenC 03:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
If you selectively read the page on which WP:CREATIVE is a section, then it may appear that meeting that criteria is an unquestionable indication of notability. If however you widen it and read the "Additional Criteria" into, of which that's a subsection and is says stuff like "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. ..." "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.", contrasted to the Basic Criteria defined on that page (which is essentially the GNG), where there is the stronger presumption of notability. DRV has long read the secondary criteria as subordinate to the GNG and an indication that sources may exist, when challenged sources about the subject are required. -- (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not "unquestionable" notability... WP:NOTE says: A topic is presumed to merit an article if It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. This was likely a No Consensus: 3 Deletes based on GNG, and 3 Keeps based on the Subject Specific Criteria (and 1 delete based on nothing). -- GreenC 13:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse as DRV is not a venue to continue arguing the merits of the original article, only to review the close. Here, the closer was correct in discounting the weak keep votes, that's all there is to it. Work on a copy in user-space, try resubmitting in the future. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Are Subject Specific Criteria arguments "weak"? WP:NOTABILITY clearly states: A topic is presumed to merit an article if It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. SSC are equally valid as GNG arguments. There were 3 GNG votes vs. 3 SSC votes. You don't think that is a No Consensus? -- GreenC 14:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Obviously I do not think that, if I endorsed the deletion finding. Learn to accept that editors can disagree with others' findings and still be acting in good faith. That's the fundamental flaw in your DRV filing; it rests solely on "I disagree". Also, peruse Wikipedia:BLUDGEON at some point, before you decide to respond to each and every endorse comment in this discussion going forward. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh man Tarc, I've been at this too long to "learn" that others sometimes disagree. My question was an honest one, the DRV is based on legitimate guidelines not just "I disagree". I was trying to understand your endorsement within the framework of the guidelines. You don't have to say, you don't even have to agree with the guidelines, your endorsement still carries. -- GreenC 04:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Reasonable close. Someone above rightly points out that the key words in WP:NOTABILITY are presumed to merit an article. Meeting the letter of a notability guideline establishes a presumption of notability, but not a guarantee. It was correct to ignore the subject specific guideline, even if its letter was met, once it became apparent that the only claim to notability on that front was the travel newsletter. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
We don't discriminate because someone is a travel newsletter writer. There are notable travel newsletter writers. -- GreenC
  • Hmmmmm. We have articles on people who're far less noteworthy than Mr Tomicki, who's had an eventful life that amounts to quite a lot more than just writing a travel newsletter. On reviewing the sources, I can't help thinking there's an article there to be written. The "delete" outcome here strikes me as a little harsh but it was probably within discretion, and I conclude that although there's very arguably a reasonable basis for an article, the community doesn't want this article. I would hope to see that become a bluelink in due course.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

22 July 2014[edit]

Shaul Aaron[edit]

Shaul Aaron (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

An admin. has deleted this article under criterion A7, when it did contain a credible assertion of notability, plus 2 external links. I have discussed this with the admin. but have not received a satisfactory reply. Of course the article was very short, but it was a legitimate stub. PatGallacher (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Our discussion can be found here, although I added something simultaneously with Pat notifying me of this discussion. In addition to what I said on my Talk page, the article wasn't really about Aaron. It was about his capture. The article contained no biographical information about Aaron. It could have been about any Israeli soldier.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn, I'm not sure that it would survive AFD on grounds of WP:BLP1E, but there's clearly enough of a claim of importance there, not to mention coverage in reliable sources such as this, this and this. There is enough doubt here that speedy deletion under A7 was not appropriate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC).
    You link to two spots that mention the name and the claim he was captured and they were looking into it, and then one other link says they stated no such soldier was captured. So it just a brief hoax. Dream Focus 18:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn The virtue of afd is that someone may be able to source it.Whether or not it would presently show notability there is irrelevant to speedy. Whether an article,, has good sources -- or for that matter any sources -- is irrelevant to speedy. Even a blp--for the ones with no relevant sources, we use BLP PRod, not speedy. It should be obvious to anyone who watches the news that deletion of an article ofn the capture (or even possible capture) of a Israel soldier this week is likely to cause a lively debate at afd, and could not possibly be called uncontroversial. Bbb23: to the extent it was about his capture, not him, it makes for an even clearer claim of significance, though it does give rise to the question of whether we should change the title. DreamFocus: a false claim in matters like this is all the more likely to be controversial. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • *Temporarily undeleted for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The two sources, although naming the subject in their titles, contained no biographical or secondary source content. It is not enough for a stand alone article. This is an issue of wanting to wait for better sources, versus wanting Wikipedia to be as up to date as possible. I think the solution is to introduce mention of this soldier in another article. In any case, List at AfD and see what happens there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn - obviously inexcusable A7; in the long run, a merger may make sense; in the short run, I'd suggest any process other than letting it respond naturally to what unfolds it's likely to be purposeless drama. It's probably going to be days or weeks until it's clear what long-term decision makes sense; there's no need to rush to judgement without information & perspective. WilyD 08:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see a credible assertion of notability, unless we agreed at some point that an Israeli soldier who was captured is reason enough for inclusion. (Which begs the question of whether all the Palestinians in Israeli prisons are notable.) Nothing in these two articles says anything specific at all about the soldier, and indeed one article points out that this is a claim, and that an Israeli spokesperson denied it as a rumor; the most recent information I could find, here (careful--Haaretz overdoes the pop-up advertising), has him listed as MIA. Or, in other words, all this is completely premature, if it ever gets to be anything in the first place. A captured soldier can, I suppose, become notable, if it turns out to be something in the long run, but I do not see why we should assume prima facie notability, and why this wouldn't be speediable. And calling it "inexcusable" is over the top, really. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Either someone has no understanding of A7, and is performing A7 deletions anyhow, or they have some understanding of A7, and deleted it anyhow. Neither of those can be justified. Mistakes of fact sometimes happen (though in such an obvious, clear cut case that ain't difficult to parse), but that the deleting admin was asked about it and responded with anything other than "Whoops, I clearly fucked up, let me undelete that" only re-enforces the conclusion. So, yes, inexcusable. That someone might be able to argue for deletion in an AfD is not a reason to speedily delete it to avoid an AfD where the outcome would probably be something else (although at the moment, if nothing changes, merger seems likely, but it's dodgy to assume nothing's going to change today). WilyD 07:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't this the same person covered by the Oron Shaul article? My impression from that article was that "Shaul Aron" or "Shaul Aaron" was the same person as Oron Shaul, and that Hamas had misread the name on whatever identifying document they had found. If this is the same person, then this should just be redirected to Oron Shaul, and the AFD on that article should be allowed to run its course. Calathan (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Just posting again so I can give an edit summary with the right name. Calathan (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
All those different spellings of the guy's name. I noticed that in one source used at Operation Protective Edge, Aron was spelled Aaron, but I was completely unaware of Oron Shaul (different spelling and the names inverted). Thanks, Calathan.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore and AfD. There's reasonable doubt, so the community should decide.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

20 July 2014[edit]

19 July 2014[edit]

List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies[edit]

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

I don't exactly understand why this article was deleted. Many of the later world cups have corresponding articles. Many of the assertions were backed up with references, so I don't think it's fair that this article wasn't given a chance. Or do you want to delete the others too becuase they are not notable? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, it was deleted because someone thought the article was WP:LISTCRUFT and non-notable. The nominator also thought the article was unduly negative, which is a problem when living persons are concerned. The discussion was open for ten days and no one dissented from these views. As a point of principle you probably should have asked Spinningspark to reverse himself before coming here, but he couldn't have closed it any other way. A WP:RELIST might have been possible given the low participation, but the commenters made good points, including the possibility of adding sourced commentary to 2002 FIFA World Cup. The process was entirely in order; in fact the debate ran several days longer than required. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for replying. Is there any way I can recover the source code of the article? I want to pass it through the article creation vetting process - I don't want this nonsense repeating itself. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse - close was sound. I wouldn't be opposed the author making a new submission via AFC but I would strongly suggest he contact at least those who participated in the discussion to ensure he has adequately addressed the concerns they raised. The BLP violations are an obvious issue and any new content would need to address that before formal submission. Stlwart111 05:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Westshore Town Centre[edit]

Westshore Town Centre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion with closing admin is at [4]

(1) The primary problem here is that this AfD should have been relisted instead of closed.

(2a) A secondary problem is the offer in the closing for WP:Merge and deleteWP:Merge and delete states,

  • "The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Document License (GFDL), which Wikipedia uses to license all of its content, both have provisions requiring that the attribution history of an article be preserved.",
  • "...a merge and delete is not usually done unless there is a specific and pressing problem with the redirect", and
  • "...admins should feel free to interpret 'Merge and delete' votes as 'Merge.' "

(2b) Another secondary problem is that of whether or not there was a consensus to delete.  Including the consideration in the close for merge and delete, if there was a consensus, it was for merge.

(2c) Another secondary problem is that there is no policy basis for a delete in this case.  As it stands, this is an unnecessary loss to the community of content contributions.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Endorse the substance of the close, which is to axe an article about a subject that only one person in the whole debate considered notable. The consensus was clearly against that view and there was no need for a re-listing. On a technicality: the close should be endorsed except to the extent that the article would be temporarily restored for the purposes of a merge. As the nominator states, the article's history would need to be permanently restored, underneath the redirect, for any merging of content to be properly attributed. What all of this means is that the article should be restored, and converted into a redirect, thus allowing a merger to take place. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn to merge and redirect. I think Unscintillating should dial back his comments but it's a strange close that deletes but offers a temporary restoration for merging purposes. Wikipedia:Merge and delete is an essay but it captures the essential problem with that outcome, and Scottywong is too dismissive of it. Northamerica100 favored a merge, and I think it's possibly the editors who favored a redirect did as well (one of them agreed with Northamerica100 but didn't state it explicitly). Presumably Unscintillating would favor a merge over outright deletion. Mackensen (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Take no action. I'd normally endorse, but for the "merge and delete" offer, which of course we can't do. However, the article title has already been re-purposed for a redirect to Westshore_Town_Centre#Attractions, and the only sourced fact in the original article is already there, so I'm not sure that a "Merge" verdict would be anything other than process wonkery at this point, as there is nothing to merge. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Take no action. What Lankiveil said. His analysis hits the nail on the head. Also agree with Mkat on those points (only) where he essentially gets to the same place ("a subject that only one person in the whole debate considered notable"). As to the closer's view that the consensus was to close it as a delete (contra Un's assertion here), I agree with the closer. Epeefleche (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse delete, but clarify the offer to restore. Delete, delete and redirect, and redirect (history available for merging) were all within admin discretion, but merging was not. User:Northamerica1000 failed to meet Epeefleche's challenge of WP:Merge what? (essay). (This edit and this comment should be covered by WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed.) Unscintillating had started an earlier discussion above the section already linked, as well as WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 142#Westshore Town Centre. Scottywong was unconvinced, and User:Amatulic declined the REFUND along those lines. Scottywong's exact wording in AfD's closing statement has been superseded by his rejection of Unscintillating's request. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding the WP:REFUND discussion, it was not I who restored the redirect, but once it was restored, the process as per WP:DRVPURPOSE B7 is to request WP:REFUND.  WP:N is not a content policy, it is a topic guideline.  Once consensus for the redirect (topic) existed, there was no applicable content policy for keeping the edit history (content) away from non-admins.  Likewise, [see point (2c) of the DRV request] with an alternative to deletion available, there was no policy basis for the deletion in the first place.  What is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history away from non-admins?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know how I can competently discuss "specific useful content or attribution problems" when the article has been 30 days since being deleted, and the edit history has not been restored for this DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know why you are saying that WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect rejects "deletion is the last resort".  I see only one response, one which agreed that deletion is the last resort.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Whether or not deletion is the last resort, deletion was explicitly identified here as an "executive decision", i.e., WP:IAR.  Regarding my unanswered question, "What is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history away from non-admins?", the answer appears to be that there are no benefits.  On the other hand, the deletion has had WP:BURO disadvantages, because editors who have had reasons to use the edit history have not been able to do so.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding point (1) of the DRV request involving WP:RELIST: none of the four AfD commentators were agreed.  In the words of the closing admin, there was no consensus among the choices being considered.  Looking a bit today at the sources, I see that no mention was made at the AfD of the alternate name "Canwest Mall".  Why was this AfD not relisted?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – On User:Scottywong's talk page I have requested userfication of the deleted article to my userspace to enable a merge of some of the content to Langford, British Columbia. I recall having adding sources to the deleted article, so that content could be merged to improve the Langford, British Columbia article. NorthAmerica1000 05:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question  With reference to point (1) of the DRV request involving WP:RELIST: In the words of the closing admin, there was no consensus among the choices being considered.  Why was this AfD not relisted?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question  WP:N is not a content policy, it is a topic guideline.  As relates to point (2c) of the DRV request, with an alternative to deletion available, there was no policy basis for the deletion.  Note that there is no dispute for the redirect (topic).  Ignoring policy for the moment, what is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history (content) away from non-admins?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Restore the article's history under the redirect. Unscintillating, a good faith editor, believes the encyclopedia would benefit with the article's history preserved under the redirect. Unless the deleted article violated a core policy like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (no evidence of that has been presented here), I think his reasonable request should be granted. As Unscintillating writes above:

    Ignoring policy for the moment, what is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history (content) away from non-admins?

    The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.

    A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.

    Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.

    In sum, the benefits or restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.

    Cunard (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Endorse, sort of. The only real point of non-consensus is what is the proper redirect target. Two participants suggested Langford, British Columbia, I suggested List of shopping malls in Canada. I'm perfectly happy to amend my suggestion to also support Langford, British Columbia. Now we have consensus on where to redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, agree with a permanent restore to preserve the history beneath the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent discussions[edit]

18 July 2014[edit]

17 July 2014[edit]

Robert Murić (closed)[edit]

The Bell Game (closed)[edit]

16 July 2014[edit]

15 July 2014[edit]

14 July 2014[edit]

12 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