Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
This page deals with the Deletion discussion process. For articles deleted via the "Proposed Deletion" ("PROD") process, or simple image undeletions, please post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see WP:REVDEL.

Administrator instructions

Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose[edit]

Shortcut:

Deletion Review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there was a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests);
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed); or

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Shortcut:

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review. See #Purpose.
  2. please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

In the deletion review discussion, please:

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

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

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

Temporary undeletion[edit]

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

Closing reviews[edit]

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

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]

 
1.

Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.

2.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

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

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
4.

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

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
5.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

6.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion. Use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 March 1}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 March 1|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]

1 March 2015[edit]

27 February 2015[edit]

Marissa Roberto[edit]

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

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

The problem was that the article was completely unsourced — and under Wikipedia's copyright policy, you're never allowed to copy and paste text from any other website into Wikipedia regardless of how many other websites are using it, so the fact that "the writings they were using were already being referenced on the Electric Playground websites" doesn't matter. As for the other hosts, what you need to understand is that the rules for biographies of living people have changed over time — as of 2010, you're not allowed to create an article about a living person that's as poorly sourced as either Victor Lucas' or Scott Jones' articles are. Both of those articles, in fact, are actually deletable in their present form — they're just not eligible for speedy deletion, since they were originally created under the old rules rather than the current ones, but they can still be put through the WP:AFD process for being as badly sourced as they are. Even though I wasn't the deleter, I'd be willing to restore this page to your own userspace so that you can work on getting it up to snuff if possible — but the deleter was correct that article is not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia's main articlespace in its existing form. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

25 February 2015[edit]

Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods[edit]

Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The NEW article Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods does NOT VIOLATE ANY OF WIKIPEDIA'S TERMS OF SERVICE OR USE. The articles on Wikipedia should NOT BE DELETED BECAUSE OF PERSONAL OPINION OR DISLIKE. The article is FULLY SOURCED AND REFERENCED. Please review, as this tribe IS notable. Tribalchairman (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Out of scope. As per the introduction to this page:
    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 [I note that you posted a query to the closer's talk page but did not allow even an hour for him to reply]
    5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
    As such, I endorse the deletion by default. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: This DRV appeals the AFD linked in the above header. I have also deleted the article under CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - This "tribe" exists in the realm of facebook and webhosts, not reality. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, recommend salting - per Tarc. Also believe re-creator is indef-blocked sockpuppeteer who previously spammed the 'pedia. Checking now. - CorbieV 23:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

*No Delete and Restore - This Native American Mixed-Blood Tribe exists. Through not only their website, facebook, and twitter, but also IN REALITY. The tribe signed two international treaties with two Metis Nations in Canada in February 2015 (sourced). Also, the tribe exists in the eyes of the Oregon State Legislature; pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 16 (https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2015R1/Measures/Overview/HCR16), which is set to recognize and honor this tribe for their efforts for the Native American Mixed-Bloods in the United States. Oh yeah, and I would say their 910 enrolled members would say this tribe exists in reality. The tribe has been a featured story on KVAL (http://www.kval.com/news/local/Mixed-tribes-289515241.html) and KEZI (http://www.kezi.com/mixed-blood-tribe-forming/) news, again, IN REALITY and are SOURCED. EncyclopedicGuardian (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a social club that has copied some actual Native American traditions for their own use because they don't qualify to be legitimate Native Americans, and got a hit on a "news-of-the-day" segment. The state house resolution is meaningless; legislatures pass stuff like that all the time, from declaring an Interior Design Day to banning accurate climate reporting. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Tarc - It is not a "social club". Merriam-Webster defines "tribe" as: "a group of people that includes many families and relatives who have the same language, customs, and beliefs." So, the 910 enrolled members are indeed a tribe, whether nay-sayers want to believe the truth or not. Once the House Resolution passes, they will be recognized as a Native American Mixed-Blood Tribe in the State of Oregon; making history, because it has never been done before. The tribe also made history when they signed TWO INTERNATIONAL TREATIES with Metis (Mixed-Blood) Nations in Canada, of which are TRIBES recognized by the Canadian Government. And it was TWO News segments, not just one. Wikipedia has unrecognized tribes with ZERO sources/references, whereas this tribe has some real, good sources in REALITY. Unless the Legislature and News are not reality. EncyclopedicGuardian (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's nice, but until quality reliable sources cover this group in enough detail to satisfy the project's notability guidelines, then there is no justification for an article. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I just read WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:GNG, and the tribal sources meet all of the qualification. If TWO news outlets... and the State of Oregon Legislature...as well as TWO RECOGNIZED Metis Nations... are NOT reliable sources, then what is? Articles have been created with MUCH MUCH MUCH less and reliable sources. The sources here ARE reliable. EncyclopedicGuardian (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - striking comments of indef-blocked, block-evading SPA sockdrawer who created these autobios and keeps wasting our time with this stuff. See block log. - CorbieV 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

24 February 2015[edit]

2016 Australian Open[edit]

2016 Australian Open (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Not too early now, below a year. 333-blue 13:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • If we restore the article, what content do you propose it would contain? Stifle (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The RFD discussion linked above was unanimous, and 333-blue doesn't seem to be suggesting that there were any procedural errors in the close, so I think this isn't even an issue for deletion review. 333-blue, are you just asking for the redirect to be restored, or was there some content in the page history that you wanted restored? Calathan (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no significant history, it just consisted of a straightforward redirect and then an RfD nomination. There isn't actually anything preventing someone from recreating this as a redirect, and if the "too soon" argument is no longer considered valid then it won't be deleted. Hut 8.5 22:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse I don't know why anyone thought it worth creating a redirect, or why anyone thought it worth getting it deleted. Odd ways of building an encyclopedia. The test for whether we have an article is whether there is suitable content, not whether the event is less than a year away. There is no point in simply recreating the redirect, if that is what is being suggested. Thincat (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

23 February 2015[edit]

Bangladesh–Italy relations[edit]

Bangladesh–Italy relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Bangladesh–France relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Bangladesh–Ivory Coast relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Bangladesh–Jordan relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin has interpreted the consensus incorrectly. The closer's judgement was based on the nominator's rationale that "Those asking for the articles to be preserved have failed to provide evidence of notability, through reliable sources, where these diplomatic "relations" have actually been covered. Original research done via synthesis of events (whether sourced or not) is not permissible.". However, most of the participants disagreed with the nominator and argued that these articles have sufficient sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines which is a strong policy backed argument. Also, the articles were significantly expanded after the nominator posted this rationale which also affects the validity of the rationale. I also think the closing admin misinterpreted the topics of these articles, the topics are not "diplomatic relations" rather "bilateral relations" which cover a wide range of interactions between two countries (economic, cultural, historical as well as diplomatic). I have also tried to discuss the matter on the closing admin's talkpage: diff. Nomian (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Overturn. I fully get that AfD is not about vote counting, but it's also not about ignoring community opinion without a good reason. It's OK to go against the numerical count if the minority are making fundamentally stronger arguments, or there is some overriding policy issue. I don't see either of those here. I don't see anybody claiming there was puppetry going on. I don't see the kind of policy arguments (such as WP:BLP) which might trump all else being asserted. All I see is a differing of opinion over the quality of the references.
I took a look at (and undeleted, so others can do the same) the first article. The refs aren't great, but they're not total garbage either. I also looked at the kinds of arguments each side was putting forth. The keep arguments were pretty weak -- vague assertions of meeting notability guidelines without any in-depth analysis of the references. But, then again, the arguments on the delete side aren't any better. I mean how many pages of Bangladesh interactions do we REALLY need? isn't exactly quoting official policy.
I'm also somewhat confused about the relisting. At the time of the first relisting, there was already a pretty good keep consensus in my opinion. Then, we picked up two more keeps, with no new arguments being made for delete. And this resulted in it being relisted again? Something's not right there.struck this portion of my comment; it's not really material to the question at hand
I also don't get why the titles were deleted outright. Surely, even if somebody felt they saw a consensus that the subjects were not notable, redirecting them all to Foreign relations of Bangladesh and leaving the history intact would be a reasonable alternative to deletion? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Weak arguments, rightly discarded. AfDs are not votes. Tarc (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse (obviously). The reason the last two opinions were disregarded was because they weren't (at all) policy-based. In fact, few of the keep arguments were policy-based. The issue isn't with the quality of the references (though the editor in question does have a reputation for suggesting that primary source government press releases are independent secondary sources), it's with the way the sources are used. These countries don't have "relations" beyond them both existing on our little blue ball and occasionally acknowledging each other's existence. But the editor (and his supporters) believe that pointing to two or three disparate examples of interactions between citizens or low-level diplomats is enough to substantiate "relations" between the two. It's a step further again to suggest that such a relationship is a notable one. Wikipedia's rules with regard to synthasis clearly aren't strong enough to prevent this neo-nationalist Bangladesh-as-the-centre-of-the-world stuff. In the end, participants had to rely heavily on WP:BIGNUMBER to make even a moderately cogent argument. Stlwart111 05:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Let me remind you this is not the place where you can attack other editors (that too with false accusations) as you have been doing in all the AFDs or to repeat the same arguments as you have made in the AFD since they have been debunked already. Dhaka Tribune, The Financial Express etc. ARE independent secondary sources and if "these countries don't have "relations" beyond them both existing on our little blue ball and occasionally acknowledging each other's existence" then how come they have bilateral trade worth over $1 billion and significant migrant population among them? Besides, even you agree that at least some of the keep arguments were policy based. Nomian (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not an "attack" - it's a summary of your edit history for which there ample verification. If the New York Times publishes a government press release word-for-word then it ceases to be a reliable, independent source. And WP:BIGNUMBER is, specifically, an "argument to avoid". But it was the last bastion of desperate editors. Stlwart111 04:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not discussing the notability of these articles because it has been discussed already in the AFD, my comment about the trade and migration was in reply to your statement that these countries have no relations among them. And your contentious labellings like "neo-nationalists" are considered personal attacks by most. Nomian (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm struggling with this one, the AFD is full of weak arguments failing to address the core problems with the articles or for the deletes failing to give much substance to the delete side, that isn't helped by the nomination not really spelling out the core problem. From my opinion (probably biased since I'd give a delete opinion if it were running now) this essentially leaves one substantial argument from the nominator across a few comments in the AFD. We wouldn't normally delete based on the one person and RoySmith's opinion above is persuasive. On the other hand I see the problem with these just being a collection of stuff which don't lead to their being a real world notable subject behind them leaving to problems of OR etc. Editing to remove the problematic stuff doesn't look like it's going to work, and in many cases would end up essentially deleting the article anyway. Would re-AFDing help, at this point in time I doubt it. An RFC perhaps, to more explicitly define objective standards of what these sort of articles should be? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that it is difficult to argue that things WP editors have invented don't actually exist and aren't notable. WP remains the only place you can read about these so-called "relations" - not a single reliable source gives such "relations" coverage. Proponents rely on the synthesis of disparate sources that each describe a visit here or a proposal there or a "that would be nice" somewhere else. Those are brought together to suggest said "relations". It's like bringing together an exciting game in 1995 and another in 2014 and creating one of those notorious "sporting rivalry" articles. Stlwart111 08:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand the problem and as said I would have given a delete opinion, that however doesn't change that from the AFD I don't see the problem clearly articulated (and certainly not within the nomination) and then gaining explicit support from others. As I said ultimately I believe you put forward the one decent case, however we generally wouldn't delete on the strength of one argument. The whole area is problematic and I don't believe trying to deal with these on a one by one case is useful, it leads to frustration all around. The result of such ongoing contention I've seen too many times lead to disillusionment of good editors leading to reduced participation. A stronger consensus is required to generate specific guidelines for such articles, so it becomes a far simpler argument as to when to include/remove such. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and I have no problem with a broader discussion about these nonsense X-X relations articles somewhere, but this isn't that - it's neo-nationalist propagandising and we could do to disillusion a few of the worst offenders. Stlwart111 04:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to keep - whether to put things in a "relations of " or "X-Y relations" is a content management issue, much more strongly influenced by vote-count than "argument" anyways (note there are basically none presented). None of the delete !votes present anything more than an assertion - without any arguments presented for deletion, the closing admin ignoring the discussion and imposing their own bizarre and wholly unjustifiable view that collecting related items into an article without drawing any conclusions is "original research" is a clear sign the closing admin ignored the discussion and pursued their own agenda. WilyD 08:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
They are fundamentally different, not simply different ways of managing the same content. A significant portion of the discussion related to synthesis, which is exactly what the closing admin suggested was the prevailing argument. "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research." "Relations of" articles present "source says A" as "source says A" without drawing any new conclusions. They are very different styles of article because one represents reliably-sourced research and the other represents original research. Stlwart111 09:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse this excellent, policy-driven closure and award barnstar to closer. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC I'm with WilyD for the most part, I just don't think there was a consensus here and I don't see strong enough policy arguments for deletion. The real question is if the subject is original research. The sources are enough for WP:N. And I view that as an organizational issue which is an editorial call. So the OR claims, IMO, aren't enough to move this to deletion. Note: I've only looked at the undeleted article and not the rest. Hobit (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • overturn either to no-consensus or to keep. AfD is not a vote, but one needs a good policy reason to override a majority wanting to keep something, and in this case, I don't see it. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn The closer was wrong in presuming that including separate events in a single article necessarily constitutes "original research". To infringe WP:SYNTH requires the article to reach or imply a conclusion not explicit in any of the sources. But, looking at the undeleted article, the only conclusion (an implied one) is that the two countries sometimes do things in common. That is exactly what the closer says "is not what is in question". It is up to the discussants, not the closer, to assess whether policy is being breached and, if not, whether the events establish "notability". Now, this article was in a desperately feeble state when it was nominated at AFD[1] and the nomination was entirely reasonable. However, once Nomian had improved the article the nomination was no longer sustainable in its original form and the SYNTH and notability aspects were then reasonably debatable. I think either no consensus or keep would have been within discretion. Thincat (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Closing administrator note - I still fully stand behind this close; AFDs are not votes. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn. I fully agree with the closing statement, if it were a !vote that is. Or if it were an adjudication. The problem is that our notability guidelines are applied by the community on a case-by-case basis. The closing administrator's role there is not to adjudicate the debate but to determine where consensus lies. That distinction needs to be understood. Naturally there is a weighing of arguments that needs to be undertaken in the latter process, but the administrator cannot simply say "the delete side had the better arguments, they win". In this case no amount of weighing could have reasonably resulted in a delete close. The delete side failed to convince a significant number - a large majority, in fact - of participants, so there cannot be a consensus. And there is no overriding policy, such as BLP or copyvio or whatever, that warrants giving the admin additional latitude. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The only thing missing from that analysis, Mkativerata, is that those "participants" opining for retention are the creators and proponents of the articles in question. They don't want to see their work deleted and so will never be "convinced" that what they created doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. In fact, while a number of these were being discussed, a raft of similar (almost identical, in fact) articles about other Bangladesh-X relations were created by the nominator here and creator of the articles in question, just in case these were deleted. Your analysis, then, suggests that if you have enough friends (or countrymen, in this case) you can retain all sorts of nonsense on WP on the simple basis that you'll never be "convinced" that deleting your own nonsense is a good idea. I'd remind you, also, that the fact that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a publisher of original though is a perfectly valid policy-based argument. Stlwart111 23:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse the arguments for keep although plenty were weak and mostly not policy based. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse- NC would have been possible too, and I was leaning towards overturning it to that, but Stalwart makes some good points regarding the articles' defenders. With that in mind, this close is definitely policy grounded. Reyk YO! 10:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Reyk, I would request you to investigate it yourself if those remarks made by Stalwart are actually true or not. If you have a look at the histories of the articles, you'll see that Samee and I are the only major contributors in these articles, but there were seven other participants who voted for keep, so the point that the keep voters don't want to see their work deleted is simply baseless. He made another false comment that while this AFD was in progress, I was creating more Bangladesh's bilateral relations article. However, if you check my contributions, you'll see that the last such article was created on 11 October (Bangladesh–Slovakia relations) and this AFD took place between 27 January-22 February. Nomian (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You're right; my mistake, that was in reference to others with very similarly... limited... interests. Your article creation record (though) speaks for itself. And my comments about your defence of your original research remain valid. Stlwart111 23:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn to NC, largely per User:RoySmith. To be honest, most of the arguments used here were fairly weak, and I certainly don't blame the closing admin who had to fish a consensus out of that mess for making the call that they did. While I acknowledge that AFD wasn't a vote, neither is it somewhere where we can assume that a subjective opinion on the reliability or significance of a source is some sort of objective truth. I also want to touch upon something that came up in the discussion, and that is the use of multiple nominations for articles like this. While multiple noms have their place, I feel that in cases like this where discussion is likely to be controversial, it would certainly make the job of the admin much easier if articles were discussed one at a time. Otherwise you're left working out who wants what article deleted or kept, which makes it far more likely that the discussion will end up here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC).
  • Overturn to Keep - Disruptive nominations of subpages of Foreign relations of Bangladesh, wrongly decided. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
A childish personal attack with no basis in fact, and from an editor from whom we should all expect better. Poor form. Stlwart111 21:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not a personal attack. As many as 17 articles were nominated in several AFDs altogether (including this one) by a set of editors who were common in all AFDs. Such conduct was considered disruptive by many editors. Nomian (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
And more than 60 of these nonsense articles were create by the same editor. They were single-line stubs created en-masse and when they were nominated, they were expanded with blatant synthesis and disingenuous primary sourcing in an effort to save them. That "set" of editors has worked collaboratively for about 5 years trying to prevent/remove neo-nationalist diplomati-spam from WP and you are just the last SPA in a very, very long line. Stlwart111 02:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The thing you are not understanding is that what you are terming "nonsense", "neo-nationalist diplomati-spam", synthesis and original research are considered well within the guidelines by others, so please come up with something new rather than repeating the same argument. Nomian (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment At the AFD no one seems to have considered a redirect or merge to Foreign relations of Bangladesh where the present Italy-related content is frankly silly. In polarised AFDs like this where there is little by way of genuine discussion, it would be good if the closer, even if he could not drag a compromise out of the debate, could instead relist with a suggestion for merging or redirecting. RoySmith raised the possibility above and it's a shame there has been no response. Thincat (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I've been doing some research into notability guidelines for country relations articles. The most appropriate guidance seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations. There it suggests that significant trade should be sufficient to establish notability for a bilateral relations article. I have no idea if $1 billion (quoting nomian from the AfD) meets the bar for significant or not, but I really would like to see people debating whether these articles meet the six points listed there rather than resorting to ad-hominem attacks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    Well those guidelines are put together by a wikiproject so wouldn't normally be considered to have any sort of broader community consensus, so I doubt those minded to delete these will debate if it meets those since it isn't a recognised standard, so meeting or not meeting makes little difference. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

22 February 2015[edit]

Erin Ade[edit]

Erin Ade (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think that she is a well-known journalist now and matches the criteria of notability. Sohebbasharat (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - roughly speaking, you'd need to show she meets either WP:N, the usual inclusion criterion, or it's bastard stepchild for journalists, WP:NJOURNALIST. Merely asserting it won't get DRV to do anything. WilyD 11:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I was the closing admin at the initial AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Ade. I'll choose to respectfully defer to community consensus as established by this process here. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, Erin Ade hosts her own business program at RT by the name of Boom Bust. Previously she was a sports journalist with ESPN. I am not really sure if she meets the WP:NJOURNALIST criteria or not. Actually, i was seeing this page Neave Barker, and i think she is as notable as this journalist (and he has got a wiki page); so i thought she might also qualify to have a page of her own.Sohebbasharat (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • temporarily restored for deiscussion DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore, without prejudice to a new AfD. Since the last AfD, in 2011, she has assumed her own show ("Boom Bust, on RT). I think that's a significant enough change in circumstances to warrant another look. I don't purport to be an expert on notability for journalists. My gut feel tells me she's not notable - presenting a show, especially on a less-than-reputable cable network, doesn't seem to me to amount to a journalistic achievement. But that's for another AfD to decide. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore - I have edited the "Erin Ade" page and added all the info i could find with references. Please have a look. You can see the page and decide. She is not super famous or anything, i agree, but i think she is notable enough to warrant a wiki page. Sohebbasharat (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline. No additional notability shown. If restored, I will nominate for AfD2. I do not think she meets WP:GNG, (Tho not mentioned in the article, the RT schedule indicates the show is a half-hour.) The NYT article is one of their short marriage articles, tho not quite a paid announcement, unlike major marriage stories in the early 20th century, they don't show notability, because they deliberately pick a cross section, not the notable only. Everything else is either from her own station, or her college alumni magazine, or a social website. It is true that we have similar articles for journalists with a show on a major network but nothing much in the way of refs, I appreciate being notified about the comparison article used as a model, and I've just listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neave Barker. The problem with articles like that and like this is that people come here and use them as models, thinking we actually intend to accept that sort of directory material. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Recent discussions[edit]

21 February 2015[edit]

Template:Infobox medical condition[edit]

Template:Infobox medical condition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The TfD closed as merge, but the reality of the situation obsoleted the outcome. Discussions on Template talk:Infobox disease are going forward constructively and have more input than the original TfD. Vacating the mandate to merge will ease going forward with improving the involved templates Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Endorse. Perfectly reasonable summation of the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes vacate the merge. Was only one support to merge during the disussion [2] with one support to delete. Unclear how merge become consensus in the first place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll whisper endorse because the close was within discretion, particularly when prolonged TfD discussions involve tagging templates in a way that is so annoying to readers. However, consensus decisions being reached now should not be constrained by TfD discussions in the past. In this case allow the template to be recreated, if that is helpful. Thincat (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes vacate the merge. Agree with comment above by Doc James, appears to have been quite a thin basis to close on that rationale based upon that degree of participation in the discussion. — Cirt (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Unmerge. The discussion is still going on constructively; the close may have beech technically correct, but it seems it was premature. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I think you've made a mistake here (or I have and don't understand your comment), the TFD closed 18 monnths ago, the current ongoing discussion only started 5 days ago. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • There is nothing to unmerge; the merge of the two templates was reverted. The matter is still in dispute. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The decision seems fine to me, one person says explicitly merge, the others say that the template should be replaced by the ultimate target of the "merge", it seems splitting hairs to say the close was wrong since only one person said merge, the only other possible outcome from that discussion was a replace and redirect, which if there was nothing to merge would be the effect of merge anyway. Even if it had been a straight delete outcome, in all cases we'd be here now with this discussion. If things are moving forward on the discussion elsewhere a new consensus to restructure the templates can emerge making this required again, the original TFD doesn't constrain that. So endorse the original outcome, but let the new discussion form a new consensus --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I originally had similar thoughts, as a merge can be discussed on the template's talk page, but the discussion is going way beyond the merge, so undoing the merge may actually simplify discussion, at this point. —PC-XT+ 20:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC) (I consider the merge appropriate, but things are being discussed that could make a merge inappropriate.) —PC-XT+ 20:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Vacate per Martijn. The close was fine, but contributors to Template:Infobox disease have now got other ideas. Alakzi (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Template:Infobox medical condition has now been deleted and Template:Infobox disease moved to Template:Infobox medical condition. Perhaps we should forget that this template has ever existed or the TfD ever happened. Alakzi (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. It was decided that Template:Infobox medical condition was to be merged into Template:Infobox disease.
  2. So, Andy redirected Template:Infobox medical condition to Template:Infobox disease and added the former's parameters to the latter.
  3. His additions were reverted twice by User:Doc James. Other contributors to the template were in agreement with the Doc.
  4. Therefore, the merge could no longer proceed, and Martijn asked for the merge decision to be overturned, which would mean that the (original) Template:Infobox medical condition would have to be reinstated.
  5. In the meantime, a RM was initiated at Template talk:Infobox disease.
  6. User:MSGJ deleted the template under discussion and moved Template:Infobox disease in its place, as per the RM outcome. Alakzi (talk) 00:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this DRV may have reached a condition in which palliative care is indicated. Could someone call a doctor? Thincat (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Apologies if I have complicated this matter further. I acted on the apparent clear consensus for a move to Template:Infobox medical condition. Nothing I read here or on the template's talk page suggested that this would obstruct any of the options currently being considered for this template. Is anyone actually still arguing that there should be two separate templates? One was redirected to the other on Jan 16, more than a month ago, and was not reverted. Anyway I am happy to revert, but perhaps it would be safer to wait until this discussion is closed to avoid unnecessary log entries. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
What you did was fine User:MSGJ. There is no discussion regarding having two separate templates. Support is to move the template to the name you moved it too. Discussion is ongoing regarding changing this one template. Lots of work is required before these changes take place though, including developing consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Matthew_T._Ryan (closed)[edit]

Muhammad_Sex_Simulator_2015[edit]

Muhammad_Sex_Simulator_2015 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Regardless of the outcome, there was no consensus, so it should not have had a non-admin closing the debate. The issue at hand is whether 3 sources on the issue establish notability, not WP:Censorship or otherwise. Magedq (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed the concerns on my talk page already, and linked to them from the AfD. In short, the clear consensus at the AfD was that the sources given did establish notability. ansh666 03:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse It's difficult for me to see how this could be closed as anything but a clear consensus to keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - The signature on the close ain't important when the close is transparently right. WilyD 14:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse, and strongly suggest that those who didn't get their way drop the stick. There were far fewer delete votes for starters (discounting all SPA voters here, but then, those were generally voting keep), and of those votes, one had nothing to do with Wikipedia policy at all, one of them was a misinterpretation of policy, and the remaining votes were out-of-date, as more coverage was found and they specifically referred to a lack of sources. This is one of the clearest consensuses in any AfD that had delete votes, and this DRV is just a waste of time. Asserting "no consensus" is just lame, and downright misrepresentative. It's a pretty strong sign that the article should be kept when a (weak) delete voter changes their vote to keep, and no-one else goes the other way. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
  • Endorse. After reading over the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015, it appears the closer correctly assessed a clear consensus to Keep. — Cirt (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - and remind participants that not liking the outcome is not the same thing as there being something wrong with the close. You're entitled to disagree with the outcome in perpetuity, but that doesn't make the outcome wrong. It just means you were on a different page to the majority of the community and that's nothing the closer can assist with. Stlwart111 22:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If it would make the nominator happy, I would be pleased to vacate the non-admin close and reclose the AFD myself, also as keep. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, (1) it definitely should not have been closed by a non-admin and (2) it should have been called "no consensus", not "keep" (while there are no binding precedents, calling it "keep" has more of an effect of discouraging a possible future AFD than calling it "no consensus" does - since it was clearly no consensus, not a consensus to keep, it should be called "no consensus"). I could go for relist or keep kept but wet trout the non-admin who closed it. --B (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Ok, I don't mean to be hostile, but why would this be no consensus? I understand that you would have supported deletion, but put that aside and assess the consensus as if it were something else. Several other uninvolved admins have vouched that the close was on the mark. ansh666 02:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Throw out the SPAs and the invalid arguments (like "Strong Delete -This article is against religion faith") and counting heads, I see 7 keep and 6 {delete or userfy or Sam Walton, who didn't !vote, but opined in English that based on the available sources, it should be deleted}. Sure, we don't resolve things just by counting heads alone, but there's no way that's a consensus. --B (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Userfy isn't really delete, IMO, and Sam said he would !vote delete if sources were provided, which they were. The other deletes didn't take into account the additional sources introduced, and one was based on a wrong reason (WP:TOOSOON). Plus, the last half of comments is a generally good indicator of which way consensus is going in cases like this - for this one keep. ansh666 06:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be blunt. Closing it as no consensus requires a spectacular disregard of most guidelines and policy. Why? Because most of the delete votes were not even remotely policy based. We do not go on weight of numbers, we go on the weight of the votes. One vote (Njam22's) was nowhere near being policy based. Hirolovesswords' vote wasn't policy based either, since we're not discussing an event. Magedq's was out of date, but was policy based. Ditto Edison. FreeKnowledgeCreator never gave any rationale whatsoever. Also, where did you get 7 keeps from? I see BrxBrx, myself, Gamaliel, Soetermans (who changed to keep), Eddymason, Thibbs (weak), Dezidor, Lurkaccount, Kymako, and Hans Adler. That's 10. Now, some of those aren't great votes either (Gamaliel, lurkaccount), but on sheer strength of votes, the consensus is blindingly obvious. Relisting the debate based on a clear consensus like that would be both POINTy, and a total waste of time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

19 February 2015[edit]

15 February 2015[edit]

Archive[edit]

2015
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2014
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2013
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2012
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2011
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2010
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2009
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2008
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2007
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December
2006
January February March April
May June July August
September October November December