Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:VFU)
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 May 24}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 May 24|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]

24 May 2015[edit]

23 May 2015[edit]

Andrey Davydov (closed)[edit]

22 May 2015[edit]

Jewish terror in Israel[edit]

Jewish terror in Israel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This page is an attempt to translate (without adding any information whatsoever) a well established page which already exists in Hebrew: טרור יהודי בישראל and Russian: Список терактов, осуществлённых израильтянами против палестинцев. Answering the deleting admin reason for marking the page as an Attack page: at no point in the text is any individual named a terrorist (especially not without citations), individuals are only said to have been accused and trialed for terrorism charges by the Israeli justice system, which is well cited in the Hebrew original page. Further, the original page is very lengthy and in depth: individual statements and phrasing/translation may be challenged, but the page contains many un-refuted facts. Jfkspfkjsl (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note From Deleting Admin - This article was deleted it because it had been tagged as an attack page and blanked. Upon review, of the blanked content, a list "accused terrorists" in a specific context was provided. The concept seemed to walk a very dangerous WP:BLP line that I felt was better to err on the side of caution. I encouraged the editor to take it to WP:DRV to get some more eyes on the topic as I was uncomfortable undeleting the article. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment Clarifying individuals: in the portion of the text which was translated before deletion, 7 parties are mentioned, only 3 of which are named individuals, the other 4 refer to organizations.
Comment Consistency with other English Wiki pages: 5 of the 7 parties (i.e., 3 of the 4 organizations, and 2 of the 3 individuals) have English wiki pages (which the proposed page linked to) which themselves repeat the facts stated in the proposed page.Jfkspfkjsl (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • How can it possibly be a good idea to have a page called "Jewish terror in Israel"? I can't imagine why anyone might think it was an appropriate title for an article, unless they were actively trying to create a honeypot for cranks and partisans.—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Because this is the translation of the Hebrew page title: טרור יהודי בישראל (you can verify it in Google Translator). And I wasn't looking to get into any political fight or create any new content, I just wanted to translate. Again, I'm totally receptive to any challenges regarding the quality of translation.Jfkspfkjsl (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The article was a list of acts by Jewish paramilitary and underground groups in the late 1940s and early 1950s, some of which most people would describe as terrorism (bombings and assassinations) and some of which are more dubious (scattering glass at sports venues where people played sport on the Sabbath). It wasn't very well referenced - there were only three citations, two of which aren't really specific enough for me to be sure what is being cited (the other is this, which is in Hebrew). I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it an attack page but there were certainly serious BLP concerns with it. It named two people as being connected with one of the attacks, and although it said they were found not guilty when tried it also implied this was on a technicality. An article at this title is likely to become a magnet for partisans on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although there wasn't any trace of that in the deleted version. I would suggest some further work, better sourcing and possibly a different title before recreating this. Hut 8.5 20:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the thoughtful response! What title would you propose? help in translation is welcomed! Note that the text you see in the deleted English version is only a small portion of the entire Hebrew text, which is lengthy and stretches from the 40's to 2014. Specific acts may be ignored in the English version (e.g., broken glass). Regarding BLP concerns, as said above, many of the facts mentioned in the proposed page are supported and presented by existing entries of English wiki (e.g., Amos Kenan describes one of the 3 individuals named). And to your question, the Hebrew PDF is an official document from the trial of 1953.Jfkspfkjsl (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd advise against using any variant of the word terrorism in the title. As you can see from that article the use of that term is very controversial, and the articles about the groups mentioned in the deleted article generally call them something else. Statements made about living people should be cited where they are made, even if they have citations somewhere else, and trial transcripts shouldn't be used when discussing living people. The various language versions of Wikipedia are completely separate and have their own policies and rules, what one considers acceptable another may not. Hut 8.5 22:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse as a matter of procedure. If there is any viability to the subject matter itself, then an experienced, actual Wikipedia editor is free to work on it as desired. The Israel-Palestine topic area has been rife with abuse & battleground mentalities pretty much since the Wikipedia began; we should not be giving an iota of time or attention to an obvious troll account (it is barely 1 day old, all edits have to do with this article) whose name itself is a random jumble of keyboard-mashing, suggestive of a throwaway sock. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment on BLP Looking at the Russian article, essentially all the individuals mentioned by name were convicted of crimes. (there are one or two that need further checking). The source mostly relied on a a reputable academic work in English by Nachman Ben-Yehuda, published by SUNY Press. [1] DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

21 May 2015[edit]

Fletchers Solicitors[edit]

Fletchers Solicitors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The deleted page was not "unambiguous advertising." It was fully sourced to independent sources. The article concerns a leading firm of English attorneys. The WP:Community deserves the right to weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Will the nominator please clarify whether he has been paid to create/edit this article? Stifle (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The required declaration was made, either on the Talk page of the article or in the Edit summary; I can't remember. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll endorse this. I can find a grand total of three sentences in the entire article that would survive unchanged if it were written neutrally; and the majority of it wouldn't belong in a neutral article even with rewording. —Cryptic 13:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - this, to my sensibilities, perhaps teeters near the line between needing a massive rewrite and needing a fundamental rewrite; the sources suffer from a lot of dubiousness (in independence, in reliability, in whether they're really about the company) that probably keep it just this side of A7, but making WP:N far from a sure thing. Combining these, I don't see it as having a snowball in a gasoline suit's chance in hell of making it through an AfD unless someone does a (massive/fundamental) rewrite. I would thus suggest anyone wanting to see an article on the subject ask for userfication to start writing a viable article, rather than perhaps nitpick to no gain. WilyD 16:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That was unambiguously marketing, and it should not appear in our encyclopaedia in that form.—S Marshall T/C 17:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Obvious spam, this is an encyclopedia not a place for spam company marketing. It doesn't need a community review if it's obvious spam like this. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse that such an apparently experienced editor doesn't recognise how inappropriate that content is, is quite scary. Paid or not that shouldn't be here --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • delete We're not a commercial directory to rent space in. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse Clearly Promotional and unambiguous marketing .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I agree with BeenAroundAWhile that the article is fully sourced to independent sources. That makes it fully sourced spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Yes, the wording is ostensibly neutral and the referencing is of a good quality. But through and through it is an advertisement and quite unsuitable here. If the present DRV is showing a hardening attitude against this sort of thing, I very much welcome it. Perhaps the wording of WP:PROMOTION will need to be changed to reflect a changing climate. Thincat (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse Spam article. The declaration of COI was added about a week after the article was created, and it's very poor form for BeenAroundAWhile to have not declared their COI when starting this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Katja Glieson (closed)[edit]

20 May 2015[edit]

17 May 2015[edit]

Array Networks[edit]

Array Networks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

List of sources at the AfD:

From the closing admin's talk page:

The company has received substantial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. It received a detailed article in the financial magazine Forbes. It received a detailed article from the San Jose Mercury News, which has a circulation of over 500,000. It received a detailed article in the technology magazine InformationWeek, which has a circulation of 200,000. Regarding Taiwan's stock exchanges, Array Networks was "first foreign company to list in Taiwan", according to The Wall Street Journal.

The "delete" editors either failed to explain why reliable newspaper and magazine articles were press releases or made arguments that violated Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability or Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems.

Admins routinely close AfDs as delete even when when there is a lopsided vote count in favor of retention by discounting non-policy-based "keep" votes. They should do likewise for non-policy-based "delete" votes. See for example the "delete" close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Marie (6–2 in support of retention), which was endorsed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 1#Phoenix Marie.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Overturn, I was actually going to DRV this myself, thanks for doing it. It's very simple here sources pass GNG, but more importantly this subject passes WP:LISTED on the TSE (not OTC). TSE is the 19th largest international exchange and is subject to similar regulations as the NASDAQ. Valoem talk contrib 02:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Consensus to delete found, straightforward close. The Great Wall of China-esque Text by one editor has no bearing. Tarc (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse There are other reasons for deletion besides lack of notability., such as being promotional. We are not limited at afd as we are at speedy to those articles to promotional to fix; we can, and do, and should, delete articles substantially contaminated with promotionalism. Even if they were to be rewritten, the prior material should be removed altogether. Normally, we do not do this for those subjects that are clearly and unquestionably notable, for there are often good uncontaminated edits in the article history, and the good work should not be lost. This however is an instance where there is marginal notability, and clear promotionalism. Whether to remove in such a case is up to the community, and afd is the place to decide it. Restoring articles like this would send a clear message to the sub-community of promotional editors: that they are very likely to get away with it even if detected. NASDAQ is not necessarily notable--some of the companies in it are, but not most of them. There's a long string of decisions to that effect.Or read the WSJ article or Forbes, both of which in essence said that knowing it couldn't meet the standards of NYSE, they needed an alternative. Ad Valorem said at the AfD: "I believe regulation is what gives the company notability ". I think that makes no sense whatsoever. (Just as in the other AfD mentioned here, where essentially the community had to decide if an award was sufficient to imply notability, and correctly decided it was not.)
I agree completely that article content does not determine notability--but it can determine whether we should have a particular article. Other factors are even more important: although I normally argue for a broad interpretation of notability , I must admit that neither a broader or stricter notability standard --both within reasons -- does not essentially harm WP. Promotionalism destroys it, by making us an advertising medium & in essence no more than a web directory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs)
  • Endorse, could not logically have been closed any other way. The size of a comment does not necessarily bear proportion to quality or weight — I advise User:Cunard to be more concise, whether or not placing arguments in collapse boxes. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. There was overwhelming consensus at the AfD to delete. Several people presented what they felt were good sources to establish notability, but cogent arguments were made by multiple people on the other side why those sources were not up to snuff. I echo the sentiments of others above that writing pages and pages of comments is not useful, and is probably counter-productive. Nobody is going to wade through all that. The argument in this DRV is essentially, The AfD didn't go my way, so I'm going to reiterate my original arguments in another forum and hope I get the result I want this time. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. And the people who are arguing to overturn have been around long enough to know that it doesn't work that way. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Endorse (but allow new version) There's no doubt that the original AfD close should be endorsed, in the sense that, given the material that existed, no other close made sense. The next question is whether the version presented here should be allowed to stand. That's really a question for AfD, but let's not stand on process too much. Certainly, some of the publications cited (Forbes, WSJ, SJ Merc News) rank as reliable sources. The problem is, I'm not convinced that coverage in those articles is anything more than routine coverage of financial news by industry publications which cover all such announcements. Still, I think this version would have a reasonable chance of surviving another AfD, so letting it stand seems reasonable. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The consensus was clear and multiple editors commented after the sources were provided and did not regard them as establishing notability. As such there is no other way the closing admin could have closed the AFD. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse even supposing that the majority was wrong. Rather than argue here, far better create a worthwhile article with good references. Thincat (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thincat (talk · contribs), I have followed your advice and created a neutral, reliably sourced article about the subject. What are your thoughts about how I can improve the article?

    {{db-repost}} applies to:

    A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space or converted to a Draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy).

    Based on the wording of {{db-repost}} it is clear that the new article is not "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy".

    Cunard (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @Cunard:. I can't see what was there before your new draft but it highly likely demonstrates that articles can get deleted on notability grounds not because the topic lacks notability but because the article has been poorly written. I think this happens a lot. You know this, I know this and a lot of other people here do as well. However, pretending it doesn't happen is part of the game we play. I'm too old to be shocked. As it happens, in this case the "promotional" aspect has muddied the water. Thincat (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't see what was there before your new draft but it highly likely demonstrates that articles can get deleted on notability grounds not because the topic lacks notability but because the article has been poorly written. – yes, I've seen this happen many times before.

    I expected the AfD participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Array Networks to review the sources I posted. Instead, several editors called these newspaper article press releases (diffs 1, 2, and 3) without substantiating their implausible claims. Two editors explicitly ignored the sources I posted and focused on the poorly written article, saying the article did not demonstrate notability or that it was spam (diffs 1 and 2).

    I expected the closing admin to discount these very weak "delete" votes and close as "no consensus" or "keep". I believed this despite the lopsided vote count because the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoenix Marie discounted very weak "keep" votes and closed as "delete" despite the 6–2 vote in support of retention. I was wrong. I expected the DRV community to correct the admin's mistake. I was wrong again.

    Cunard (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Thincat (talk · contribs), as an editor uninvolved in the AfD, would you review the new article and determine whether the article "establishes notability and appears neutral" (quoting from Valoem below) in your opinion? Cunard (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I have put it on my watchlist so if it is sent to AFD again I'll see if I have an opinion worth giving. Thincat (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Can an admin please restore the full history so we can compare the current version written by Cunard to the older versions? Cunard's version establishes notability and appears neutral. Valoem talk contrib 20:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Endorse- the discussion could not have been closed any other way. Allow recreation if the sources are sufficient, but I'm generally unconvinced by run-of-the-mill promotional churn. And please, please, please stop with the ginormous filibustering walls of text. You complain that people aren't giving your opinions the consideration you think they deserve. It's because you just don't express yourself succinctly. People see one of your many weirdly indented multi-page comments and just scroll to the bottom because they've learned from experience that reading them is a repetitive, mind-numbing ordeal. You have become white noise in these debates. Sorry if you think I'm being harsh, but people have told you they find your walls of text annoying many times in the past and you've taken no notice. Reyk YO! 08:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • allow draft. I didn't look at the old article, but the new one seems to meet WP:N, though it's mostly about how the company and its relationship to the stock exchanges(s) and certainly isn't a great article (no offence, it's where the sources seem to go AFAICT).

John H. Arnold (historian) (closed)[edit]

David Feldman (historian) ‎ (closed)[edit]

Vanessa Harding (historian) (closed)[edit]

Frank Trentmann ‎ (closed)[edit]

Dominic Rathbone ‎ (closed)[edit]

Catharine Edwards (historian) (closed)[edit]


Recent discussions[edit]

16 May 2015[edit]

15 May 2015[edit]

14 May 2015[edit]

13 May 2015[edit]

12 May 2015[edit]

10 May 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