Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

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 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.

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=2014 April 23}}</noinclude>, if the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, and use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2014 April 23|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]

23 April 2014[edit]

21 April 2014[edit]

Media Idee[edit]

Media Idee (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

<Not Notable Company>

Media Idee • ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) • [revisions] Enter your reasoning here and then click the "Save page" button below -115.186.121.30 (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. The Page 'Media Idee' was deleted for the company not being notable at the time.

Since then, the following are some of the projects that have gotten it into the limelight:

The biggest one is the Organization of the first ever Dolphin Show in Pakistan. Please see http://www.dolphinshow.org/partner.php and www.facebook.com/dolphinshowkarachi for proof that MI was the main organizer. Just Google 'Dolphin Show Karachi' and you will get about a 100 links back from major media companies in the country discussing that including some that actually Cite Media Idee. This is one FB page which lists the event's as MI: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Media-Idee/346860588664883.

Some pages which list MI are: http://tcsconnect.com/dolphin-show-ticket-12897.html

http://www.awamiweb.com/dolphin-show-in-karachi-from-10th-of-january-67671.html

http://www.mediakorner.com/pakistans-first-ever-dolphin-show/

Media Idee is also part of PAS - The ruling body for all advertisers and agencies.

PAS - Pakistan Advertisers' Society: http://www.pas.org.pk/media-idee-celebrates-8th-birthday/

Other Links Include: http://trango.co/interview-with-umair-mohsin-of-media-idee/

http://www.pas.org.pk/mira-media-idee-research-analytics/

http://www.crunchbase.com/company/mi-digital

http://www.midigital.co/nestle-fruita-vitals-production-handled-mi-productions/

Network Companies include: www.miproductions.tv

www.mievents.asia

www.creativecom.co

  • Comment I've removed a large amount of text copy-pasted from various conversations and talk page material by an editor that involve the process before bringing this page to deletion review. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The AFD was unanimous and reasonably argued. An AFC submission would have been a much better choice than bringing this here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment [User:IronGargoyle|IronGargoyle]] (talk) and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, please do note that the Admin who deleted the page is no longer available. Secondly, please note that the deletion occurred in 2011. Since than the company is now 'Notable'. The issue was not being resolved. Thats' why the complete context was posted here to make decision easier. Please do the right thing and undelete the page, also as requested the same as Stuartyeates, one of the people who approved the original deletion. Also an AFC Submission is not required. WE are well equipped to create an entire encyclopedic article on Media Idee and rest assured it will not sound like a promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.101.169 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

18 April 2014[edit]

DigitalOcean[edit]

DigitalOcean (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page has been created multiple times, almost certainly be people looking for neutral information about this company. I came to Wikipedia looking for unbiased information on DigitalOcean, a fairly significant service in my version of the world, and found that the article has been deleted twice. As an wikipedia editor of 8 years, contributor of both articles and images, and having edited hundreds of scientific journal articles, I endeavored to write with NPOV, wikified my text, and cited sources. Perhaps User:Deb and other deletionist-minded editors are unaware, but this company is on par with Amazon as an entrepreneurial resource. It is not advertising to cite market-based research. I specifically cited market-based criteria, like Netcraft, because the company is focused on entrepreneurial markets. I note it is entirely comparable to other services, like Bluehost and Amazon AWS. Please undelete the article. Niels Olson (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Now being canvassed off-wiki.[1] The company is probably notable, but "on par with Amazon" doesn't sound very neutral (it's a startup company not much different than a zillion small VPS hosts).

70.36.142.114 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That claim was not made in the text of the article and, in the narrow space of hosts a early stage entrepreneur or hobbyist would consider, it's absolutely on par.Niels Olson (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Given the above, coupled with their recent large Series A round from Andreessen Horowitz, and examples of high profile use of their services given on TechCrunch: [2] (e.g., the host for beyonce.com), the notability of DigitalOcean and suitability for inclusion here is significant. I vote for a speedy undeletion. Daniel Smith (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Please be aware that the article was deleted for promotional wording, not for lack of notability. Deb (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think a series A round makes a company notable. An IPO might make it notable, but I'm not sure even of that. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Overturn 01:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC) "no explanation of significance" speedy deletion by Bbb23 based on http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigitalOcean.

    At the time of the 01:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC) deletion, if not substantially changed from the version in the Google cache, the article was neutrally written and contained two reliable sources: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danreich/2012/09/19/startup-ceo-ben-uretsky-on-launching-digital-ocean-raising-money-and-joining-techstars/ and http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/15/techstars-graduate-digitalocean-switches-to-ssd-for-its-5-per-month-vps-to-take-on-linode-and-rackspace/

    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline based on this article in TechCrunch ("DigitalOcean Raises $37.2M From Andreessen Horowitz To Take On AWS"), this article in VentureBeat ("DigitalOcean's cloud surpasses Amazon Web Services in one category"), and this article in The New York Times ("Andreessen Horowitz Backs DigitalOcean, a Cloud Computing Start-Up").

    I cannot see the 17:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC) "unambiguous advertising or promotion" speedy deletion by Deb, so will not express an opinion about that deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

    • Not much point trying to overturn a deletion that happened before the one that's being challenged. You can see the article I deleted here.Deb (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Sounds wrong to me, if there is a viable article to be had then what's the problem? For sure your deletion may have been ok, but since you aren't "banning" the topic from existing, if a previous version is valid there is no reason not to turn back to that one. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
        • That's as maybe, but that's not what User:Niels_Olson has requested. Deb (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
          • You're familiar with WP:NOTBURO? I don't like the ad hominem in the nomination here, but at the end we should be concerned about building the encyclopedia. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
            • You're imagining the "ad hominem" - don't forget to assume good faith. I'm pointing out the facts, which are being consistently clouded by misleading comments from those who apparently still think that the version User:Niels_Olson wants undeleted was deleted for non-notability. If you would like to nominate the previous version for undeletion, go ahead. Deb (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
              • So you do want to put a bureaucratic process first, we are here discussing this article. If there is a viable one which can help improve the encyclopedia there is no issue with discussing that here, despite your desire to make sure form xxxb6 has been filled in properly by raising a new nomination for a different deletion i.e. making someone jump through bureaucratic hoops. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact - the use of "deletionist-minded editors" in the nom is clearly being used as a pejorative. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
                • Do you or don't you care enough to make a valid nomination, then? Deb (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • It's already a valid nomination, so no need to open another (your assertion otherwise is not "law"). I'll take my chances that the closing admin will be more clued up on the idea of what is and isn't bureaucratic that you seem to be demonstrating. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    • So what's the quickest path forward to having a DigitalOcean entry then? Seems like notability has been established, now there's just an argument around language. "If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." Should User:Niels_Olson simply resubmit the entry using more neutral descriptors? Chorder (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
      • That's the obvious solution - he's had it in his sandbox all along so I don't know why he is so reluctant to do it. Deb (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
        • No reluctance here, merely a combination of trying to defer to process, and having other things to do in meatspace. I don't have access to the wikitext of the 11 April 2014 vesion cited above in the googlecache link (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigitalOcean). If someone with access to the deletion log would drop that wikitext in my sandbox or elsewhere and point me to it, I would be happy to merge the two with a focus on ensuring NPOV. As for an ad hominem attack, please consider "deletionist-minded editors" in the same context as an American Congressperson might refer to "my friends on the other side of the aisle". Also, just to clarify, I'm not even a DigitalOcean customer. I'm a prospective customer looking at available options. I have no interest in this company other than its value to me. Niels Olson (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I resubmitted the rewritten article, citing consensus in this conversation. Niels Olson (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

17 April 2014[edit]

16 April 2014[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ISERN[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/ISERN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Draft article was re-written to avoid possible copyright issues. Administrator deleted revision without comment or elaboration. Request made to editor on 4/14/14 for elaboration on copyright issues. No response from administrator. ISERN Member (talk) 00:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Have you looked at our guidelines around editing while involved? Spartaz Humbug! 07:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I undeleted the article to run the duplicate detector tool to compare the deleted page with the suggested source. The outcome is pretty clear. This has seen changes but is still too closely paraphrased to be acceptable here under any terms. Spartaz Humbug! 07:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Recent discussions[edit]

15 April 2014[edit]

Template:Infobox ESC entry (closed)[edit]

Alberget 4A (closed)[edit]

14 April 2014[edit]

13 April 2014[edit]

11 April 2014[edit]

10 April 2014[edit]

Archive[edit]

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