Find this page confusing? Just put a note on your talk page with {{Help me}} (including the curly brackets) above it and someone will assist you.
"WP:DELREV" redirects here. For Revision Delete, see
WP:REVDEL.
Administrator instructions
| Deletion discussions |
- Articles (today, all, closing)
- Templates (today, all, closing)
- Files (today, all, closing)
- PUF (today, all, closing)
- Categories (today, all, closing)
- Redirects (today, all, closing)
- Miscellany (today, all, closing)
- Stub types (all)
|
Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.
Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.
If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here (administrators may replace with {{TempUndelete}} where appropriate).
Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and the list of perennial requests.
[edit] What is this page for?
Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.
[edit] Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions
Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.
- Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look.
- Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions.
- Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article.
- In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid corrective action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.
This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Equally, this process should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where your page has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).
Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed.
The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in the main part of the page—please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.
[edit] Temporary review
Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:
- The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
- The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
- The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.
The latter two may be requested here. Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.
[edit] History-only undeletion
Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.
[edit] Contesting 'proposed deletions'
For these uncontroversially deleted articles, you can make a quick request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.
[edit] How do I do all this?
All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.
Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.
[edit] Instructions
Before listing a review request:
- 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 #What is this page for?.
- 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.
In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:
- Endorse the original closing decision; or
- Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
- List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
- Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.
Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.
The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.
[edit] Temporary undeletion
Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.
[edit] Closing reviews
A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate. Deletion review discussions may also be extended by relisting them to the newest DRV log page, if the closing admin thinks that consensus may yet be achieved by more discussion.
[edit] Steps to list a new deletion review
 |
If your request is completely non-controversial (e.g., restoring an article deleted with a prod, restoring an image deleted for lack of adequate licensing information, asking that the history be emailed to you, etc), please use Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion instead. |
| |
| 1. |
Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page 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, and reason with the reason why the page should be undeleted. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used. For example:
{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
|
| 4. |
Inform the administrator who deleted the page by adding the following on their user talk page:
{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
|
| 5. |
Nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept should also attach a {{Delrev}} tag 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 the following template: <noinclude>{{Delrevafd|date=2012 March 2}}</noinclude>
|
| |
- DesignTech Systems – G11 Overturned because 1) it had already been declined by another administrator, 2) the content was fixable via normal editing, and 3) per User:Fastily's permission for any admin to undo his admin actions on his talk page. Any editor my AfD normally if desired. – Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
- DesignTech_Systems (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
The article , first submitted for review on 30th December was approved by wiki editor Pol430 on 31st December, 2011 - [1]. A month later, it was abruptly deleted on 7th February by Fastily without a warning. It says the page falls under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The problem here is that how can one editor on wikipedia approve an article and somebody else delete it anytime later. What does that do to users like me who are trying to learn it up and become better at contributing to the same. How can the guidelines between two editor differ so vastly? Is there no common rule book that everybody follows? And why does the Design Tech article read like unambiguous advertising? There were enough links and resources provided to show the importance of the same. prateekshah03
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
- Tottenham Hotspurs FC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)
The Page in question was a simple Redirect to Tottenham Hotspur F.C., in keeping with such redirections as Liverpool FC, Manchester United FC, and about 200 other FC redirects to articles that end in F.C. While I feel the administrator in question acted in good faith, I see this as a useful redirect and would like to see what the community's feeling is on the subject. Achowat (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nomination fixed (eventually, it took me three edits because I suck at technical stuff)—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, that's a plausible search term for Tottenham Hotspur F.C., an article which gets a lot of traffic. I suspect the deleting admin has somehow failed to understand. I must say, I found his response to your polite request on his talk page rather obstructive.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, I said there was little point in it when, for instance, Ipswich Town F.C is a redlink. We could, I guess, spend a lifetime creating redirects for totally incorrect terms, but it seems a little wasteful. However I'm more than happy for this to be undeleted. I need to create my own set of redirects I suppose. With respect to this deletion, in my haste, I neglected to recall that most non-Brits call the club "Tottingham Hotspurs" or similar, so my apologies. I will contact the nominator directly to apologise and suggest this is speedy-closed as I will restore it now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- GameCola (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
The article was deleted under "section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion". However, I feel that this article represents a very significant organization in the realm of video games. This organization produces several reviews, comics, news, blog, and video segments on video games and is a significant contributor to the video game review industry. I request that this page be reinstated so the history can be maintained. While the organization is not as big as other companies, there's no reason that this organization's page can't remain, as it was written in a fair and objective manner. No, I am not the owner of this website. I find it difficult to have "other reliable sources" listed for a somewhat minor website. How often does a website mention another website? If you look at page IGN, almost all of the references are from IGN itself, and not other websites. stealthrabbi (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse speedy deletion. I don't see any indication of importance in the article to avoid speedy deletion under A7. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 10:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse A7 speedy deletion. Article had not even the slightest claim of importance/notability, but it did have every sign of an utterly non-notable website (the webmaster even linked to his high school!), right down to an alexa rank over a million! Nominator freely admits there aren't any reliable sources, so deletion is inevitable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. As Starblind wrote above, no credible claim of this website's importance was made in the article itself. Even here at DRV, no credible assertion of importance has been made; Stealthrabbi's statement that he "feels that this article represents a very significant organization in the realm of video games" is not sufficient. However, it looks like NawlinWiki (the deleting admin) gave the wrong impression when Stealthrabbi brought up the deletion on his talk page, telling him that notability under WP:WEB needs to be shown using reliable sources. I think what NW meant to say is that while the article doesn't have to demonstrate notability to overcome A7, it ultimately could not avoid deletion at WP:AfD without evidence of notability. That's the reality, anyway. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse- this could not possibly survive an AfD so I see no point in undeleting it. Reyk YO! 20:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
weakly endorse deletion I'm not convinced that strictly speaking this satisfied A7. However, I don't see any chance this is going to survive AfD. If there were reliable sources talking about the website even a little bit, I'd change my mind. But right no, there don't seem to be any. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Now full endorse deletion per discussion below. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why are you unconvinced? What credible claim of significance or importance in the article do you see? Is it buried in previous revisions? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Article claims that they have a very different review rule for things from other stuff. Although looking at it again, that's pretty weak, so I guess this may be completely A7able. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's just silly. It takes all of 5 minutes to set up a wordpress site, and if I started one today where a good score was "-3", an average score was "a marmoset in an RC car" and a bad score was "the square root of purple", then you'd say it couldn't be A7'd simply because the rating system is weird? Avoiding A7 requires a "credible claim of significance or importance", which is different than simply being odd or unusual. You seriously need to rethink your interpretation of A7, as it seems to be severely out of line with community standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. I wasn't thinking. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
|
|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
- Template:New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
I am nominating this userfied version of Template:New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population for deletion review because it was closed as consensus to delete when no such consensus existed (4 delete, 3 keep). This is part of a larger pattern of problematic closes by Fastily (talk · contribs) that led to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily that was mentioned at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-02-20/Discussion report with many people commenting that WP:RFC/U would be appropriate. Although many people noted that Fastily is a voluminous closer and a few problems were inevitable for that reason, I did not notice anyone other than the nominator endorse his closure decisions that I pointed out at WP:AN. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Overturn to keep. There was no consensus to delete, and no reason to delete. The deleting admin did not explain, and to me the assumption when one closes without obvious consensus is that one cannot explain, because it was a supervote. There is in an instance like this no real policy based reason either way--it's a judgment of whether it is sufficiently useful, which is a matter of opinion and cannot be decided except by consensus. If a strong minority think a navigational device useful, it should be kept unless there's a real argument otherwise (such as being misleading) Not every navigational device is expected to be useful to everybody. Myself, I dislike most navigational templates of this sort, but that is no reason why I should want to delete them if others find them of value. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The userfied version is there: User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 08:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Overturn -FASTILY (TALK) 09:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
- State Patty's Day (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore) (XFD 2)
(housekeeping note: I'm not notifying any deleting administrators because there are so many, and I don't know where to begin, or if it's even necessary)
I'm a little bit surprised this hasn't already come up and been undeleted. This event is huge in State College, and is all over the local media. The students and revelers love it, but the townies hate it because of the uptick in crime, etc. As for proving its notability, I will simply provide a list of the hundreds of mentions just this year in notable media: [2]. Whether or not it was notable 4-5 years ago is no longer relevant (although, frankly, it was notable even back then); what's important is that it's definitely notable now. Magog the Ogre (talk) Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Permit creation. I found that nomination very convincing. I wonder whether it should be a redirect to a subsection of Pennsylvania State University rather than a separate article, but the case for creating something in that space is extremely clear to me.—S Marshall T/C 22:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Create a user page draft then come back here and ask again. Mtking (edits) 02:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why are we here? The last deletion was what, 4 years ago? By all means, write a good article, chock full of those RS'es, and slap it into mainspace. If it gets G4'ed, then come here and we'll trout the administrator who did it as appropriate. DRV is not mandatory for recreation of articles when an editor in good standing makes a reasonable attempt to address all the concerns in the XfD. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- But, you see, there is the small problem of the fact that I suck at writing articles. And that the old version is actually well enough written[3] that I'd like to retain parts of it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm much better at copyediting than writing an article from scratch myself, but all it takes is slapping a few references on it to overcome G4. The below note re: userification has merit. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment In such cases, where the user wants a copy of a deleted article in order to improve it enough to overcome the reasons for deletion, userfication is the obvious answer. Move this Magog's userspace and then he can move it back to mainspace once it has been updated, cleaned up, and sourced. No need to come back to DRV beforehand. Indeed, if Magg is amenable to userfication this can probably be closed quickly as an uncontroversial request. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
- noel ashman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore) (XfD2)
salted topic- This article was rejected because it was a salted topic and because teh sources were secondary- I have cleaned it up to include only the most relevant sources, and believe the page should eb reconsidered for inclusion. What do I do next? Broodwhich (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)broodwhich
- Don't quite know how DRV works, but there's more discussion here. The gist of it is that an AfC was submitted, there was a brief AN discussion and no one seemed to want to unprotect it. I declined the AfC simply because there's no way I can create it. All relevant links are at the discussion on my talk I just linked to. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- the most recent version is apparently the one at AfC, [4]. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Could we have a temp undelete of the version deleted in the last AFD. I want to know which, if any, sources have been added to the article since then. If somebody could provide a list that would be even better. Yoenit (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
- Christine Kuo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
Closed as "Keep (NAC)", but from what I can see from the discussion, this is not as obvious keep as a WP:NAC should be, especially if you bear in mind that one of the "keepers" are a blocked user. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- though it was certainly not an obvious keep before the third party sources were added--, but now I think almost any admin would have closed the same. The easiest thing to do if you disagree is to wait a few months , and start another AfD The most we are likely to do here really is relist. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse It looks like there was a clear consensus to keep the article. Also Mentoz86's only concern is that the closing editor was a non-admin, and not that closing as keep is totally incorrect. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse - the result of the debate, excluding the blocked user and possible socks, was rather obviously "keep", with just a single editor but me arguing for deletion, and that was before the sources in Chinese were added. The closure was entirely appropriate. Huon (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yup, endorse. Administrators are not authority figures, and the ability to gauge consensus is not confined to those who've passed through the screwed up ritual hazing/popularity contest that is RFA.—S Marshall T/C 12:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse. The close looks correct. No case is made here that the close was incorrect or even ambiguous. Remind the closer to explicitly note that it was a WP:NAC. Doing so in the edit summary is not enough. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse, there's enough going on in that discussion that I would not have recommended a NAC closure in this particular case. With that said, there's nothing wrong with the close and that's the call I'd have made as well. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC).
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
- Olivia Holt – Meh. The consensus was to unprotect and create a reliably sourced article which has been done. There is no clear consensus as to how to label the close or how it might reflect on the prior AfD, but those matters are strictly secondary. – Eluchil404 (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
- Olivia Holt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
This actress currently meets notability guidelines – she is a series regular on Disney's Kickin It. Tinton5 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse - The applicable guideline calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". One role doesn't cut it. Additionally, as a biography of a living person, we need independent reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Overturn Five sources were able to found on the actress: [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9], so obviously her career, while still fresh has been covered by other websites. WP:TOOSOON was pretty much the reason why the article was deleted in the first place. The series Kickin' It premiered in June of last year, has a regular role on that show and the show has been renewed for second season [10]. A decent sized article for the actress is not a bad thing at this point. QuasyBoy 20:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Userfy or endorse - if someone wants to write a well-sourced article on Holt I'm all for it, and the deleted version can be userfied as a draft if someone thinks it's a good basis. But if no one plans on actually adding the sources presented here, undeleting a BLP without a single reliable source will do no good. Huon (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Overturn Has significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject so meets WP:GNG. WP:ENT is marginal but I consider a second season of being a main character in a television series as as equivalent to significant roles in multiple television shows. Add the sources identified by QuasyBoy as general references and let people work on improving the article. Don't userfy and force one person to make a good article - the point of wiki is collaboration. We have enough for at least a stub. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - the article now at Olivia Holt shares little to nothing with the version that was deleted. In effect, we didn't need to overturn the AfD (which was closed entirely appropriately), but to unprotect the page so a new, well-sourced article could be created. Since that has been done, this DRV has become irrelevant. Huon (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
- Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
There was an incomplete debate prior to the deletion which follows:
- the entirety of the afd discussion was pasted here
Current debate: My problem with the deletion is that those who want it deleted, in their zeal to be found correct, haven't adequately completed the debate prior to the decision. I've made very valid rebuttals above to each and every proposed reason for deletion without adequate further debate concerning those rebuttals.
For example, the most persistent complaints:
1) That he's not notable. I agree, his life on its own is not very notable. The article is not at all about his life. It is about the strange circumstances surrounding his conception and the minor portions of his life which shed light upon his ancestry. For that reason it is plainly entitled The Ancestry of John of Sawbridgeworth. Therefore, whether or not John of Sawbridgeworth was a notable person in his own right is irrelevant. The manner of, and the circumstances surrounding his conception and early childhood, ARE very notable. Obviously notoriety is a matter of opinion. I would like someone to give me the definition of notoriety and explain point by point how this article does not comply.
2) That it's original research. This is absolutely false according to the Wikipedia definition of original research. It should be fairly evident by the 60+ historical references cited that this is all existing history. The historical facts have merely been presented in a new format. I would like this point addressed as well, which also has not been done in the previously abbreviated "debate".
I won't repeat here all the other irrelevant complaints as they're all plainly outlined above, along with my rebuttals, which also weren't addressed. I'll close by saying that the amount of attention this article has drawn almost seems absurd. The bottom line is that it displays valid facts on a notable topic and should be presented to the researching public in order that they have the opportunity to draw their own conclusions without the censoring by overzealous Wikipedia staff members. 186.99.150.194 (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse There was a clear consensus to delete the article, it couldn't have been closed any other way. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse: The IP editor who took this to DRV appears to be Pablocombiano (talk · contribs) editing without logging in. This editor has been pointed to every relevant policy, most importantly WP:NOTDIRECTORY, #2. The AFD discussion and result was unambiguous and in alignment with policy. This is a case of WP:IDHT. Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse. Re-examining the discussion, it confirms my !vote of delete. The articles was original research for the first half, and a general discussion of other people with the same surname, whose connection with the subject is a matter of original research also. (And even considered as research, it was exceeding speculative--and stated as such in the article.) If anyone wants to restore the article for discussion they may, but as nobody but the appellant here supported it, no other close to the discussion was possible. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: I've got a personal interest in this as someone who knows Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire rather well, and as primary author of History of Hertfordshire. Was there any content or sourcing in that article relevant to the extremely notable Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford or any of his family before 1675? I note that we do have coverage of the Seymour family and that it could be more complete.—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Note: - article temp-undeleted, mainly for SM to see - there is a lot of Seymour-related material here, and maybe the author could be encouraged to contribute to expanding relevant existing articles. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thank you.
There's too much there to assess off the cuff. If this is re-deleted on closure of the DRV, would the closer mind dropping a copy in my userspace?—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I didn't realize that my new argument (yes this is Pablocombiano) would be completely ignored. The whole point of this review is to have a complete debate, which didn't occur in the first round. Why don't you address the rebuttals, rather than simply reaffirm your original statements? I have pointed to the Wikipedia guidelines which state that it is not original research, for example. This smells like a farce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablocombiano (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- The purpose of DRV is not to rerun the debate, DRV is not AFD2, it's to see if the process was followed properly or not. You seem to have a misapprehension of what wikipedia is, it isn't a god given right that you can put any article you want here and those who wish to remove it have to convince *you* that it doesn't belong. i.e. your lack of understanding of the policies or disagreement are not reasons any given content will stay. However to address a couple of your points, bearing in mind that I didn't see the original article so can't draw on much. (1) Notability isn't a matter of opinion as you state, in order to try and remove the idea that wikipedian X believe it to be notable as the criteria some level of objectivity has been defined - the general notability guideline being the base standard. For this you have to have multiple independent reliable sources writing about the subject directly and in detail - note this isn't sources writing about constituents of the article, but sources about the subject of the article itself - i.e. are there articles writing about "Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth" as the core topic? (2) original research, you seem to be assuming that because there are a bunch of references to facts it can't be OR, however the policy specifically covers the idea of synthesis of sources, i.e. taking sources and munging them together to reach a new conclusion (implicitly or explicitly) not reached by those sources. Indeed your nomination here suggests the same "The historical facts have merely been presented in a new format." which sounds like a synthesis to me. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- (Later, having looked at this more closely) Please can we incubate this content. Perhaps Wikipedia doesn't want it in its current form, but there is scope to expand our coverage of the Seymour family, which did include a Queen of England and the Duke of Somerset, among rather a lot of other notable people. Some of this particular content is relevant to the first Earl of Hertford, and/or belongs in other articles that we already have.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Recommend incubating. Possible "overturn (no consensus) on the basis of a confused nomination. This article was neither a "genealogical paper about a WP:NN cobbler who lived in the 1500" nor was is about his "ancestry". It is about an obviously notable family, introduced as the decendents of the oldest identified member. At the very least it needs a rename. There are OR issues, and it does read like an essay, and while these reasons are rarely sufficient to "delete", in combination I can see why partipants !voted so. I am confident something can be made of it, unless it is substantially already forked content, but until improved it might be better out of mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment We already have the article in which some of the content would be used, Seymour family, which very much needs expansion, with modern sources, since it's essentially the 1911 EB article. As for merging from the material here, everything in the present article would need to be checked and attributed and updated with references to modern sources. The material on those people who have Wikipedia articles seems to all be internal copyvio, copied from their articles without attribution. The material on the other recent figure seems to mostly be plagiarism, copied from public domain sources without exact attribution. We would need a redirect from this article to maintain attribution also, and it seems a problem, since there is no reliable evidence that the person of this name is the ancestor or relative to any of the notable Seymours so we could not really even include him in the Seymour family article, It would be better to simply add to Seymour family article from the real sources. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I spot-checked three articles on individual Seymours and verified that they had been copied. Based on the page's phrasing, I expect that almost all bluelinked individuals were copied. I tagged the page with {{Copying within Wikipedia}}. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- What I really need to do is take a trip to the Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies building, which is essentially a specialist library for local history and genealogy; I'll certainly find the modern sources DGG mentions there. Conveniently, HALS is one minute's walk from the front door to my workplace, but I'm simply not going to get a chance to spend much time there within the timescale of this DRV. I'm going to repeat my call for incubation for the time being, please.—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- FWIW, what I think you really need is a general academic library that gets the major historical journals and databases. The modern sources needed are about major historical figures. And nothing you are likely to find anywhere is at all likely to help the first part of the article. DGG ( talk ) 17
- 05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion, but agree to the content being parked somewhere to use as a quarry for material to improve other Seymour articles; the last part might be the basis of an article about the American Seymours. I am not sure the Incubator is the right place, because that is intended for articles being improved to go back into the mainspace; that is not the case here, the article in its present form is not salvageable because its central thesis, that John Semer the cobbler of Sawbridgeworth was an illegitimate child of the aristocratic Seymours, is unadulterated WP:SYNTH and speculation. SM, would you take it as a user sub-page? or we could use the Incubator on an IAR basis. JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I would be happy to take it as a user subpage. The reason I suggested incubation is because other editors might want to work on the material as well, but we could perhaps achieve that by putting a link from the incubator to the userspace page rather than by dropping the article in wholesale.—S Marshall T/C 08:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Userfied at User:S Marshall/Ancestry of John Seymour (Semer) of Sawbridgeworth. Shall we consider this DRV complete? Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't object.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nor I. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
|
| The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
- The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)
This article was resolved as "speedy keep" by an administrator who called it a "notable album by notable band", yet its notability was never explicitly established/explained in the AfD. It falls under none of the official guidelines, assuming they are official given that they are not being treated as such. "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." LF (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse close - the original AfD, started by the same editor closed as "keep" in mid November. As mentioned in the current AfD, This was kept at the first AfD just 3 months ago, for valid reasons, and no reason has been articulated to change that result.. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- There were no valid reasons. LF (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- In what way were they invalid? "There were no valid reasons" is not an argument. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Three months ago you nominated this article for deletion and were answered with a unanimous "keep". Now you've nominated it again and got a unanimous "keep", but you're unhappy because Drmies only waited three days instead of seven days to close it. You feel that it isn't notable despite the six references cited in the article, but you've never said which five of the references are unreliable or why. In the circumstances, I don't understand how you think a deletion review is going to help? Would you please fully and clearly explain the reason why you think this album is not notable?—S Marshall T/C 13:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's a notable album (as the references indicate) by a notable band. Here's just one more example of "nominate until you get the desired result"--I'm sure there's an acronym for it. LF, you could of course nominate it again and see what happens. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- The acronym is WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. :-) But I was hoping to generate a discussion about the sources, which seems a bit more productive than repeating assertions we've already made. I think it might help to examine the article in the light of the GNG so that LF can see why this material isn't getting deleted when he nominates it.—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with S Marshall; in the absence of some source analysis from the nominator, bald assertions of non-notability aren't very persuasive in light of two unanimously kept AfDs initiated within months of each other. 28bytes (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- AfD was properly closed, and the album is clearly notable enough for an article. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse close per S Marshall and MikeW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Amend close to Snow keep, not speedy. Please keep speedies restricted to the SK criteria. This was a poor Snow as it provoked a complaint. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- While I agree with SNOW vs. Speedy, I think that for a SNOW objection to be valid, someone other than the original nominator would have to differ with the outcome. We can AGF that a nominator may succumb to wishful thinking, and say "I object!" without any real evidence that the outcome of the SNOW'ed discussion would have been any different. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- I said poor, but not invalid. It was always going to be
deleted kept, but the objector needed more convincing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Did you mean, "always going to be kept"? 28bytes (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. fixed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse close - Nomination did not provide a valid rationale for deletion, let alone a new one. The original rationale, that the article was previously deleted, turned out to be erroneous. The revised rationale, that "this double album has never been established as notable for inclusion on Wikipedia," was inconsistent with the result of the first AfD, which did have consensus that the article was notable for inclusion, and no reason was given to suggest that consensus may have changed in the 3 months since the original AfD. Rlendog (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Which reference is supposed to be notable then, guys? The one to the band's own website? The one to Google Books which has no visible mention of the album? The one to an archive website featuring an interview done in 1997, seven years before the album was released? Or the reference to a non-notable website in French? LF (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
- Did you mean "which reference is supposed to be reliable"? Under the general notability guideline, it talks about using reliable sources, not "notable" ones. Being the creator of this article, I have removed the "Google Books" reference as it no longer links to actual page picture shots (where one could see information on the album being discussed) that were used in citing from the book, International Who's Who in Popular Music 2007. As previously mentioned, the reference use to link to page picture shots, discussing the album in question, when I initially did research for the article back in November of 2011. I never actually used any direct quotes or info from said reference, it was used solely for a more updated/contemporary source as regarding information on the album/article. As for the Addicted to Noise reference (archived website), that citation was used in the context of discussing the origins and history of The Black Album. That is the reason the interview is from 1997. That was one year after the original, 1996 demo was made. I understand that the refernce to "DandyWarhols.com" is self-serving to the band/album, that is why the other references were added. I feel that the "Discogs" and "SlabTown.net" references, while dated, are reliable secondary sources. As for the "FroggyDelight.com" reference... Yes, it is in French and also dated, but as one can see under the "Sources" section of the GNG: "Sources [...] are not required to be in English" and also under the "Reliable" section of the same guideline: "Sources may encompass published works [...] in any language. This is why I feel that the latter also falls under reliable secondary sources. I realize that I may be shooting myself (and the article) in the foot with the following statement and I'm fine with that: I understand that this album does not have updated/contemporary references. Again, that was the reason for the "Google Books", but that link is no longer in a working capacity to reference this article. Perhaps, I could just add the book itself as a viable reference with page numbers and publisher included. As I previously mentioned to Lachlanusername/LF in the "Apology" section of the discussion page for the 2nd nomination AfD: "LF, you asked me how this album is notable, maybe it's not. If you really think about it, notability is completely subjective anyways. I understand that Wikipedia has its "guidelines" on such matters though [And I understand and respect said guidelines]. I just thought I'd make an article about this double album. I'm only marginally a fan of the band. I do own this album, but it's not on heavy rotation for me. Feel free to use this information however you'd like to." However, on a more personal note and for the record, I do still think that LF renominating the article for deletion twice within three months and under two different user names (same account, but two different names none the less) was a dirty, rotten, low thing to do. I feel that LF is being disruptive to Wikipedia and is guilty of the aforementioned WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. P.S. I've added some more references for your viewing pleasure. Neuroticguru (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Still not notable. By the way, I have avoided referencing your accusation that I have actually changed my account name in order to support the deletion of an article due to the sheer lunacy of such an accusation until now, as I am now finding it quite annoying, so please stop, as I feel now you're just embarrassing yourself now by continuing to make reference to it. Totally ridiculous that this page is still under discussion given it violates this website's own policies, but whatever, what more can I do. LF (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that the accusation is "sheer lunacy" and I don't feel that I'm "just embarrassing" myself either. Trust me, I've done a lot more embarrassing things than this. I never said that you changed your user name for the sole purpose of nominating this article for deletion a second time. However, the truth is that you did renominate said article twice within a three month span and you did so with two different user names and I find that to be quite annoying. That's my point. So, take that however you want to take that. I feel that your continued actions are sheer lunacy and that you're just embarrassing yourself by acting like a whiny brat. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it. That's what more you can do! Neuroticguru (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
